Read about the July 22 RGRTA press conference and the city's response.

Downtown Development Corporation leader presses for the project.

County Executive Maggie Brooks writes to Mayor Bob Duffy.

Duffy spokesman says the transit center footprint must shrink.

Maybe it was always going to play out like this: city officials on one side of the room, Renaissance Square officials on the other - their physical distance symbolic of the gap dividing them on one of the biggest and most controversial public projects in the city's history.

Half an hour into the three-hour meeting last week, it was clear that both sides had staked out positions and neither side was going to budge.

Maybe by the July 24 federal funding deadline, they'll have reached a compromise. But by mid-day Tuesday, a series of meetings between Mayor Bob Duffy and County Executive Maggie Brooks seemed to have accomplished little.

Plenty of things led up to the impasse: a difference in vision for Ren Square and its role in downtown development; a regional economy that limited the size and scope of the project; ineffective management in the early years; failure of arts organizations to agree on the performing arts center; changing needs in downtown Rochester; a continual unraveling of the project....

But since the beginning, the biggest influence has been decades of distrust and hostility between city and county elected officials. And last week, city officials began to flex their muscles. By insisting that planners scale back the bus station and drop the theater from Ren Square, they stopped ceding control to the county over one of the most important blocks in downtown Rochester. And they put on a show of strength that hasn't been evident in years.

Neither side comes out looking good in the Ren Square story. From the beginning, this has been the county's project. Ren Square officials warn about the loss of jobs and millions of dollars in federal funds. But they have been working on plans for 10 years, and downtown has changed in that period. They have spent about $20 million, and they haven't put one shovel in the ground.

Despite public concerns about the project, and despite its gradual downsizing, Ren Square leaders, particularly Brooks and Aesch, have pushed ahead. As city officials began raising objections, the push continued, as did a sometimes unintentionally humorous public-relations campaign, complete with balloons and a fund-raising thermometer to celebrate minor developments.

Aesch, who took over management of the project after years of limp progress, has a reputation for being a bright, creative manager. Under his leadership at RGRTA, the number of bus riders has grown, and fares have dropped. The Democrats' representatives on the transit authority praise him. But in his role with Ren Square, he has often seemed arrogant. And some members of City Council and the Duffy administration literally bristle when they talk about him.

Given the stand they took last week, city officials would have served the public better had they been vocal about their objections sooner - and some Council members were. But this is not always a united group, and since the retirement of former president Lois Giess nearly two years ago, its leadership has been strikingly weak. Two days before they met with Duffy and came up with their counter proposal, some Council members said that a vote on the Ren Square project could go either way.

Particularly vulnerable to criticism for the impasse with the project: Mayor Bob Duffy. He has served on the Ren Square board for the past three and a half years, and he has repeatedly approved advances in the planning as it has moved forward.

Perhaps most critically, in June 2008, he voted for the project's "conceptual design," which included the theater - still unfunded - and the bus station at its current size. In February of this year, he voted with other Ren Square board members to let the project proceed to "final design." And Ren Square officials were saying publicly that if they didn't have full funding for the theater when they began construction on the project, they would clear the theater site, make it into a small public park or plaza, and hold onto it while they continued fundraising. Under federal regulations, they said, they could take up to three years to start building the theater.

Last week, Aesch and other project supporters were indignant about the city's request for changes.

"You compromise when you're in conceptual design phase," Aesch said in an interview late last week. At this point, he said, "you're too deep into this to make those kinds of conceptual changes."

Despite his votes, though, Duffy had expressed objections to the project. In a letter to other Main and Clinton board members nearly a year ago, he was clear about his concerns. He noted that architects were proceeding with the design even though the project was $55 million short of its funding.

Project planners needed to have an alternative use for the theater site, he said in the letter. And, he said, "I do not consider a credible alternative to be simply omitting the theater with the hope of raising the funding later or, if that does not work, that someone will eventually build something in the space."

"I do not want the project to be built around an empty space at the corner of Main and Clinton," he wrote.

In a May 27 interview with City, he said he hadn't resisted more strongly because he wanted to preserve good city-county relations. When he did voice objections at Ren Square board meetings, he said, other board members didn't seem to take them seriously. When he voted against a resolution at a Ren Square board meeting, he said, "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."

And at last, in early May, Duffy rebelled, insisting that the project had to be modified.

This is a project that has continually unraveled, and at each point, the city has compromised. When Ren Square was conceived, it contained a true performing arts center: three theaters, to serve a variety of local performing arts groups. The theater, in fact, was the principal selling point. Now Ren Square contains only one, whose prime tenant brings in touring Broadway shows and other out-of-town performers.

In its early stages, at the city's insistence, the bus station was underground to shield it from housing development north of the project. When Ren Square leaders said that was too expensive, city officials agreed to a ground-level station. But at that point, the architect for the project was Moshe Safdie, and his design camouflaged the bus area with a second-level public park. Then Ren Square leaders let Safdie's contract expire, again citing budget constraints.

At one point, Duffy insisted that if the project didn't include a theater, he wouldn't support it. On that issue, too, he has backed off.

Early this week, as the federal funding deadline loomed, Ren Square and city officials seemed to be playing a game of chicken. As Ren Square officials held to their position, Duffy and Council had to weigh their concerns against the possible loss of $81 million in federal funds and numerous construction jobs. There's another, more basic question, however: Over the long term, would the city - and the Greater Rochester area - be better off with Ren Square, or without it? Consider the three components:

The bus station. Most of the conflict over the bus station has been about its size and cost. The transit authority insists that it will build the large station, regardless of what happens to the rest of the project. In the current design, part of the station is on Mortimer Street, and the city would have to give Ren Square permission to use it. But RGRTA chief Mark Aesch says he'll simply move the site of the station about 80 feet north, off of Mortimer Street. That way, it will all be on privately owned property. RGRTA could try to take that property through eminent domain without the city's permission because - unlike the private property needed for the theater - it would be used for transportation purposes.

If that happens, the station would be located right next to the historic Warner and Michaels Stern Buildings, rather than a few feet from them. And it likely would take property that the Warner Building needs for tenant parking.

RGRTA would have to put the bus station through a new environmental assessment, however. It would have to prove once again that the station wouldn't have a negative impact on its neighbors. And it might have to document that it could not find a suitable alternative site for the station.

In addition, the eminent-domain proceedings might not be simple or fast. The owner of some of the affected property is Mark IV, the Warner Building's owner. And Mark IV officials are already protesting the current Ren Square design.

The MCC facility. At last week's Council-Ren Square meeting, Ren Square officials said that if the city doesn't embrace the entire project, the new MCC campus won't be built. It's too expensive without federal funds, they said.

Could the college and the county get that money somewhere else? That may be risky, given the current economy and the financial problems of the state and federal governments. Still, MCC is a highly popular college, among city officials, county officials, and business leaders.

The theater. Here, too, the loss of transit funds is a big blow. Theoretically, the Rochester Broadway Theatre League - the principal tenant of the Ren Square venue - could build it somewhere else. But it would have to raise substantially more money than it would for Ren Square. Odds are, if that's the case RBTL will continue to operate in its current home, the Auditorium Theatre, and perhaps come up with a plan for a new theater at another location sometime in the future.

Not insignificantly, if the theater component is cut out of Ren Square, federal funds won't help pay to demolish the buildings at the corner of Main and Clinton and clear the land. Some critics, including the Landmark Society, have suggested that the buildings should be preserved and reused. But many of them are badly deteriorated, and so far, no one has determined whether they can be saved. And except for Neil Bauman (who, as one of the affected property owners, has a vested interest in the eminent-domain argument), no private developer has offered a reuse proposal.

If the buildings can't be restored and reused, someone else will have to pay for the demolition and clean-up when a new use for the property comes along. And in such cases, cities have frequently had to bear that burden. There is no question that interest in downtown development is increasing, however. And Bauman is not the only developer who has told city officials that the deteriorated buildings could be saved and restored for private uses.

What is lost if Ren Square proceeds? Tax revenue, for one thing. Much of the project site is already tax-exempt. Rochester developer Max Farash owned the Gateway and Edwards buildings, but he donated them to the county years ago. If those parcels become part of Ren Square, they'll remain tax exempt. If private properties on Main, Clinton, and Mortimer are taken for the theater and the bus station, they'll go off the tax rolls as well.

A downtown bus station would give many bus riders a warm, safe place to wait for buses. But the station further locks the transit authority into a hub-and-spoke system, with bus routes originating downtown and stretching outward. Critics say that system is outmoded and poorly serves a community with many residents and job opportunities located in the suburbs.

In addition, it's a stretch to suggest that it's good city planning to wedge a bus station like this one between some of the most important real estate in downtown Rochester on the south and a residential area on the north.

There are also major questions about operating costs. Currently, RGRTA isn't paying to operate a bus station. It doesn't have one. And even if RBTL's fund-raising campaign is successful, building the theater is only the first step. Consultants have estimated that the theater will run an operating deficit of up to $1.5 million a year. County Executive Maggie Brooks now insists that the theater will make a profit, but that conflicts with the experience of theaters across the country.

Both sides were clearly angry last week at the Council-Ren Square meeting. That rancor could fade once the current decisions about Ren Square are in the past. But there's no guarantee. Whatever its fate, one lasting result of the Ren Square project may be increased antagonism and mistrust between city and county government.

When they were in office, former County Executive Jack Doyle and former Rochester Mayor Bill Johnson were criticized for what was often a cantankerous relationship. When Brooks took office, the relationship with City Hall improved, and Duffy says he has tried to continue that pattern since he became mayor. But as Duffy learned with Ren Square, mayors have a responsibility to protect the city's interests, even when that creates conflict. In his interview with City in May, Duffy said that he "let some things go" in the Ren Square deliberations.

"I would call that a lesson learned in a rather short political life," he said, "and I think it's a lesson that I won't have to relearn in the future."

Ren Square isn't the only issue that will require city-county cooperation. Both levels of government have financial problems, which might be eased by consolidating some services. One area where discussions could become particularly cantankerous: an agreement between the city and the county Water Authority.

Another possible trouble spot: in the past, the county has threatened to reduce payment for downtown police services and maintenance of major streets. Now, with the economy worse and the county's options limited, Brooks may be tempted to look for ways to pass off some costs to the city.

The future of city-county relations may depend on the personalities of Brooks and Duffy: whether they can segregate Ren Square from the other issues that they face together. Both seem to have worked hard at working together in the past.

But there's another possibility. At last week's meeting, Ren Square officials seemed to have agreed in advance that Maggie Brooks would be conciliatory, and Mark Aesch would bore in. Maybe the future of the city-county relations depends on who is the real face of the county, Brooks or Aesch.