At picnics, at parties, at concerts over this summer, I've gotten an earful about Ren Square.
Much of the talk has been the usual stuff: speculation about whether it will be built. Speculation about why the Brooks administration wants it so badly. Complaints about the plan, the funding, the theater.
But at these social occasions, I've also talked with people who think Ren Square is a good idea. These are not people connected to the Brooks administration. In fact, some of them are strong Brooks critics. But they're convinced that Ren Square will be good for downtown Rochester.
Ren Square is located on one of the most important blocks of downtown Rochester, and much of that block has become pretty seedy. We can argue about whether the block's deterioration was caused, in part, by the slow pace of the Ren Square planning. In effect, Ren Square has held the block hostage. The fact is, though, something needs to happen on that block.
The supporters I've talked with think that Ren Square - even without a theater - would be an improvement over what's there.
One concern is the impact that block has on tourism and conventions. It doesn't make a good impression on visitors - day or night.
The Ren Square block also has a depressing effect on neighboring properties. Fix it up, the supporters say, and it will spur development nearby.
In fact, some of those supporters say, despite its problems, Ren Square has already had a positive impact. They're convinced that the promise of Ren Square helped generate interest in a downtown location for Paetec and ESL. And, those supporters say, Ren Square could magnify the impact of Paetec and ESL. Develop Ren Square, suggests one supporter, and the Sibley's Building becomes more attractive to developers.
Interest in downtown housing is already strong, and with Paetec and ESL bringing more than a thousand employees downtown, that demand likely will grow. And the high price of gas won't hurt. A college, a theater, and a bus station at Ren Square, the supporters say, could create interest in housing just north of the project.
And, one supporter suggests, with a successful Ren Square, the Clarion Hotel site would become enormously attractive - as a tear-down to make way for riverside housing.
Then there's the massive amount of federal money that's been promised for the project. If we don't build Ren Square, we won't get that money.
Momentum has begun to build downtown. But aside from housing, it's tenuous. Construction of the Paetec headquarters hinges on both the continued strength of that company, in this poor economy, and on state funding. Assurance that Ren Square will be built - bulldozers at work on that site - could ramp up interest in neighboring sites and keep the momentum going. That's exactly what happened when Paetec announced that it was building its headquarters on the Midtown site.
Far too many questions about Ren Square remain. What do we gain by moving MCC's downtown campus one block west? What do we gain by moving the Rochester Broadway Theater League out of the Auditorium Theatre? In both cases, we'll be removing major tenants from historic buildings.
Is a downtown bus station the biggest need of local bus riders? Is it the best use of the transit authority's - and the federal government's - money? Given the escalating cost of construction materials, can we get a decent complex for the $230 million cap that Ren Square officials have set?
And a big question, which, to my amazement, the Ren Square folks keep kicking off into the future: How much will it cost to operate this thing? Who will pay those costs?
All of those questions are important. And the push for Ren Square continues despite the lack of answers.
But for Ren Square critics like me, the project's supporters have their own question: If not Ren Square, what?
Comments for "URBAN JOURNAL: If not Ren Square, what?" (7)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
Tom said on Aug. 07, 2008 at 6:41pm
Ren Square certainly needs to be examined, re-examined and discussed among citizens of the entire community. For me, the first and most basic question to answer is "Do we need Ren Square now?" I say no. Let the true free market decide what happens downtown. If they build the new world headquarters of Paetec, people will be in the city. Along with the employees in ESL's new downtown location, people will drive development. With hundreds of new employed people in the city, new small businesses will emerge. Instead of the city and county focuses on Ren Square, I would much rather see a new comprehensive transportation plan for the future that takes into account high fuel costs and the need to pollute less.
andrew stainton said on Aug. 06, 2008 at 10:48am
Dear Ms. Towler,
Please visit the web site www.fixrensquare.org for an answer to the question, "If not renSquare, than what?"
The issue about rensquare that has been completely overlooked by both your paper and the D&C concerns traffic funtion. Perhaps its not as sexy as a theater, or of particular interest to your readers as much as the PAC is, but a close look at how buses would travel through downtown reveals some very troubling facts.
Snap your fingers and put a PAC at that site on the archetectural level of the taj mahal. Now invision a swarming mass of buses circling around the site. Every bus will turn through at least 4 additional crosswalks. It is an open question how eastbound buses will even reach the station. Do we really want a downtown block with all the fumes and pedestrian dangers of a truck stop?
If built, it would slow bus service tremendously and increase operating costs without adding any additional useful passenger miles. At a time of high energy costs, this is not a quibble... this gets to the heart of how well our community will function in the future.
Have you ever asked for a traffic study?? Or asked independent traffic professional their thoughts? As we head over the crest of "peak oil", a failure to take these steps after 5 years of discussion represents a serious failure on City's part.
If someone is "for" ren square, you might want to notice there is almost always some level of undisclosed interest involved. Heidi Zimmer Meyer, a sensible voice on most things, never discloses that the chairman of the board of RDDC is a major beneficiary of Ren Square funds, for example
Also, in a recent interview in R Business Journal with Arunis Chesonis, he says nothing good--or bad about ren Square when asked directly. It was not a factor in his development decision.
Here is a picture of what the corner could look like again, more quickly and at less cost than any other plan. Historical tourism is a fast growing category, yet we would tear down the oldest buildings left in downtown to create huge operating deficits?
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/rochimag/rochpublib/rpf/rpf01/rpf01046.jpg
The importance of this key downtown block and the $100 million transit funds cannot be overstated. Their game plan now is to run out the clock till february and then walk away, having wasted $17 million (think "Ocean's 11 " for beaurocrats), and what could have been a tremendous opportunity to prepare for a energy constrained future. Your lack of serious analysis and interest in the transit issues involved over these last 5 years, have given them a lot of the cover they needed to pull off the heist.
How sad.
Andrew
Will Condo said on Aug. 11, 2008 at 8:01pm
I, like many other City readers, am sick and tired of the endless discussions on Ren. Sq.This turkey of a project should never have gotten this far and wasted so much time and money.Any urban planner with professional integrity would easily determine that a glorified bus station at one of downtown Rochester's primary intersection is a nutty idea.A mix of housing,retail and office and perhaps academic use would be appropriate for this strategic site. But no, there is too much politcal face-saving at stake to actually pull the plug on the absurdity of Ren.Sq.
hiwayman17 said on Aug. 12, 2008 at 5:18pm
The basic issue I have with Ren Square is that the community never asked for this.
makeitgreen said on Aug. 13, 2008 at 8:46am
Wouldn't it be great to have a large park in the center of the city, like Union Square or Bryant park in NYC? It'd create jobs for maintenance, it'd be a great location for community events, it'd make downtown Rochester a lot more interesting.
PSB said on Aug. 13, 2008 at 9:31am
+1 in favor of Andrew Stainton's comments. The people riding the bus downtown are not going to be the big-buck-spending, theater-going PaeTec and ESL employees - both those organizations will surely include large parking garages in their building plans. The people riding the bus right now are those who can't afford to drive, and don't really care about whether the bus station is inside a new shiny building, so long as it gets them where they need to be. Before any progress can be made on providing a shiny new "home" for public transport in this city, the larger issue of complete clusterf*** management at RGRTA needs to be addressed... - Get buses going to places where people actually want to go. - Make the buses run from the suburbs (Webster, Chili, Pittsford, Brighton, Henrietta, Gates, Greece) to the major employers in the city (U of R, Xerox, Kodak, PaeTec, ESL, B&L). - These companies will more than gladly contribute to funding of public transport, if it means they don't have to build and maintain parking spaces! - Make the buses run on-time, and on a closely-spaced schedule: instead of once an hour between 9am and 5pm, how about every 15 minutes from 7 to 10am and 4 to 8pm. - Put the prices up and use the money to fund expanded routes. $1.25 is a ridiculous price to pay these days (the cheapest 1 way ticket on London's subway is $4). An driver living in the suburbs, getting 20 MPG on their 40 mile daily round-trip commute, is spending close to $10 a day on commuting costs (not including parking!) These people will happily pay half that amount for decent public transport, but is HAS to be good. They're not interested in paying $1.25 for a bus that doesn't serve their needs. Once a decent public transport system is in place, THEN is the time to think about capping it off with a new central bus station - maybe located not downtown, but located wherever it is needed most, based on careful analysis of updated traffic information. Building the bus station first is a humongous mistake, but what else can we expect from career politicians like Maggie Brooks who are more bothered about their "legacy" than the needs of the community they are bound to serve?
Steve said on Aug. 20, 2008 at 6:58pm
Andrew, I agree. As a Rochesterian who became a Bostonian over twenty years ago, I've seen what makes a city vibrant, walkable and safe. And it isn't a bus station. And it isn't yet another fifth-rate Modernist structure--has Rochester not yet heard of New Urbanism and smart growth strategies? Nothing would do more to improve that strip of downtown than a plan that requires private development to replicate the original, native, human-friendly facades of the buildings that were originally there. Remember that the revitalization of Boston began around old Quincy Market and Fanueil Hall--18th century structures that found new uses, made attractive enough to draw visitors willing to get out of their cars and actually walk around. Sometimes I think Rochester suffers most of all not from its winters or the woes of Kodak, but from its isolation. Your leaders simply don't know what works in other cities, and they try to make it up as they go along. They've proven they can't. Ren Square is Fast Ferry: The Sequel.
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.