I second Joni Monroe's remarks regarding the two major projects at Main and Clinton, Midtown Plaza in particular ("Rethink Plans for Downtown," The Mail, February 18).
If the ultimate goal is to encourage developers to create new projects at Midtown, why is it assumed that we must demolish the majority of the existing buildings on the site?
Would it not save millions of dollars to retain the structural skeletons of the "newer" existing buildings (Midtown Mall, Citizen's Bank, the Euclid and Seneca buildings), once they have been stripped to the I-beams, and offer these "ready made" buildings to developers to re-imagine their facades and interior spaces as they see fit?
If getting people to move downtown is so essential to its future, why are we in such a hurry to destroy the only facility built in the last 50 years specifically designed to house services and retail? Should the Sibley building be redeveloped into housing, it would be easier to draw people to live there if they were across the street from a historic facility containing the services they need.
Why do we need more open space downtown? Has anyone ever visited Washington or Manhattan Square parks, both within two blocks of the proposed park? Does anyone pushing for a park to replace our (enclosed but light and airy) town square realize the need to have a four-seasons gathering place? Do they ever walk the downtown sidewalks in the dead of winter?
To destroy the only viable downtown social and retail development of the past century, only to create a new superblock across the street that will contain retail facilities with no track record of success, seems not only wasteful but short sighted.
The Powers Block was once considered obsolete. So was our "new" City Hall until it was reused and expanded with a modern annex. What has happened to the legacy of the visionaries who saved these landmarks?
It seems that the only ideas that hold any weight are the ones proposed by Paetec and the findings of the environmental report that was recently released (and can be found on the "Midtown Rising" website). The report is full of "can't do" excuses, uses the words "blighted" and "blighting" more often than even Robert Moses dreamed of doing, and has little of the innovative spirit of those who, over 50 years ago, found ways to incorporate late 19th, early 20th-century buildings into their "new" mall and tower complex. We've come a long way baby!
DAN PALMER, ROCHESTER
Comments for "DOWNTOWN: Save some of Midtown Plaza" (3)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
Ted Christopher said on Mar. 12, 2009 at 11:00pm
I third your second. The community as a whole has underutilized and under-appreciated the Mall et al to the point that few even blink when reading these "blight"-only appraisals of the place.
I think the "Harmony" Midtown Tower proposal would save the Mall as far north as the middle escalators which could at least preserve some semblance of what was a fine year-round retail (and walking) sphere. This would include the previous grocery space which I would love to see re-used as such.
I couldn't believe Duffy's dismal response to Harmony's proposed preservation of Midtown Tower's appearance. That tower is certainly much more interesting than the behemoth across the street.
I hope whatever preservation efforts ensue they don't immediately decide to strip down to the girders. I think there are some interesting and useful buildings to modestly update.
Finally, don't knock some of the existing parks. Manhattan Square amongst other things seems to have a good and popular ice skating rink going.
Dan Palmer said on Mar. 15, 2009 at 9:45am
Thank you for your words of support. I did not mean to imply that I dislike the existing parks. I think Washington Square and Manhattan Square are fine parks that serve downtown well. I was pointing out that, for a city of our size, we already have plently of open space downtown and do not need more of it. Physical and residential denstiy are needed to fully utilize the parks we already have. Also, keeping the atrium and reusing it would give us a place to gather in the extreme weather of our summers and winters as well as allowing the Skyway system to remain (to the benefit of those who do not want to trudge through the snow, get rained on, or fry in the heat while walking downtown).
Ted Christopher said on Mar. 16, 2009 at 11:00pm
Dan, your right. Once they closed the Mall the indoor walking options downtown were also pretty much nixed. This was a big deal in particular in the winter.
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.