Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion
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: “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: “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: “Directory dilemma”
I encourage all to go around their neighborhoods, jot down the address of those places that still have phone books sitting on porches (after two months) and ask the phone company to come and pick those up.
Re: “Blumenauer talks up investment in bike-pedestrian infrastructure”
Toby, in past years, you were right - I was part of a very small group riding in Rochester in the winter, and I did not do so consistently. However, that is changing - this year I commuted to work and ran errands almost every day on my bicycle, with studded snow tires. More significantly, I saw many cyclists out on the streets along with me. Not thousands, or even hundreds, yet - but dozens.
Rochester is not Portland, as you point out. We are much more like Minneapolis and Boston, two other very active year-round cycle transportation communities, in our winter challenges. (In fact, I would claim that Rochester is between those two cities in winter cycling environment.)
It is true that for Rochester to be a more attractive year-round cycling city some changes will have to be made.
Snow removal on major cycle routes must be done to accommodate bicycles as well as automobiles. Winter storms here result in snow and ice obstructing the parts of the road that cyclists normally use; we are forced then to occupy (legally, I might add) the same narrowed lanes used by automobiles. I really don't mind, but other cyclists may be intimidated, and automobile traffic is certainly slowed by my presence.
Traffic signals will need to be modified to be able to detect bicycles. While it is "feasible" (albeit awkward, inconvenient, and somewhat dangerous) for a cyclist to request a green light at a traffic signal by going onto the sidewalk and pushing the pedestrian cross button in the summer, it is impossible to do so in the winter when access to the pedestrian cross button is obstructed by a 6 foot wide, 4 foot high snowbank.
Bike-specific infrastructure will require winter maintenance. As with sidewalks, bicycle and multi-use paths must be plowed promptly with the intent that they be open when commuters need them.
So far I have avoided the rather cliche proverb, but I'll say it:
There is no such thing as bad cycling weather, only bad cycling gear!
-Scott Wagner
Re: “Rochester's apartment boom”
All this building would be fine if it was being done with private money. The problem is that the city is offering a diverse package of loans, grants, land give-aways, and tax breaks.For example, Voters Block is getting the land for free, $1.3 million in cash, and a tax rate at roughly a fifth of what other rental properties in the area are paying. Furthermore, many of these loans are really grants and many others are forgiven after a period of time. Let us not forget the city often does infrastructure improvement around these projects for millions more, such as the river promenade behind Erie Harbor. The result is that the city does not recoup the money they give to get these developers to build in any reasonable time period, say twenty or even fifty years! Meanwhile these neighborhoods the city calls "less than desirable" fund this development. While money is easy for these projects to obtain, it is next to impossible for people in these "less than desirable” neighborhoods to get money for repair. The worst thing is that at one time the city money was used for neighborhood improvement loans, which prevented the blight that is now destroying our neighborhoods and every elected official in the city of Rochester has approved these subsidies to large developments.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
"At what point does the density become too much?"
Walkscore.com gives 900 East Ave a score of 84. Pretty good. I moved here from DC where my place had a walk score of 94 so there is plenty of room to go.
"Has this part of the city's southeast area reached its apartment saturation point? "
There is actually a really easy way to tell when a neighborhood has reached its apartment saturation point. When people no longer want to pay $1500 a month to live in an apartment in the neighborhood and prices start falling because supply has soaked up the demand. Erie Harbor is charging high rents. Hickory Place is charging high rents. People clearly want to live in the East Ave area because rents are high. Adding more housing in that area will help more people live there and it will bring even more amenities to the area.
"It is encouraging that Morgan is willing to invest in the city. But the city has other properties that could be developed." Yes. Perhaps Morgan should build some luxury apartments on Wilkins St. However I think that street may have already reached its luxury apartment saturation point.
There are NIMBYs in every neighborhood. Every project will have some reason to be shot down because nothing should ever change because change is baaaad. I see opposition to this by neighborhood groups as complete NIMBYism. "I got mine, screw everyone else." And yes, ParkResident, it's the same self-centeredness as in Pittsford with the Mark IV project.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Mary Anna Fowler writes a well-researched, thorough, balanced presention of this issue. Then she has the courage to draw a conclusion and state her OPPOSITION to this proposal. I live here, I've been to the meetings and full discussions about this development, and I agree with her. The majority of resisdents here are opposed
to thsis proposal becasue a Preservation District has buildings and an atmsophere that are supposed to be
preserved--the Morgan building isn't right for thjis location. It would be fine in the new College Town, or th enew Midtown, etc. That doesn't mean residents don't want appropraite change. This was orinally all single and double houses, so six new town houses or condos would presrebve the characterr of the mebeighborhood--and
Park and East Ave., NOTA, ABC Streets, Upper Monroe, etc. are NEIGHBORHOODS, not districts or urban centers. They all have been brough back to life proimariily by normal working people, not developers, who
bought neglected old houses and fixed themn up with hard wirk and their oown money. It's the historic houses and atmsohere that draws people--not 102 unit commercial apartment buildings. The Voiture building was built as a small mansion by the same architect who designed Oak Hill Country Club. The wife was a descendent of Nathaniel Rochester. The additions added to the front of the huse by the veterans who bought it in 1941 are ugly, but the house isn't, it's not inn riuins, or gutted by fire--it can easily be restored like most every building here has been. The Voiture group, however, doesn't have the money to pay fror a new roodf, kitchen, bar room and other repairs. Demolishing the house and ruining the beauty of GEH and the historic charcater of this
area is not necessaruy or acceptable in a real Preservation District. The Morgans can build theitr apartments somewhere else; GEH and the Greek Orthodox Church are willing to pay for restoration, maintenasce, and at least 20 years or more of their full use: other developers are also interseted in working with the property.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Mary Anna,
I don't know whether this apartment looks good across the street from the Gleason Works or not. I don't know if its a good idea or not. My neighbors don't like it so I'll go along with that.
Me and a lot of other neighbors would definitely prefer to see something go up in the empty parking lot between Anderson and Atlantic. But we're not developers. Maybe we'll get frustrated enough and develop it ourselves.
On the other hand, the high rise on the corner of Goodman and University is totally incongruent and we don't care. It's a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. It keeps the corner store open and I want that corner store there when I need it.
One thing for certain - density isn't a reason to oppose this. My folks live in high rises in Manhattan, which, by all accounts, seems to be surviving the density quite well.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
@Parkresident "but the neighborhood surrounding Starry Nites, while up and coming, is still pretty dicey (wouldn't want my daughter walking around there at night)."
Well, my daughters have grown up in this neighborhood and one thing is for certain - I wouldn't allow my daughters to walk around at night on Park Avenue either.
So there.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
What I see is a fairly good-looking apartment complex being built on an almost nasty site across from the Gleason Works. How is that a bad thing? That the George Eastman House would prefer to have ownership of the site, but has clearly been unwilling to deal honestly with the folks who own it, well, huh, too bad. Right now, if you are visiting the GEH grounds, the view is "impacted" by the unsightly lot on University.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Clarification: low income actual houses, not apartments. Even better to help them into the middle class, though.
Re: “Owners of Craft Company No. 6 speak out against University Ave. project”
Excellent, well-reasoned, accurately supported OPPOSITION shared by a majority of us who actually live in this area, who have participated in public meetings and discussions regarding all aspects of this proposal, and who have spent years of work and our own money to help make this area what it is today. It is troubling that some are apparently insensitive to the importance of GEH as a National Landmark, internationally significant museum, and arguably Rochester's most important cultural asset. It's also disturbing that the value and needed full protection of our Preservation District, on the National Register of Historic Places, has to be defended.
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Remember the bust "low income housing" has been? How many cities in the 60s and 70s this flawed concept wrecked? This was one of the biggest flaws of late-60s - early 90s era liberalism, an era that has thankfully passed. It's a great thing cities got smart and started to encourage high-income housing. We need to continue to build affordable housing for low income families, and that, like high income housing has its limits, too. It seems on this immediate subject, 100 units awfully high, and zero units awfully low. MUST it be this all-or-nothing?
Re: “City should turn down University Ave. project”
Written it on another story, will write it again: We don't need another high-end apartment complex in the city. How many well-to-do Mendonites and Brightonites do people think need a pied-a-terre in the city? Why not build affordable housing for the masses of poor people in the city?
Re: “Rochester's apartment boom”
One problem I see is that most of these new apartment buildings going in are for affluent, mass consumption-oriented young professionals and retirees. There's only so many people in Rochester willing to shell out $1,500 and up in rent every month. What about housing for people who earn under 30k a year? What are they supposed to do, live in a cardboard box? You're not thinking Rochester. Let's get real. How many people can afford to pay $3,000 a month in rent for these sleek, beautiful apartments?
Re: “Local drone protesters arrested”
j.a.m.
Shame on me! Thanks for catching that.
Tim
Re: “Local drone protesters arrested”
"fermenting [sic] even more mistrust and hostility"?!? Oy. So now we have a problem with drunk droning?
"drones are responsible..." Uh, no. Drones don't kill people — people do. Specifically, Prof. B. H. Obama. Don't blame and harass the operators, who selflessly and patriotically do the work we ask them and pay them to do. If you're going to get up in someone's face, then follow the chain of command to Lafayette Park and share your feelings with the commander in chief.
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.