I didn't realize there was a building ban near firehouses. Funny, all the other city firehouses seem to do just fine in busy neighborhoods. I really grow tired of this NIMBY attitude in Rochester, this section of University Ave is nothing like the "East Ave Preservation District", this apartment plan more than fits in and will only benefit the neighborhood. People go to George Eastman to look in, not out, and the viewshed won't be largely affected. Besides GE himself was all for the progress of this City, he wouldn't want it stifled in his name by a bunch of NIMBYS.
1.) Might be the only valid complaint, however the neighborhood is filled with LARGE 3 story buildings and the new building would be in the area of several multi-story buildings
2.)Sounds like NIMBYS have stifled progress for too long.
3.)See above paragraph
4.)Invented issue, there is landscape screening the building from the GEH
5.) Not entirely true, the highrise at University and Goodman and the FlatIron building at Univesity and Atlantic would be bigger.
6.)This is true of almost all buildings on that stretch of University Ave.
7.) Valid point, but new trees will be planted and hardly seems like a valid reason to stop the project. Retool yes, stop no.
8.) Semi-true, this is a popular, urban neighborhood parking can be tough. Its a sign of an active neighborhood where people want to be. However, street parking on University is easy to find the majority of the time. Second this is more a symptom of a regional dependence on the car and our unwillingness to bike/walk/bus even the shortest of distances. The parking will be able to handle residents which is good enough.
9.) So what? Rush hour is 20 minutes in Rochester, again its a sign of vibrancy. Also part of #8 and the automobile dependence.
10.) Can be handled with traffic engineering and street design.
11.) A problem that's yet to happen, handle it when it occurs. Again a very minor problem. People cut through parking lots on corners to avoid lights, does that mean we ban corner gas stations? Reaching at straws
12.) Another invented problem, RFD has firehouses on Monroe Ave, Lyell Ave, North Clinton, Hudson, Dewey, North Goodman, Genesee, South, and Wisconsin which frequently goes through the E. Main intersection. All dense neighborhoods with busy vehicular traffic with no problems.
13.) Minor problem, needs to be retooled, no need to scrap the project,
There you go, a point by point rebuttal. These concerns are all fabricated or overblown.
Brett Garwood is obviously out of touch, along with the city's demo program. They are destroying fragile neighborhoods and ensuring the will never return without significant city reinvestment (luckily City Hall can funnel that money through their friends and campaign donors). People will buy older homes with small yards and no driveways, if they wouldn't Park Ave, Susan B Anthony, and the South Wedge would be empty. Ironically, the South Wedge is seeing a major boom, Park Ave is doing fine as ever, and Susan B. Anthony is seeing a lot of interest. City Hall is way out of touch, people are moving or staying in the city because of the neighborhoods. City Hall is trying to suburbanize JOSANA and other neighborhoods, Sorry but if I want a suburban house I'll go to the 'burbs. This wanton destruction of at risk neighborhoods needs to stop. Its a waste of money and many of the houses demo'd are in good shape while actual dilapidated houses are left standing. Less money could be used to get the house back into use and it would contribute to the tax rolls. No one wants to live in a neighborhood where the street is 50% empty. The only neighborhoods that have seen natural, organic revitalization are those that remain largely intact. Corn Hill has only seen a resurgence because of massive city and private investment.
Alex White makes a good point about the loans, subsidies, grants, and infrastructure improvements the city does. Most of the projects subtract from the city coffers, not add. College Town costs Rochester $17 mill in street improvements, and we won't even see a penny in tax "profit" until 20 years down the road. That's if the developer doesn't default on the $20 million loan that city got on their behalf (just like Sibley and Wilmot), which well be stuck with if they fail to pay.
Wonderful conclusion, and for once Rupaul got it right , Jinkx monsoon was the true superstar and clear winner. I love Alyssa Edward but even a starlike her saw Jinkx as the one to beat. I will cherish this season as the most memorable and was so happy to see a Star Born.
I believe he said "fringed" sleeves.
Hi darlingdyan - In short, no. The speech was not delayed this year and is usually given during this season.
I was rooting for Alaska, too. Out of all the queens, she seemed to grow the most. She's not a comic, she's just naturally funny. I'm happy that Jinkx won because there's a lot of talent there that could go in all sorts of directions. Jinkx was also a little kinder and not as ruthless as some of the queens (Roxxxy!). And Lineysha, girl really? She actually returned to the show only to tell Ru that she still didn't know who Diana Ross is! Considering she's one of Ru's inspirations, she could have Googled her or faked it or something!
I honestly think if you are to give Sharon Needles the "superstar potential" bill that (I also think) she rightly deserves- you also need to admit that, beyond the awkwardness she displayed in the reunion episode (because let's face it- everyone was awkward and stilted in that thing) Jinkx has just as much, if not more, potential to transcend the very limited bounds of current generic drag to become something mainstream. I can see her successful on Broadway, her video shorts show a strong potential for cinema, and she's already done Funny or Die. And, from all the evidence I've seen, she's just an overall smarter person than Sharon Needles. Sharon is amazing and deserves her win and I do believe she has what it takes to be one of the most successful winners, but so does Jinkx- and to think otherwise is to put on those Rose-tinted glasses the op described earlier.
Go to Amazon books look for The Whistleblower Author Roger Clifton, it is unbelievable and well worth a read.
I love this show and jinx really deserved it I'm so glad it was her!!!!!!!!!
Get more detail entertainment updates from
Jinkx was brilliant, funny, intelligent, all around a star. So thrilled she won. This my first year watching, I'm hooked because of Jinkx. The courtroom theme was hilarious because of Jinkx and Alaska, I could watch it many more times.
Spiderman at a "sober" State of the City address? What happened? Was Bozo the Clown busy?
Am I missing something? Isn't the State of the City (or Nation or State or School District) done in January? Delaying this address for campaign season is a BLATANTLY POLITICAL MOVE for the self-described apolitical public servant.
Oh and I've read Warren's ed plan and heard her speak on education... being honest about school outcomes is hardly "trashing the district." What has Richards done on education except make excuses for the district and show up to some of the photo opps when Vargas makes home visits to truants.
During Sansa and Loras's poolside chat, does he actually describe her gown as having "French" sleeves, or did I mis-hear it? I didn't think France or the world as we know it existed in those times.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Website powered by Foundation