Comment Archives: stories
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
J.A.M., you raise important points. Regarding our contribution to the Eastman House: we make contributions to numerous area arts organizations and other non-profits, as do many local media. That support is clearly stated on the organizations’ promotional material. We’ve written articles praising those organizations, and we’ve written articles criticizing them.
On the issue of the apartment ownership: It’s a two-flat, 100-plus-year-old house next door to our home – meager competition for a 102-unit, spanking new building. I suppose you could say any new apartments are competition for our units. But I’ve cheered on other new apartment developments, when they were in locations I thought were appropriate. And you might make the argument that the density in the neighborhood, and the resulting popularity of the area, makes our apartments more desirable. Our property value has certainly increased. So perhaps we have a vested interest in more apartments. And any development that adds to the city’s tax rolls helps every other city taxpayer, including me.
But overall, I think you’re right: On the apartments issue, I should have indicated that my husband and I own a rental property in the neighborhood, letting readers decide whether that had any bearing on the subject.
Re: “Violence on the mind”
I'm not really sure how this report goes from the Boston Marathon bombings to corruption in state government; Is there supposed to be a link between the two? I don't think there is and I'm not sure what the closing argument is supposed to be: What ever will we do about corruption in Albany? And what will we do about the Boston bombings? Not exactly a coherent argument.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
The publisher has now acknowledged not one but two significant conflicts of interest that the original print article did NOT disclose: One, her company is a "substantial" (her word) donor to one of the parties to the controversy. Two, as a competing provider of rental housing in the same market, she has a financial stake in the outcome.
To what extent either of these circumstances influenced the article is an interesting question, but not the main point. Any credible code of ethics mandates avoiding even the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. Accordingly, at an absolute minimum these conflicts should have been disclosed early and often.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Douglas Fisher - As to "debasing" the Eastman House, one might argue that tacking on the museum wing has already accomplished that debasement. And since the Eastman House management themselves are the folks who threw away their best chance to preserve the, "original creative vision" of the site (assuming that the original early 1900s vision contemplated adding the aforementioned museum wing in the 1980s) perhaps you should be chastising them.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Henry Hope Reed, who died on Wednesday at 97, pioneered the concept of urban walking tours, such that the New York Times once covered his doing this. His lessons are relevant for Rochester.
Whereas the walking tour that I gave in Victor village on Saturday focused on historical aspects of the locale's 19th-century buildings and their occupants -- such as my identifying the long-ago business in one building and the long-ago businessman's home in his nearby house -- Henry Hope Reed's walking tours were a mobile critique of his subject locale in terms of his own architectural lens.
Reed was an unabashed classicist, and rebelled against what he considered to be an unthinking contemporary treatment in adaptive reuses of historic buildings. For a half century, contemporary "updating" via adaptive reuse has been the favored philosophy in utilizing buildings of our historic architectural heritage, following the precepts of Frederick Rath, promulgated nationwide during his tenure at the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Back in the day, I took one of Henry Hope Reed's Manhattan walking tours, this one wending through Greenwich Village. I recall particularly his insights into the alternate preservation philosophy embodied in the Jefferson Market Courthouse, repurposed as a branch of the New York Public Library.
While praising the conservation of the Ruskinian Gothic detailing of the 1870s structure, he railed against the blanket insertions of large single-pane window glass replacing the multi-paned window treatment originally used. He felt that it changed the entire massing of the building to have such a series of large blank spaces spread across the walls.
Henry Hope Reed's classical orientation seems to be a lonely voice today. Many in the general population have no compunction about clamoring to debase -- or even destroy -- significant architectural landmarks as they see fit, giving minimal respect to the carefully thought-through architectural vision which created the structure at issue.
Thus, a nationally-significant 1889 brewery castle was destroyed in Rochester last year for a parking lot, with the complicity of City Hall.
Many others have no problem with debasing an important National Historical Landmark locally in favor of inserting next door a 102-unit four-story apartment house looming over the carefully restored and tended historic lawn and gardens. They even support having a swimming pool abutting these historic gardens, while the brick and glass reflect the shouts of swimming children into the intended contemplative repose of the historic gardens.
Oh, sure, the apartment house supporters have their arguments, some of which may sound compelling in the abstract, but they all gloss over their implicit disrespect for the original creative vision of the landmark site which some are seeking to preserve for the benefit of posterity.
Re: “The D&C by the numbers”
No matter the format, the quality of the news coverage has declined appreciably in the last year plus. That's why I unsubscribed. Very little news left between the ads. Very little local coverage at all. Are there but two or three writers left?
Re: “Court says communities can ban drilling”
It seems humans are prone to losing their common sense. We either do not spend enough time noticing or understanding what is going on around us or we simply let ourselves say it does not matter.
Common sense tells me hydrofracking, when fully explained and understood, could not possibly take place anywhere. Surely, people would just say NO before it had a chance to get started. Fracking uses up millions of gallons of water and injects toxic chemicals into the ground....GAME OVER, right? But wait, there's more. JOBS! Economic prosperity will come to regions of poverty. Employed people spending their wealth means success and growth for businesses. The only loser is Earth.
There are examples besides hydrofracking. Back in 1938 a patent was issued for a new process meant to ensure coal mines shored up with wood could withstand the test of time. Pressure treated lumber was born. It almost makes sense that in the dark, dangerous depths of the coal mine, the combination of arsenic, copper and chomium did not seem much like an added threat. But soon, the toxic poison arsenic made a leap into the light...your new backyard deck, your garden shed, your picnic table and your child's jungle gym were all nearly indestructable and would last an eternity. All this time people knew that the pressure treated wood contained arsenic and no one set off the alarm bells. How could this be? How could we invite a toxic poison into our homes, yards and families?
It is happening again with hydrofracking. Concerned citizens are asking why fracking is being considered in New York. Some did not have the chance to ask this question before fracking was already in their neighborhoods. It seems we truly never learn from history. It seems common sense loses to the power of corporations and the greed of individuals. How many times must we suffer the consequences of our own making? How many times will we acquiesce because we still believe government and corporations are doing the right thing.
Common sense, history and science all say NO to fracking. What do you say?
Re: “Owners of Craft Company No. 6 speak out against University Ave. project”
Ms. Tow;er - City provides a "Feedback" section for this type of letter. So why is it be published under the "News" category?
Re: “ART/LIT: "An Early Work Late in Life: The Art and Life of Danny Allen"”
What a wonderful review. I'm thrilled to have been a part of this wonderful book. Both Danny and Bill were my dear friends. Thank you Rebecca for these wonder ful words for my friends. Bill has created an amazing tribute in this book. And bringing Dans work back to life is a dream we've all been waiting for. Thank you thank you
EVA WEISS
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
RE: Christopher--Great reasoned OPPOSITION! Ms. Towler's statement "adding density to an area of the city that doesn't need more" is ambiguous since "area" could refer to NOTA or the whole Park/East Ave area. But. . .
it's really not unfounded for either considering their one-lane roads can't accommodate current traffic that backs up from Portsmouth to Culver when the Gleason Works lets out or such shortage of parking that one of the businesses on University is considering relocating because clients can't find a place to park. The same is true for traffic now backing up from East Ave all the way to the 490 entrance to get out of the Park Ave area and sometimes over 30 cars waiting in line on the 490 exit to get on Culver at rush hour; of course, finding parking spots for tenants or business customers in the Park Ave. area has always been a major problem. I agree with everything Christopher says: perceptive, important, and balanced.
The city really does need to reassess its values, goals, and planning (as Ken discusses). During the last year the City approved demolition of the Cataract Building (now a parking lot built by NYC developers who never actually came here) after it spent millions to create the faltering High Falls area across the bridge. The 19th century stores there, across from the original Kodak building which could become MCC, have just been restored. Why the demolition? the complete lack of vision?
The City also approved the demolition of the last remaining historic buildings from "Old Brighton" on East Ave. so Wegmans could build its unnecessarily HUGE store which tries unsuccessfully to imitate old buildings now lost forever. So how much more of our city history will be demolished? Will 933 University be next? It certainly is change, but is it worth this ongoing destruction of Rochester's historical "fabric" (borrowing Ms. Towler's word). She's dead-on right in observing this 933 University Ave. proposal of demolition and over-development is a potentially dangerous precedent and potentially (more) bad City planning.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
To Rochester Resident: I do indeed live near the East Avenue Preservation District. I hope that proximity hasn't influenced my decision, but it's hard for any journalist to be certain that we're completely objective about the things we cover. I do think my long-time residence there informs my writing. And I'm not at all against apartments; we lived in one, two doors from our current home, when we moved to Rochester. And we own a rental double next door. We like living in a neighborhood that includes a variety of ages and uses. That's why we settled there. That's why we have stayed.
Several readers have noted that I didn't oppose the demolition of the Cataract Building. That was a hard decision for me, personally, because I agree that the building was an important one, and we've lost far, far too many important buildings in this city. This newspaper has campaigned to save many of them. And we fought hard for one of the city's most controversial preservation districts, Corn Hill. But in each case, we've tried to consider the feasibility of the project. Others disagree, but in our opinion, no firm, feasible alternatives had been presented.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Mary Anna, might your opinion on this project have something to do with the fact that you live near the East Avenue Preservation District? Given your lack of interest in saving the Cataract Building, I find it hard to believe that your viewpoint is based on your concern for preservation.
"While this project isn't appropriate for the East Avenue Preservation District, it could be a real boon to other areas." I think what you're really trying to say is that you don't want apartment dwellers moving into your neighborhood. This provincial attitude is a big part of what prevents Rochester from reaching its full potential. You should consider thinking of Rochester as a city, not as a collection of preservation districts.
By the way, I own a house in the East Avenue Preservation District, and I welcome this potential new addition to our neighborhood. I'm not sure where you are getting your data (I suspect you don't have any) on "traffic problems and parking problems", but a good city planner will tell you that we have a long way to go before reaching our "apartment saturation point." If you care about the future of Rochester, you should rethink your opinion. We should encourage the approval of this project, which will bring vibrancy to our neighborhood and to the CITY of Rochester.
Re: “The D&C by the numbers”
D&C circulation numbers by themselves, whether for print or digital editions, are in the end uninformative. Let's see some revenue numbers boys. What are your monthly earnings on the print edition over the past five years (realizing that you whacked your loyal print subscribers with a MASSIVE rate hike last year)? What about print edition advertising revenues for the same period? And what were the same numbers for you digital edition for say the past 12 months?
If you’re making more money or at least holding your own then your business plan was apparently correct. If not, maybe it’s time to stop waving around a bunch of useless stats and start re-examining your assumptions.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
I agree with not having an apartment complex built in t he spot proposed.
I have a better idea. Instead of building something new, Let Morgan take the Savannah complex next to Manhattan Square Park and turn it into high range apartments / condos. There are already 126 units there within walking distance of the East End. The Section 8 housing there does no good as all of the jobs downtown have dried up and moved to the Burbs thereby defeating the purpose of having low income people live there. That should be step 1 in bringing people with money back downtown and it also helps to increase momentum on the gentrification that has already started. The restaurants and bars will follow.
Re: “"American Idol" 2013: Results (Top 4 to Top 3)”
I could care less about this show, and only tuned in to watch David Cook. I liked the song a LOT and thought his performance was definitely the best of the night. The stomp-clap breakdown in the middle was great. Even Keith Urban was digging it. Not even going to comment on will.i.am.not.a.singer. I also love Harry C. jr but agree..that song was zzzzzzzzz.
Re: “Owners of Craft Company No. 6 speak out against University Ave. project”
Ms Allinger and Mr Stam have "weighed in" with an opinion that was written and issued by the George Eastman House at their opposition website: https://sites.google.com/a/geh.org/933-university/home/what-you-can/write-a-letter. They are certainly entitled to go on record with their agreement with the GEH position, but highlighting it here, with that headline, creates a false impression of this being an opinion developed independently from the anti-project PR campaign emanating from GEH.
Re: “ART/LIT: "An Early Work Late in Life: The Art and Life of Danny Allen"”
I have the pleasure of having Bill in my life and so greatful to know this wonderful man! I have read the book and laughed and cried! He is a great man and the artist Danny Allan was a great talented artist who would never have been acknowledged without Bill!
Re: “Blumenauer talks up investment in bike-pedestrian infrastructure”
I fall somewhere between Toby's pessimistic myopia and Scott's over-achieving optimism. . . but I did get to ride all 12 months this year. I will ride any day it's going to be dry on the ground. Could be 12 or 92 degrees, as long as it's not going to be wet/slushy - I'm pedaling.
There were definitely days this winter when a wider road would have been appreciated by both myself and the car traffic passing me (or trying to).
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Mary Anna, I find your argument against the addition of density in NOTA unfounded. Density gives vibrancy. Also with increasing density and walk-ability the use of automobiles inherently decreases. Furthermore, the parking added by this building is self-contained. While I disagree with your density sentiments I absolutely agree with the notion that the Voiture Building should not be torn down. Hanlon Architects should try to be a bit more creative in the inclusion and rehabilitation of this building into design of the site. I also would stress that the preservation board be pointed in their criticism and recommendations,as this project demands a significant level of care and detail. Bring on the density and the main building, but save the Voiture Building!
As a further point of contention, where was the lengthy and supporting article for the Cataract Building. Why be so vehement for the opposition of the demolition of a relatively non-descript tudor revival, but yet be quiet and even supporting of the demolition of a significantly sited and unique landmark that was important not only to local cultural heritage, but also national brewery architecture as a whole. If you and or CITY are going to battle for the good of preservation, there is much needed reassessment of your values.
Re: “"The Place Beyond the Pines"”
Well put. The movie grabs your attention in the very beginning and doesn't let go until the very end. I wasn't sure if the movie had a point, Perhaps how things can go wrong or not how you wanted it to go when you try and do the "right " thing in life.