Mayor Bob Duffy says he's learned his lesson.

"I would rather people either support me or not support me for what I truly believe, as opposed to trying to manage relationships," Duffy says.

He's talking, of course, about Renaissance Square. He sparked an uproar among the project's backers earlier this month when he called for them to drop plans for a theater and to revisit plans for the bus station. He says he had been concerned about parts of the project for some time, but moderated them to maintain city-county relations. When he did speak up, he immediately came under fire.

"I don't really know where the mayor is coming from on this project," County Executive Maggie Brooks said during a hastily scheduled press conference. Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority CEO Mark Aesch sent out a testy letter to project engineers, asking them to put a price tag on the mayor's proposal - or their version of it, anyway.

But the mayor says he discussed the matter with Brooks before he said anything publicly, and that he was abiding by a pledge he made not to make a big unprovoked display of his concerns. But he also told her that, if asked, he was going to respond directly, he says.

In an interview with City Newspaper last week, the mayor said his request was driven by practical concerns. So much has changed downtown in the past year or two that aspects of the project need to be reconsidered, he said. ESL and PAETEC are moving their headquarters downtown, more business expansion is in the works, and parking will be at a premium.

Mark IV is redeveloping the historic Warner Building on St. Paul Street for high-end residences, and it sits right next to the bus-shelter site. So does another residential complex, the Michaels Stern Building. Duffy said he is worried about bus noise and exhaust impacting the properties.

During the interview, Duffy discussed how he arrived at his position and some of the changes facing the center city. The following is an edited version of that conversation.

If your concerns about Ren Square aren't met - if the other Main and Clinton partners insist on building it the way it's designed now - will you try to stop the project?

First of all, I do not believe what I am suggesting as a consensus-building, compromise plan would either drastically affect the Environmental Assessment study or the federal funding. There's no construction planned until 2010. I believe the federal requirements for funding require that planning be 70 percent complete by this fall. The only two components going forward are the MCC component and the transit center, not the theater.

I would be deeply disappointed if the suggestions that are being made to make it a better fit for our city were just disregarded. I will make my decision at that time, but nobody will ever have to guess where I stand on this.

I've said this publicly: I came in late on this project, three years ago. It was well down the road. The project is 11 years in the making. As I came into it, Midtown and other projects were a high priority for the city.

I fully admit that as a member of the Main and Clinton board, there were times when I may have disagreed or would take an opposite position but [did not speak up] in the interest of maintaining city-county relationships. Those relationships are important to the city and county but also very important, perceptually, in the community. I don't ever want to go into a state where we have very little dialogue and it becomes an antagonistic relationship.

I'm on record at many meetings raising issues. They were not always met with unanimity of agreement. I realize now, as Mr. Aesch likes to point out, that I voted for certain things. My sense is that any "no" votes I would have had in the past would not necessarily have stopped the progress. I am just one vote on that board. And the lesson that I have learned is that I would rather people support me or not support me for what I truly believe in as opposed to trying to manage relationships.

We're not at the 11th hour, by any stretch. I heard comments last week: "Well, we're in final design." We were in final design stage once before, with the Moshe Safdie design. There is still time for adjustments. And what I'm asking for is not monumental.

I think it should be noted that on May 6, I believe, I met with the county executive for about an hour. We had a one-on-one. I never said a thing publicly in my recent comments that I had not said days in advance, privately and personally to the county executive.

I think I've stated why I've let some things go during this process. I would call that a lesson learned in a rather short political life, and I think it's a lesson that I won't have to relearn in the future. But I want to go on record: I said these things personally to the county executive, because we've always had a pretty productive relationship, and still do. They were not things that I said off the cuff publicly at all.

But if the other Main and Clinton partners believe that they have to have the project as it's designed, will you ask City Council to vote no?

If I feel that the concerns that I've raised on behalf of the city are being dismissed, I don't think I have to convince anybody of how deep I can dig my feet in. When I believe I'm right on something, I have no fear of holding my ground. What City Council does is up to them. I don't think it's in anybody's interest to go forward with a project that does not best suit the needs of the City of Rochester.

Our community has had a number of public projects that have not gone well. The time to ask the questions is now, not when we're done with construction. With all of the emotion around, allegedly, my position of raising something at the quote-unquote 11th hour, let's be perfectly clear: There is not one piece of property that ownership has been gained. No eminent domain process has taken place, so the ownership of the properties has not been resolved. There has been no construction. There have been no union jobs created. We're still finalizing a design phase.

If we were building a house and the foundation was not even built yet, I would find it highly unlikely that I could not change my design at that point.

Perhaps I should have not worried about city-county relationships and been very clear a little bit earlier. In all honesty, it wouldn't have been much earlier. Two or three years ago, the intermodal concept [for a high-speed train station] was not a reality. The whole issue of the stimulus money is rather new.

How much smaller would the bus station have to be to satisfy your concerns?

First, we should step back. The theater's not funded, and I want to see as much of that parcel as possible open for private development. The current MCC design is an attractive design. I don't know if that could be configured to save more space on Main Street.

But my interest is to preserve as much parking as humanly possible. We have expansions happening downtown. We have more business expansions coming in the future. Parking is going to be a premium throughout the Midtown construction as well. I'm looking at how we can maximize the parking we have.

We have a major investment in the Warner Building with Tony DiMarzo and Mark IV - $8 million. They're concerned with buses outside the windows of their apartments - a very valid concern. It's a big investment.

The inter-city buses, Trailways and Greyhound, have already told us their preference is to be with the trains, at this new intermodal station. So you'll have less bus traffic. I would suggest a modification of the project.

The design team, I have to say, has done a great job. They were given the challenge of downsizing from the Moshe Safdie design, and they have worked hard to create an attractive but downsized model. What I'm asking for is to come to the table to look at the possibilities. I think we have to go back and look very pragmatically, with engineers, at what options we have for the footprint down there that would not alter the funding schedule so that we don't lose the money.

I don't know what the outcome will be, but it is a large investment in our city. It would create jobs. It could add value, because MCC and MCC students are a big asset to our center city. I would not want MCC altered to the point where it did not have the expanded programs that we've asked for.

Although there are some time pressures, I believe we can reach consensus or work towards that.

You seem to be saying that the bus station could stay about where it is planned but just be smaller. Does that answer the concern about its proximity to residential buildings?

At this point, I can't answer that. We have to sit down with the design folks, and not just the current design team. I want our engineer, Jim McIntosh, to be intimately involved. I'm not sure what the options are. I'm not a transportation engineer. But when somebody tells me repeatedly we can't do it, we can't do it, we can't do it, I tend to take a step back and ask why.

We have to look at the impact on those buildings. There's major investment for housing. If you had the same concept in downtown Pittsford or Brighton, I think there'd be great resistance to have that next to someone's home. And while that kind of housing was perhaps not in play 11 years ago when this project was first hatched, we have to deal with the realities we're facing today.

My number one issue here is the vitality of downtown. I do agree that there has to be some bus facility closer to Main Street than the [train] station. If the theater is not in the design, we could have a lot more flexibility. That's what I'm asking for, and to see if we can maximize parking and not impact some of the incredible investments that are taking place.

I'll guarantee you, with the influx of new employees we're bringing downtown, with some of the expansions that are coming up in the not-too-distant future, those housing units will be taken and probably rather quickly. I think none of us would want to look out our bedroom windows into a line of buses every day.

We have time constraints. I'm not asking for anything unreasonable. I certainly appreciate the county executive's position, and I in no way want to diminish her or her project with this. What I do not want to do is just forge ahead because we started down this road and have something that is inconsistent with what we're trying to accomplish downtown.

Some people would say, Look, we've got two things that are guaranteed with Ren Square - MCC and the bus station - and that's development on a blighted block on Main Street. You don't have anything going on north of Mortimer Street except the Michaels Stern and the WarnerBuildings.

We have a lot of development around there, and I'll guarantee you, if Restore New York funding is increased this year, we'll have more development. There is intense interest in center city and downtown development for housing and retail.

The reason the [Main-Clinton] block looks like it does today is because of Renaissance Square. Eleven years ago this project was hatched, which in essence froze any investment or development as it went through all these renditions. If I owned property on Main Street between the Granite Building and Clinton Avenue, and I knew that there was a pretty good chance that there would be an eminent-domain exercise on my property in the coming years, would I have any motivation to sink money into my building to improve it? Would I want to bring my business down there? Would I want to open up a book store, or a restaurant, or a coffee shop there, only to have it taken down? No.

So in essence, I think the project itself has to take responsibility for the blight. I get pretty defensive when people make attacks on the city based on that block. Don't blame the city, and don't blame development for what's happened. It has been frozen in time because of Renaissance Square.

If we do not have the theater funded, why are we taking down buildings without testing the market? I draw a comparison to Midtown Plaza. In my first year in office, I had a meeting with every major developer in this community. I went over the challenges of Midtown Plaza and asked them if there was any interest either individually or to team up to help us redevelop Midtown. There was none. Every big-money developer that I could think of either came to the meeting, sent somebody, or responded. There was no interest.

Next came the proposed Parma, Italy, theme mall. It really had some exciting possibilities. There was a change in politics, and I think there was a lot of fear among some of the retailers to come from Italy over here. And so the project stopped. But we tried.

I think we have to do the same thing for those buildings on the theater site. There is a passion among Rochesterians for the history of their buildings. I don't think that should be disregarded.

Have you had anybody express interest, besides Neil Baumann, in doing development on the theater site?

Nobody's expressed interest to me yet, but the fact remains that it has not been open for development. I think there are a lot of local developers that might not want to jump into this controversy right now.

We're looking at a number of possibilities for retail downtown. We are very aggressive in pursuing opportunities. I think we have to go out and see who has an interest, if anyone. That's one of the things I've suggested, at least looking at potential.

Now that said, I think the county executive has worked very hard to get a theater. I'm on record as saying that if the theater wasn't part of the project, I was pulling my support. That was probably over a year ago. Even though the funding has never surfaced, I have hung in there to see if we can salvage something.

I think it's important to note that if the theater is not materialized, it really is not a finger of blame at anybody. I think the economic situation here dictates it. The market forces dictate everything.

If the other Main and Clinton partners say that they can't do the new MCC campus without the old Mortimer garage lot, would you suggest that MCC just stay in the SibleyBuilding?

I suggested that a long time ago. But as was told to me then, any location change, the funding goes. Because the funding is predicated upon [the projects] being connected. In essence, a theater would benefit from the connective nature of the project, because you could build it less expensively.

But you know... look at the reality of this. The Republican Senate delegation pulled their money [from the theater] and spent it elsewhere last year. I think that shows this is not political. I don't see it as a Democrat-Republican issue by any stretch.

I was at a meeting last year when some information was shared about this project with funding and overruns from the budget. If I ever wanted to play politics, I could have gone out publicly the next day. I did not. I think there was an attempt at that meeting to try to get things back on track, so I stayed silent on that. I am a person of my word.

I've always tried to keep politics out of it, and I think, if anything, it's the project itself and this journey, which has in many cases eroded support.

Here's the analysis that I use, too: We have two stadiums. Do we need two stadiums? Years ago, we had soccer at Frontier Field. We had capacity crowds. But soccer management wanted their own facility, so the push was on for a new stadium. And there was intense lobbying on our state delegation. Building trades wanted to build the stadium and get construction jobs.

Here we are today: We have two stadiums, and the city is now in a position where we have to subsidize close to $400,000 this year.

Building Renaissance Square is one thing; sustaining it financially is another. I raised the issue of subsidies and the cost of keeping it going at past meetings of the Main and Clinton group. MCC will have a subsidy, a transit center will have an operating subsidy, a theater would have quite a large operating subsidy. Subsidies have to be paid by taxpayer dollars.

Why are you so sure the theater won't get its funding?

I have been very confused about monies that are set aside for the theater, because sometimes those monies shift, and I've never been sure which monies are going to the theater.

I have heard from people directly who are philanthropists, who are wealthy, who have said that they're not going to put a dollar into this. It is no reflection on the county executive and her team. I think it's more of an economic reality than anything right now that we're facing.

If we get private development on, say, half that block, that increases the tax base for the city where a theater, a transit center, and MCC do not. We have, really, an inordinate number of tax-exempt properties in our city right now. There's only so many places we can go for new revenues.

It's an understood fact that there's about a $1 million mortgage on the Auditorium Theatre. If the mortgage is defaulted on by the Rochester Broadway Theatre League, the Cultural Commission is responsible for it. That's a government entity - city, county taxpayers.

One alternative - it's not the pristine, glass-encased, modern theater - but one possibility would be to get money either from the state or federal government and remodel the Auditorium Theatre. Make it an arts center. Make it a home for Garth Fagan, for RBTL. It's really a very stately old building. I fully admit it is not your modern view of a performing arts center as you see them today in West Palm Beach and other places, but it is a great asset.

When there is a Broadway show at the Auditorium Theatre, you can't get into a restaurant easily around there. The economic impact is profound. I have always been a supporter of performing arts and the theater.

This becomes an issue of affordability and practicality. I think government entities also have to keep in mind that there is great mistrust among the public for public projects. They have seen too many public projects tank and come back to cost them more money.

With the advent of some of the business growth that we're going to see, there is great opportunity downtown. I just want to make sure that we are good stewards at this time in our history, to make sure that key decisions that we make have a lasting positive impact on Rochester. Just cutting a deal or a compromise to make everybody happy is not the right way to go.

I think we can make this work if we have flexibility. If some are going to dig in and say we can't when I know we can, then I think they will find the spirit of partnership not being what it could be. I have no qualms whatsoever about defending the future of this city, our center city specifically. I believe it is both financially and physically feasible to come up with a rather timely compromise consensus to make this work if all parties are agreeable to that. But if any one side just digs their heels in before talking it through, then I think it's a recipe for failure.

What are you hearing from your constituents on Ren Square?

I received more e-mails, phone calls, and letters of support than I've received since the fast ferry was stopped. I have been inundated with calls. I get stopped on the street -"Hold your ground, keep it up, we support you." There's no doubt in my mind in the court of public opinion where I stand with this stance. But in the end, it's trying to help navigate a resolution where it's a win-win for everybody.

If I would have stopped this project in the last couple of years, just dug my heels in and stopped it, I think I would have made a lot of people very happy. I did not do that. I did not play politics. But I also find that trying to navigate that middle ground becomes much more difficult. I just feel that the best way to be is just matter of fact and if it upsets people, so be it. That's the way it's going to be.

You've said there have been times when you felt you weren't a real partner on the Main and Clinton board.

I am one vote there. As we saw [at the May 14 Main and Clinton board meeting], my "no" vote didn't stop the process. There was no discussion. There was no "Let's reconsider." It was full speed ahead. It was a matter of just following the rules of the votes. It was "so noted," and off we went. So in essence, any "no" vote I may have registered over the last two or three years would have been met with the same. In my three years, I've never been asked my opinion on who should be hired, any suggestions for people.

I think there are some very good things about this project, and even if people don't like it, let's keep the good things in mind. Having MCC, whether it's at the Damon Center or an expanded complex on Main Street, is a great thing.

Public transportation is important. Keep in mind that one-third of our city's population lives at or below the federal level of poverty. The comfort and convenience of those taking the bus is important to me. They are our citizens, our constituents.

And Tony DiMarzo's putting $8 million into his property. If his tenants look outside and see only buses and hear buses 24 hours a day, and they all line up at different times of day and night, you think he will sell his properties and rent them? Who else will come downtown and invest in those buildings?

If everybody shows the leadership and community spirit that I think we all can, we can navigate a resolution where nobody loses face, the investment is maintained, the community benefits, it's a true addition to Rochester that we need, and it fits in to these pieces of the puzzle that we want to see for the future of downtown.