My recommendation is have the city acquire the site and transform it into a grand waterfront park creating a major amenity/asset to the Southwest Wedge district. Adding just a 131 units ...many subsidized... will do little to invigorate this very promising district. There will be major public subsidies for this project. Why not spend this public funds more wisely so that more than the developer obtains a financial benefit. The city needs a high-end waterfront park to entice more people and investors. I doubt a horribly designed apartment project will do any good for the city/region. When you subsidize a housing project, what you only do is transfer people from one part of the city/county to another and giving the subsidized developer an unfair economic advantage that most city landlords do not have. Is this fair and is this really “economic development”?

the south wedge always has been, is, and will forever be what it is, despite what bob boyd, conifer realty, or konar properties beliefs to the contrary. seriously, these idiots and their city collaborations are highs falls all over again...

I hear these comments they are generalities no one seems to be able to articulate what it is they don't like - other then they don't like? What is they don't like? I wanna know details! No one of those complaining have suggested an alternative.

What was just finished and torn down down in the Wedge was a poorly designed project with little thought to the future of the neighborhood and the city. Must we repeat history? This property is such a gem. There MUST be a solution that will be a win for Rochester and a win for the Wedge. Waterfront is such a win/win feature. Can we not capitalize on this?

Well, RAB, I DON'T like the looks of this. It is almost reminiscent of the 'project' that is recently gone. LET'S make a suggestion...styles that blend with the neighborhood (which is what was presented at a meeting about a year+ ago); or better yet, no building on the property at all, but an area that could be used by the populous to enjoy the river, watch the fireworks, launch a canoe or kayak, take advantage of the waterfront. How many taxpayer dollars will support the plan as it exists? How many taxpayer dollars will be needed to have a waterfront available for our city? Let's see some numbers, do some crunching, before we sell out to Conifer. Just sayin'...

justsayin' - the 3 landscaped access points including a 40 ft promande will provide an area that can be used by the populous to enjoy the river etc - everything you said - that was not there before. When you say blend into the neighborhood - do u mean the other buildings on Mt. Hope ?

Wedge Realist - what is the Wedge to you? To me it is a diverse neighborhood both economically, socially and architectural. It is a unique area where people are friendly and people want to live work and play. It has a community feel.

justsayin - let me test my understanding - you want the previous design - the one with 12 identical buildings in a straight line and no riverfront access? is that contrary to the rest of what you said about how you want access?

ENOUGH with affordable housing projects! Corn Hill Landing wouldn't have worked with that mix!

It doesn't matter what it looks like - more mixed rate developments in the wedge is the death kneel for the area. I pay market rate rent with a river view, it burns me up that we keep building more affordable and mixed rate developments on prime land. Next time my rent is due I'll ask the landlord if I can pay half the rent because I want to live in the affordable section.

City could do a real public service if it printed more of the drawings of Erie Harbor and let their readers see what all the fuss is about. There is no question that this choice piece of riverfront could be a real jewel. Conifer has the ability to build a project that is the finest looking development in their portfolio. It could be a monument that inspires and eradicates the memory of the ugly project that was just torn down.

Beautiful and liveable. Renters will be lining up to live there and the neighborhood will continue it's rebirth. Why so impossible?

Manny - this development will have 80% high end market more than $1,000. That is more than almost all the housing in the South Wedge. Affordable housing is a term used to describe dwelling units whose total housing costs are deemed "affordable" to those that have a median income. It is assumed that no more than 30% of ones income is used for housing. The "median" income in the Rochester MSA is about $42,000 that means ones housing costs would be $1,050.

Carlene - what leads you to believe it is not going to be the finest jewel in their portfolio? They are making a $30 + million dollar investment to make it great - I agree the more people who actually see the site plan and the wonderful access to a great park and buildings with patios and decks and large windows looking out on downtown they will see it for what it is ! Something new and exciting for Rochester - more like Toronto, Baltimore, Boston and NYC !

WEDGESTOCK all day this Sat! www.wedgestock.org

RAB, I can only conclude that you are (or work for) the developer. The project may or may not have great amenities and waterfront access. But is it going to enhance the community and is its architecture going to stand the test of time? This is not about opposition to change for change's sake, or about trying to hijack the project for a park. People are rightly concerned that the project looks cheap and that the style of the buildings is not in fitting with the neighborhood in general or Rochester in particular. (it reminds me most of the old FIght Square). We appreciate the work that the developer has done eliminating the eyesore that once sat on the site. But this is a once in a generation chance to really change the waterfront for the better. We need to be absolutely sure that it is not squandred. Early indications are not promising. The highrise part of the project, with its multicolored blue boxes is already treading close to eyesore territory. Good examples of architecture that would blend better into this neighborhood and enhance this site can be found across the river in Corn Hill Landing or Brooks Landing. Both of those projects were embraced by the community because they were appropriate to their setting and improved the neighborhood.

RAB...this wouldn't happened to be Robert Boyd, the executive director of SWPC is it? 8 I would hope that the heavy hand of SWPC would at least respect residents enough to let them have ANY input in our neighborhood.

RAB, the pictures shown remind me of the previous building. Flat roofs and paint that will blend more with the Hamilton Apartments than the Wedge neighborhood, and an industrial look. The pictures I remember from the presentation I was at were a more Victorian townhouse look, with pitched roofs and a variety of coloring. I believe they all might have been at the same height, but personally, find that less offensive than what I'm seeing today. I am grateful for the access promised, but would still dream of a park setting for all of us to enjoy the waterfront and spread out a bit.

justsayin' is correct. I haven't been following the project very closely so I forgot about those victorian-styled renderings. What we're seeing now doesn't seem to be a huge departure from what was already there.

My comment is where were you in 2008 when there was a public comment?. There were public meetings to gather information, there were TV news coverage about it and the meetings, massive emails, reach out and multiple newspaper articles including one here in the City Paper. The comments are a matter of public record over 150 wrote letters and attended public meetings.

I suggest you look at the public information about the comments that were made and the detail -

I do not work for the developer - I personally believe great progress is being made and like the project - not everyone hates it - This is bringing contemporary feel and something different to Rochester - we don't need more "fake Victorian designs" that is single family architecture not multifamily. This is a multifamily project use that architecture.

The problem is that the process was flawed. The public did get to comment on the initial design, "fake Victorian" if you will, and many people did. it wasn't an ideal design, but it was halfway there. So we all commented on it, and yes they made some good changes to the site plan, with improvements to waterfront access, etc. However they came back with a redesign that was so completely different from the original design that the City should have opened up a new public comment period. They were not obligated to do so however, so they did not. This is where the system is flawed. The developer gave us apples to comment on, we did, and then their final redesign was oranges. It does bear too close a resemblance to the style of buildings that were there previously. it is industrial looking, it is not going to blend with the neighborhood. It is ugly. And those of us who live near it will be stuck looking at it for another 30 some odd years and waiting for it to be torn down. RAB you can defend the developer all you want, it will not change the fact that this process was flawed and the community was not given a fair shake at public comment on the redesign. A few people in closed rooms were given the chance to comment and they apparently decided that this is what the neighborhood wants. And they are wrong.

CAJ - there was an opportunity to comment when the new designs were released. They were published in the Wedge paper in October 2008- distribution of 7500. There were public meetings after that which gave the public the opportunity to comment on the new design, there also were post cards sent to residents telling them of the public meeting after the plans were published in the paper. That is the "rest of the process" . if you contact the city they will provide the detail of the process including what happened with the new design.

RAB, based on the level of detail you provide i think you owe it to people to state which organization you represent, otherwise your factual comments are nothing more than opinions.

trae-man these are my personal opinions not the organization i represent. Everything I comment on is public published information that everyone is available to anyone who wants it. the information is contained in the preliminary and final environmental impact statements, the minutes of the Rochester Common Council, the Rochester Zoning Board and the Rochester Preservation Board, published articles in newspapers, and television reports. This is public information and I have read it before I made the comments.

To RAB or Robert Boyd head of SWPC, South Wedge Planning Committee:
Bob, The problem is that all the meetings held with the community showed the Tudor/Victorian influenced buildings. The public comment for the project was closed on June 6, 2008.
The new more radical designs are dated September 24, 2008 and were put in an article in the Wedge in the Oct./Nov. issue, but these papers are not delivered to any of the other invested neighborhoods, Upper Mt. Hope, Highland Park, Lilac, Azalea, Swillberg, Corn Hill, etc.

In shock, I went downtown to City Zoning & Planning to view & copy the plans and again was told that these were merely preliminary drawings and more discussion , meetings and drawings were forthcoming. That never happened nor were notices sent to NBN6, which would have been immediately sent out to all of the Southeast Section. We all appreciate the improved site plans, that is a real plus. The fact that you did not forward the legitimate concerns and design criticisms to Conifer (even those from your own board) has brought us to this point and it's not going away. Conifer has indicated that they are willing to meet with interested parties ASAP. Conifer has the reputation of building and managing high quality units. Erie Harbor can still be a stunning and wonderful project but you need to step back and not pretend that you speak for all of the neighbors.

Colleen I stated I am not speaking as an organization but my PERSONAL opinions. I would like to suggest that you take this effort up - i think you should lead and organize a broad array of neighbors - those that like it and those that do not. Will you accept that challenge?

Architecture is like art, especially modern art; it is either attractive or ugly in the eye of the beholder. Having said that, I think most modern art is junk and that design for Erie Harbor is definitely UGLY.

I don't mean just ugly in the normal sense of the word. I mean UGLY as in neighborhood aesthetics destroying ugly, or Public Safety Building concrete field ugly, or RIT campus buildings ugly, or Soviet-style low income housing ugly. Scrap the entire design and start over.

RAB - please check your facts. Carlene is right. There was no public comment period for the redesign, that design was rolled out in the FEIS in response to all the public comments from the original design in the DEIS. In fact, when the new design was finally presented to the neighborhood in an NBN meeting last fall, people were shocked and asked when they would be allowed an opportunity for formal comment on it, and the developer said there would be none. The design is cold, industrial, and will bring the same effect to that stretch of waterfront that the previous eyesore did. It's unfortunate that there will not be any opportunity for the public to weigh in on this.

I continue to be amazed that prime riverfront property in Rochester is used and misused over and over again. That they even built low income public housing there to begin with was astonishing...now they have the chance to really do something spectacular and this is all they can come up with?

This is just wrong on so many levels. I don't care how much blue, yellow and pink color you throw at it.. UGLY IS STILL UGLY!!!

This is an exciting and attractive project that will greatly enhance the visual experience in Rochester. So much of the contemporary architecture here is banal and boring. Lighten up people, we might benefit from buildings that are not so bland!