I don't understand all the animosity towards bus patrons in this forum. Buffalo has a hub-based bus system too, with many routes converging on downtown, especially at Lafayette Square and at Main & Division. But I have never heard anyone claim that it is the bus transfer locations that are holding back development in downtown Buffalo. I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is.

Having the buses converge at or near the Amtrak station seems kind of dumb. I'm sure people use the buses to go to work downtown and to access government services in downtown buildings - why would you want to drop them off at the outskirts of downtown and make them walk an extra 15 minutes to get where they need to go?

i've never seen this logic anywhere but the rochester development thread.
i spend alot of time in both threads(because i spend alot of time in both cities), and i've come to believe there are just alot more white collar, suburban, elitist types in this thread than there are in the buffalo thread.

its my opinion that removing the bus tranfser points will not only NOT spur development, but will; mean death to most of the low-end business that does exist in downtown rochester. (which accounts for most of the business)
busses on main= low users
no busses on main = no users

but i believe im alone in this opinion among rochester forumers.

3 stories filling the site will be much better than a tower in an empty plaza.

agreed. i'd love to see them build bigger, but even a three story office building is better than a vacant shopping mall.

I don't understand all the animosity towards bus patrons in this forum. Buffalo has a hub-based bus system too,

buffalo's system is a grid-hub system. its primary convergence of bus lines is downtown, but it has several other 'transit centers', if you will.

the UB south station serves as terminus for a quite a few bus lines, and each of the metro rail stations serves atleast 2 bus lines making them act as transfer stations as well. buffalo has a few 'crosstown' buslines that never go downtown or to university station. it also has a few few suburban lines originating at university station.
in addition, niagara falls has five or six lines serving its own area.

rochester has absolutely no lines that don't feed into downtown, and very few of the lines intersect anywhere but downtown. all in all rochester's bus service is piss poor. when i'm pissed at NFTA, i just remember the days when iwas a regular RTS rider and i feel alot better.

The crowds from the transfers block the sidewalks so that you can't walk down the street without saying "excuse me" 8+ times in order to get through. Cars get blocked because there is often not enough street to keep traffic flowing. Having this activity on Main Street and Clinton Ave is functionally and visually problematic, and even if it wasn't, developers' perceptions alone are reason enough to relocate this.

And the Amtrak station is less than a half mile (<10 min. walk) from Main Street, and the buses coming up from the south, and also those from east and west coming in on Main Street, would obviously stop on the way, so the extra walk would affect only those coming from the direct North.

I love bus patrons as much as the next guy, but having the streets flooded with them in an area prime for development is not a good thing. Plus, an integrated public transit station has many benefits.


You are kidding right? Crowds of people on a city sidewalk is undesirable? Huh? Buses are bad but cars are Good? Yikes! You talk about the bus riders as if they are some kind of lower caste. That is a very odd attitude. I hope this is not the general Rochester mentality toward urbanism.

You are kidding right? Crowds of people on a city sidewalk is undesirable? Huh? Buses are bad but cars are Good? Yikes! You talk about the bus riders as if they are some kind of lower caste. That is a very odd attitude. I hope this is not the general Rochester mentality toward urbanism.

Holy lack of comprehension Batman, this guy's post is completely off! A crowd of people merely waiting for a bus is not the same as an active crowd that urbanism values so highly. Where did I say cars are good? Or even that buses are bad? A stopped bus in the middle of a busy street is a problem for traffic flow. Are you arguing against that point? And even if I did see bus riders as some kind of lower caste, you must be living in a very isolated world if you think its an odd attitude; maybe you meant to use a different word, but the reality of our society is that many people have this view. Odd is not the right way to describe it.

All I'm saying is keep the posts productive. Every post can be criticized, but poorly thought out criticisms like this, especially with a condescending tone, do not add to the conversation. I'm starting to feel like people on this forum are more concerned with criticizing others in order to make themselves feel smart than with having a productive, engaging conversation about Rochester development. Yea, there hasn't been much news lately, but please refrain from fishing for points to argue about; bring something to the table.

Holy lack of comprehension Batman, this guy's post is completely off! A crowd of people merely waiting for a bus is not the same as an active crowd that urbanism values so highly. Where did I say cars are good? Or even that buses are bad? A stopped bus in the middle of a busy street is a problem for traffic flow. Are you arguing against that point? And even if I did see bus riders as some kind of lower caste, you must be living in a very isolated world if you think its an odd attitude; maybe you meant to use a different word, but the reality of our society is that many people have this view. Odd is not the right way to describe it.

All I'm saying is keep the posts productive. Every post can be criticized, but poorly thought out criticisms like this, especially with a condescending tone, do not add to the conversation. I'm starting to feel like people on this forum are more concerned with criticizing others in order to make themselves feel smart than with having a productive, engaging conversation about Rochester development. Yea, there hasn't been much news lately, but please refrain from fishing for points to argue about; bring something to the table.


1. Buses do not stop in the middle of the street to pick up people. You use hyperbole to make it as if the buses are an inconvenience to drivers when it is actually the other way around. Cars kill cities. If there is anything that needs to be less convenient in this country it is cars.
2. "I love bus patrons as much as the next guy, but having the streets flooded with them in an area prime for development is not a good thing" Your words not mine. That statement is loaded with arrogance and condescension. Rochester streets need people period.

By the way I did bring something to the table and no one responded.

I'm just getting caught up here, but I too would agree that the article stating the proposed PAETEC building as three stories is incorrect. They've been planning for two connected buldings (a low-rise building at the Main and Clinton intersection, and a mid-rise building along Clinton where B Formans was). Just look at the size of the new ESL building with 300-350 employees as an example. PAETEC will have close to 1,000. The main building at a minimum will need to be 5-7 stories.

As far as the bus transfer issue is concerned, anyone who doesn't think the current transfer practice has a negative impact on development along Main Street should go visit the intersection of Main/East/Franklin at 3:00 in the afternoon.

Everything I'm hearing suggests that this will be a 3-4 story building. Sorry folks, we can only hope that it is built in a manner that facilitates vertical expansion in the future. Remember, this was originally a 500,000 square foot building and is now roughly half that. Clearly, they will need more space in the future but they are reserving capital for acquisitions in the near term. Contextually, the existing former Citizens Bank building at the corner of Main & Clinton is only 3 stories, so it won't be a big difference, except that PAETEC will have first floor retail along its street frontage and will have an active programmed rooftop. Sucks that it's not taller, but still a good project for downtown.

The good folks who don't understand how bus transfers are strangling Main Street revitalization clearly have never transferred buses in, or just plain walked through, downtown Rochester any time recently. Unfortunately, we have had a bad rash of violence associated with these bus transfers as RTS is the main form of transportation for high schoolers across the city. When they meet up downtown, it's a recipe for problems. I'm as liberal as they come, but having hundreds of loud and disrepectful transferring passengers clogging your sidewalks is not good for business. Move the transfers to an off-street controlled facility and watch the investment return to Main Street. Just ask the Costanzas about Morton's Steakhouse...

Finally, no, there has been no news about how great the revised historic tax credit is going to be for Rochester. Our developers tend to be much more reserved and behind-the-scenes than the Paladinos and Terminis of Buffalo. Also, other than Sibley, there really aren't very many large historic buildings remaining for restoration in Rochester. There is no question that any developer eyeing a historic restoration project statewide is excited about the revised legislation.

MAT, i only spent six years of my life changing buses at main and clinton. i know how the demeanor of some of these bus riders can be.
i certainly saw some less than desirable behavior by the bus patrons, mostly by high school kids that use city buses. i think the guys hustling people at three card monte in front of MCC was probably not the best thing for downtown.

on the other hand, i watched my fellow bus patrons buy sandwiches, hot dogs, and other food items. when the midtown mall was open i watched people who had just purchased sneakers, shirts, earrings, etc. carry hundreds of dollars in merchandise onto the bus.

perhaps a more appropriate approach would be to remove high school students from city buses.

i realize bus patrons might be a visual deterrent, but if real demand for mid to high end retail existed, no business would care about the congregation of low income bus patrons, which in truth, only exist in any quantity during morning rush hour, and from about 2 to 4 pm. mind you, i changed buses there for six years, as an adult.

after 4 or 5 pm there are very few people at all using those bus stops. why aren't there businesses flourishing there at night? why do the businesses that are on main street all close at 5pm? why are there no high end businesses anywhere else in downtown rochester outside of the east end?(which save a few upscale restaurants isn't really that high end either)
there are other main corridors in downtown rochester that don't have bus transfers on them (state/exchange/lake and chestnut/hudson some to mind) and none of them have jack shit for businesses on them except for the same type of mundane lower end stuff that exists on main street. why? you tell me. you all seem to be convinced that if you move the buses people will come. well then, why hasn't upscale development come to these other corridors that aren't burdened by bus patron? i can't tell you why, but i can tell you thing that isn't the reason...bus patrons.

business owners/developers are simply sticking by the same failed logic they have used for decades to explain why downtown rochester, and downtowns across america fail to draw in suburban visitors;

suburbanites don't come downtown because...
...there isn't enough parking... solution: build more parking, or level shit for surface lots...result:FAIL
...our buildings are old and outdated....solution: plow lots of them in the hope of modern development....result:FAIL(well atleast it added even more surface parking)
...it takes too long for people to drive downtown...solution: inner loop(insert urban landscape destroying highway name here)...result:FAIL
...theres too many poor people...solution: slum clearance. we'll just plow over their neighborhoods and replace them with nice new project housing(atleast they won't look poor.)...result:FAIL
...theres too many poor people...solution: lets move their primary mode of transportation...results are yet to be seen but i bet i can make a solid prediction.

it seems attempts to make downtown a place for people who clearly want nothing to do with cities to begin with, have failed time and again. make cities a place for city people.


if moving the buses off of main street results in any major investment, i will eat my bus pass.

There are a few buildings around downtown that could really benefit from the revised historic tax credits. One that immediately jumps to mind is the Academy Building on Fitzhugh Street which continues to rot, even though it was purchased by a developer a few years ago. The old Josh Lofton High School on West Main Street at Cascade Drive is also coming out in a City released RFP for development. The old Eastman Dental Dispensary on East Main is another fantastic candidate for rehab.

after 4 or 5 pm there are very few people at all using those bus stops. why aren't there businesses flourishing there at night? why do the businesses that are on main street all close at 5pm? why are there no high end businesses anywhere else in downtown rochester outside of the east end?(which save a few upscale restaurants isn't really that high end either)
there are other main corridors in downtown rochester that don't have bus transfers on them (state/exchange/lake and chestnut/hudson some to mind) and none of them have jack shit for businesses on them except for the same type of mundane lower end stuff that exists on main street. why? you tell me. you all seem to be convinced that if you move the buses people will come. well then, why hasn't upscale development come to these other corridors that aren't burdened by bus patron? i can't tell you why, but i can tell you thing that isn't the reason...bus patrons.

I see what you're saying here, and I'm going to give you my take on these things.

1) I think that the lack of business activity after 5p is more a result of a lack of people to support the businesses. I think we can all agree that one of the biggest problems facing Rochester is the 5p flight of workers that leave every weekday. After these people leave, there is a mere skeleton crew of people downtown (mostly the 4,000 or so residents that live there) that businesses can't rely on to generate a viable level of sales. I agree that getting the bus patrons off of Main and Clinton isn't going to help businesses, I think that developing other attractions is going to be what helps businesses.

2) The other main corridors downtown aren't THE main corridor downtown. The Main and Clinton area has the highest daytime density of workers, and I feel that if any area was ripe for development, this is it. Those other areas don't have much business activity, because they don't have as large a population (albeit daytime workers) to support it

My overall feeling on the Bus Transfer Station is that it's not going to be the Holy Grail of revitalizing Rochester. Anyone who thinks it is, should pack their bags, and move to Fantasy Land where they can enjoy living in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane with their pet Unicorn, and Leprechaun servants. I simply think that the Station is going to be a vast improvement over what we have now, and will give the bus patrons a much more enjoyable experience as opposed to now, where they are forced to endure whatever mother nature throws at them. By eliminating the clogs caused by all of the buses, I think you are giving Main and Clinton a better opportunity to attract development. And, most importantly, let's not for get that IT'S FULLY FUNDED!!!. If this happened down in NYC, I like to think that the NY Post would put Mark Aesch's picture on the front page, and use the heading "AESCH HOLE"

"If this happened down in NYC, I like to think that the NY Post would put Mark Aesch's picture on the front page, and use the heading "AESCH HOLE""

RMoses.... I'm pretty sure you just made my whole day with that one!

There are a few buildings around downtown that could really benefit from the revised historic tax credits. One that immediately jumps to mind is the Academy Building on Fitzhugh Street which continues to rot, even though it was purchased by a developer a few years ago. The old Josh Lofton High School on West Main Street at Cascade Drive is also coming out in a City released RFP for development. The old Eastman Dental Dispensary on East Main is another fantastic candidate for rehab.

cascade drive (weren't they calling this 'cascade district for a while?) seemed to have some real momentum building there a few years ago. i imagine the recession stiffled that quite a bit.
does anyone know if the previous adaptive reuse projects over there have been successful? is that bright yellow-orange building fully leased? (i believe it was a residential project). what about office occupancy over there?

there are some great old buildings at that end of main st. to bad the inner loop and 490 have cut it off completely from the city's west side, and main west of the loop is cut up by alot of very automobile oriented uses(strip plazas and that residential area thats more like a fortress than a neighborhood)

The Cascade District, which includes Cascade Drive, does very well with respect to residential and office space. In fact, it commands some of the highest rents in the city. Yes, Buckingham Commons is fully leased, both the apartments and the office space. New units came on line in the Cascade last year at the Knowlton Building. More is planned at 116 W Main (the linear surface parking lot whose developer will soon be announced).

Across West Main Street from the Cascade, Nothnagle is converting the historic building at 217 W Main into its corporate headquarters. Right on West Main, a new restaurant will be opening later this fall in the former Zip's Jazz Cafe at 204 W Main. And proposals for reuse of the Lofton Building will be solicited by the City this summer. And finally, let's not forget the MASSIVE Broad St Tunnel project currently underway that will really help bridge the gap between the Susan B neighborhood and the Cascade.

The biggest issue facing the Cascade and the West End in general, is the miserable appearance of the Open Door Mission. There I go again suggesting that we remove poor people. Shit, when did I become such a Tea Bagger?

Our developers tend to be much more reserved and behind-the-scenes than the Paladinos.

At least concerning this particular developer, I must say that's turned out rather well for Rochester!

We've been hearing quite a bit about Buffalo's most notorious developer over the past week. And we'll be hearing a lot more.

If this happened down in NYC, I like to think that the NY Post would put Mark Aesch's picture on the front page, and use the heading "AESCH HOLE"

This is arguably the best comment ever posted on this board. Nice!

Here's some updated info re: the economic contribution of immigrants in other cities.

Analysis: Immigrants earning high wages
Bulletin, The (Bend, OR) - Sunday, April 18, 2010
Author: Julia Preston The Bulletin

ST . LOUIS — After a career as a corporate executive with her name in brass on the office door, Amparo Kollman-Moore, an immigrant from Colombia, likes to drive a Jaguar and shop at Saks. “It was a good life,” she said, “a really good ride.”

As a member of this city’s economic elite, Kollman-Moore is not unusual among immigrants who live in St . Louis . According to a new analysis of census data, more than half of the working immigrants in this metropolitan area hold higher-paying white-collar jobs — as professionals, technicians or administrators — rather than lower-paying blue-collar and service jobs.

Among American cities, St . Louis is not an exception, the data show. In 14 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas, including Boston, New York and San Francisco, more immigrants are employed in white-collar occupations than in lower-wage work like construction, manufacturing or cleaning.

The data belie a common perception in the nation’s hard-fought debate over immigration that the surge in immigration in the last two decades has overwhelmed the United States with low-wage foreign laborers.

Over all, the analysis showed, the 25 million immigrants who live in the country’s largest metropolitan areas (about two-thirds of all immigrants in the country) are nearly evenly distributed across the job and income spectrum.

“The United States is getting a more varied and economically important flow of immigrants than the public seems to realize,” said David Dyssegaard Kallick, director for immigration research at the Fiscal Policy Institute, a nonpartisan group in New York that conducted the data analysis for The New York Times.

The findings are significant because Americans’ views of immigration are based largely on the work immigrants do, new research shows.

“Americans, whether they are rich or poor, are much more in favor of high-skilled immigrants ,” said Jens Hainmueller, a political scientist at MIT and co-author of a survey on attitudes toward immigration with Michael Hiscox, professor of government at Harvard. The survey of 1,600 adults, which examined the reasons for anti-immigration sentiment in the United States, was published in February in American Political Science Review.

Americans are inclined to welcome upper-tier immigrants , believing they contribute to economic growth without burdening public services, the study found. More than 60 percent of Americans are opposed to allowing more low-skilled foreign laborers, regarding them as more likely to be a drag on the economy.

Those kinds of views, in turn, have informed recent efforts by Congress to remake the immigration system. A measure unveiled last month by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Charles Schumer D-N.Y., aims to reshape the legal system to give priority to high-skilled, high-earning immigrants , offering narrower channels for low-wage workers.

Yet, while visa bottlenecks persist for high-skilled immigrants , on the whole, the census data show, the current system has brought a range of foreign workers across skill and income levels. The analysis suggests, moreover, that the immigrants played a central role in the cycle of the economic growth of cities over the last two decades.

Cities with thriving immigrant populations tended to be those that prospered the most.

“Economic growth in urban areas has been clearly connected with an increase in immigrants ’ share of the local labor force,” Kallick said.

The analysis showed the growing cities were not the ones, like St . Louis , that drew primarily high-earning foreigners. In fact, the St . Louis area had one of the slowest-growing economies.

Rather, the fastest economic growth between 1990 and 2008 was in cities like Atlanta, Denver and Phoenix that received large influxes of immigrants with a mix of occupations.

The figures on jobs and earnings of immigrants in American cities are based on an analysis by the Fiscal Policy Institute of census data for the 25 largest metropolitan areas from 1990 to 2008. The data from 2008 are the most current in-depth census statistics on immigrants ’ places of residence and earnings; they also include the first year of the severe recession. The analysis includes legal and illegal immigrants and naturalized citizens.

Immigrants from China have also prospered here as entrepreneurs, creating jobs for other immigrants . Sandy Tsai, 59, said she and her husband chose St . Louis to start a business because they noticed it was in the middle of the country. Now their company, Baily, makes egg rolls, noodles and fortune cookies in three local factories that distribute to thousands of Chinese restaurants nationwide. Tsai said her employees ranged from egg-roll makers earning $8 an hour to laboratory researchers with advanced degrees in food science.

“It’s a good group, a good combination,” Tsai said. But despite the hard times in St . Louis , low-wage workers have not always been easy to find, she said, and her business expansion was slowed because of it.

Anyone think they have this issue all figured out? I'd be curious as to ideas centered on development projects that might help integrate student populations, anyone feel development could be a significant part of the solution?

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100419/GROUP01/304190006/1001/BUSINESS


College campus 'islands' feeding area's brain drain

It seems college students in Rochester live on an island. But it's certainly not a deserted one.

This island actually is pretty well stocked with food, activities and friends. In fact, there's so much on these self-sufficient campuses that students rarely feel the need to leave.

"I know people who lived here for four years and didn't know that Charlotte beach existed," said Mollie Foust, a 2009 University of Rochester graduate.

So how can we expect young people to feel connected to a community if they don't ever see it? Foust and others think we need to get in their face, tell them what Rochester has to offer and help identify career opportunities.

If we don't, we are going to lose them.

The truth is we've been losing them for years. From 1990 to 2004, the population of 25- to 34-year-olds in the 52 counties of upstate declined by more than 25 percent. In the Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Binghamton areas, the population of young adults fell by more than 30 percent, according to separate analyses of U.S. census data by The New York Times and the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Keeping smart, young people in the area was the focus of a presentation by Foust and two other young people Thursday at UR's Alumni and Advancement Center. These students, who were part of a larger group that gathered in Syracuse last year to explore the issue of "bright flight" (more commonly known as brain drain) and discuss solutions, shared ideas from their research and started a community conversation.

It was refreshing to see business leaders, city employees and young professionals in attendance because losing young, talented people in our community will mean losing valuable employees, first-time homeowners and future community leaders. The students were clear — we are all stakeholders.

We didn't come to any solutions, but dozens of fresh ideas on how to solve this problem kept the night's conversation going.

Many of them, though, seemed rooted in theme: curriculum needs to be more of a community-based program. Internships, volunteering and more community engagement are necessary if we want young people to call Rochester home.

Derek Crowe, a fifth-year student at the University of Rochester who's studying biomedical engineering, summed it up nicely: "Schools and communities are very different things, but I don't think they need to be."

I graduated from U of R in 2006 with a BA in economics, and as a result I am very familiar with this problem.

Rochester doesn't have many opportunities for entry level positions. Those positions that do exist, are focused in certain markets. From what I remember about senior year, the employment prospects in Rochester were as follows: Engineers had the most options. A few of my friends who were engineers applied to jobs at Xerox, and B&L. Other than engineering positions, Xerox and B&L didn't advertise much else. I've also heard that Gleason would take kids out of college. If you were looking to go into some sort of corporate environment, Paychex was your best bet. I still have a few friends who are at Paychex, climbing the corporate ladder. I knew one or two people that got jobs in finance working for small shops up there. I can't think of anyone who got jobs in PR/marketing.

It was pretty disheartening at the time. Coming out of UR (good school) with a degree from one of UR's most prestigious departments (economics) and not having any luck. It wasn't only me either. I'd say that maybe 15% of my econ classmates stayed behind. The feeling I came away with is that Rochester isn't a place where you start your career, but rather a place you move back to after you have some experience and are no longer looking for entry level jobs.

That's my two-cents

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100419/GROUP01/304190006/1001/BUSINESS

The truth is we've been losing them for years. From 1990 to 2004, the population of 25- to 34-year-olds in the 52 counties of upstate declined by more than 25 percent. In the Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Binghamton areas, the population of young adults fell by more than 30 percent, according to separate analyses of U.S. census data by The New York Times and the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Its not so much that this age demographic is simply leaving the upstate metros, although they are. The downstate NYC region also has an outflow of natives from this age bracket. The difference is that the NYC metro attracts lots of newcomers from this age bracket to replenish those who've left. No so for the upstate metros.

Our future is in high tech and this is where we outshine our larger upstate neighbors. Here are the stats for Apple Friendly metros out of the 200 largest Rochester ranks #46. The Stats:

#46 Rochester NY 766,743 adults in DMA (desgnated market area) 172,901 Apple users 22.5%

#61 Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY 1,089,421 adults in DMA 231,391 Apple users 21.20%

#76 Buffalo NY 1,252,435 adults in DMA 245,067 Apple users 19.60%

#87 Syracuse NY 815,631 adukts in DMA 155,459 Apple users 19.10%

I knew Buffalo and Albany were bigger markets than us, just going by the concerts that go to both of those places but pass us by, but I am surprised that the Syracuse market has more adults than us.

If you want to check out the full list you can get t here - source: http://smrb.com/web/guest/apple-market-ranker

Is there some correlation between Apple friendly metropolitan regions and any particular metric of growth/prosperity that I'm not aware of?? If so, I'd like to know what that metric is, and what the correlation is.

Our future is in high tech and this is where we outshine our larger upstate neighbors. Here are the stats for Apple Friendly metros out of the 200 largest Rochester ranks #46. The Stats:

#46 Rochester NY 766,743 adults in DMA (desgnated market area) 172,901 Apple users 22.5%

#61 Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY 1,089,421 adults in DMA 231,391 Apple users 21.20%

#76 Buffalo NY 1,252,435 adults in DMA 245,067 Apple users 19.60%

#87 Syracuse NY 815,631 adukts in DMA 155,459 Apple users 19.10%

I knew Buffalo and Albany were bigger markets than us, just going by the concerts that go to both of those places but pass us by, but I am surprised that the Syracuse market has more adults than us.

If you want to check out the full list you can get t here - source: http://smrb.com/web/guest/apple-market-ranker

The point is that the stats indicate that we have a higher percentage of techies than our larger neighbors which should give us an advantage in the 21st century. Is it a leading indicator? I do not know, but look at the top of the list and you see the high growth cities, look at the bottom of the list and you see West Virginia, Arkansas and Mississippi.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the statistic... but a higher percentage of Mac users does not necessarily equal a higher percentage of Techies.

In fact PC users were traditionally more "techie" back from the days when PC's were more complicated to use, and Apples were like eToasters (just turn them on).

On top of that, I know a lot of hardcore Techies that wouldn't touch a Mac unless it was with an aluminum baseball bat.

;)

I'd say substitute the term 'techies' with 'creative types'.

Moses....A couple points regarding the interrelationship between college students and a community.

First in the case of Rochester, I believe that our region has above average number of technical students (Engineering programs as an example). There is no way our region can absorbs so many engineers….we have to expect to lose a high percentage to other regions in the country. Even the total of number of college students that are generated every year maybe way too much for our community to absorb and having a region with a declining economy/population makes this situation worse.

Another point is the type of student that exists in our region. Now this is very speculative…just some theory that I have!!! Again….in general….there appears to be a higher level of technical students than general/liberal arts students. And technical students interact with the community much differently than a liberal arts student…in the area of arts/culture/sports/entertainment/retail sales/restaurant visits…etc. It’s a generalization but I do believe it has an impact on the community. To be blunt…technical students tend to stay within their college….study long hours and not relate with the community as liberal arts students. They tend to spend many hours on the computer….video games…software…etc. With all of these activities….I don’t see that technical college students have much interaction with the general community….but I would suspect that other college majors like the Eastman School of music students, liberal arts majors…etc. would relate better and more often with the general community…..Just a theory!!!

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the statistic... but a higher percentage of Mac users does not necessarily equal a higher percentage of Techies.

In fact PC users were traditionally more "techie" back from the days when PC's were more complicated to use, and Apples were like eToasters (just turn them on).

On top of that, I know a lot of hardcore Techies that wouldn't touch a Mac unless it was with an aluminum baseball bat.

;)

:ohno:It was not just macs included, it was also Apple Touch, I Phone etc. Shows we are more in tune with places like San Francisco than our larger neighbors like Albany. I think it shows a greater willingness to embrace new technologies and by extension change.

Moses....A couple points regarding the interrelationship between college students and a community.

First in the case of Rochester, I believe that our region has above average number of technical students (Engineering programs as an example). There is no way our region can absorbs so many engineers….

Can you really count it as a loss if a student comes here from out of town for college then leaves after college? It still helps the economy far more than if the student never came here in the first place. We can make money and create recession proof jobs by taking the raw materials from another area (High School kid from NYC) and turning him into a finished product (College graduate) then exporting him/her to another region. Just as Kodak did with it's product back in the day. I doubt that a very large percentage of Notre Dame graduates stick around South Bend after graduation.

Fubo....I never stated that our college programs are a "loss" for our region. I just analyzed what is happening and how it relates to our community. The university system in metro Rochester is a great, valuable Asset ...it is in essence a valuable "manufacturing facility" that creates value on a raw natural material (young students). Unfortunately, our region has done a terrible job of creating regional value from this asset. This is true for just about every asset we have in our region. We just don't have the ability to properly select, develop and market the many assets our region possess.

I agree with the analysis that Rochester's student population is heavily technical, and that type of population is inherently somewhat less active in a community and hard to absorb into a single region's workforce. But I also have met plenty of talented liberal arts style students coming out of UR, Roberts, SJF and Brockport who grow attached to Rochester while at school and want to stay and work in business roles. I believe Rochester has a huge opportunity to draw more entrepreneurial and hi-tech business to Rochester using the sales pitch of having a plentiful market of talented and loyal (less flight risk) employees readily available. This could be aided by the oh-so-controversial use government funds to help the cost of building re-development and pro-business tax breaks, but I think the benefit of establishing a more prominent young professional population would be well worth it.

On a side note, anyone heard any updates or even rumors about what that Rite-Aid developer who bought the Culver Road armory is planning to do with the site? Anything on Main & Clinton? It's been so quiet in the news lately, I figure rumors are more fun than nothing...

:ohno:It was not just macs included, it was also Apple Touch, I Phone etc. Shows we are more in tune with places like San Francisco than our larger neighbors like Albany. I think it shows a greater willingness to embrace new technologies and by extension change.

OK. But then don't call them Techies... They are Early-Adopter Consumers. Lots of real Techies own 10-year-old phones. And owning a new iPhone doesn't mean they have a higher technical understanding.

:)

Slayton, I agree that it's been a little quiet regarding development news. With that in mind, I'd like to get everyone's take on that one big issue we hear about from time to time...The High Speed Railroad!!! I'm curious what everyone thinks about this. Good for upstate NY, or waste of govt. money? I tend to be more of an optimist, so I don't see many draw backs to the plans. That being said, I'm also not naive, and I know that drawbacks that I haven't considered do exist. I would be curious to hear what you guys think, good and bad.

Here's my take:

Since I moved to NYC in May 2007, I've flown jetBlue to and from Rochester enough that I just received a cease and desist order because of all the letters I've written them demanding they put my name on the side of one of their planes. Seriously though, I've probably made close to 45 round trip flights. I can tell you that it takes up a lot of time on my Friday evening.

Leave my office and take the E train to Jamaica Queens - 30min
Take the AirTrain from Jamaica, Queens to Terminal 5 - 20min
Check in/drop off luggage - 20min
Get through security - 20min
Downtime/eat dinner - 30min
Board aircraft - 30min
Taxi to runway - 20min (on a good night at JFK)
Fly up to ROC - 50min
De-Plane/pick up luggage - 15min


That's about 4 hours under the BEST conditions. Anyone who's flown out of JFK between 7p-9p knows how bad it can get with all of the flights leaving for Europe at that time of day. Now, consider that Rochester is roughly 370miles from Penn Station on the Empire Corridor. With modern high-speed trains running with average speeds of roughly 200mph, you're looking at around a 2hr travel time, with much less hassle on both ends, and better amenities on board. Not to mention that trains aren't nearly as susceptible to weather delays as planes are. It's my understanding that high speed rail is highly competitive if not superior to air travel for times under 4 hours.

I would also wonder if this would be a draw for companies that are considering establishing a presence in upstate NY. Being 2-hrs from NYC, and a little over an hour from Toronto (if the line were to run up there) has got to be appealing on some level. And as crazy as it sounds, a travel time of 2-hrs opens up the possibility of commuting. I know that the it takes almost 2 hours to get into the city from the far ends of Metro North and the LIRR, and there are people who do it.

I know that it won't be easy to implement this either. High speed rail is much different than the existing freight rail (which is what the Acela runs on). Entirely new tracks would have to be constructed to accommodate these new trains, which isn't going to be cheap. Also, I'm not sure how much demand will actually exist once/if this is built. I know that in 2008, about 624,820 people flew to Buffalo and 275,540 Rochester out of JFK alone. That doesn't include the people leaving from LaGuardia, or Newark. AND it doesn't include people going to Albany Syracuse, and maybe even Toronto who would be able to take the train as well. My guess is that you're looking at somewhere between 1.5MM-2MM people that you could market this to.

So that's what I have to offer on the matter. I'd like to hear what you guys think.

Moses….I am a strong supporter of high speed rail….connecting our region with Toronto and NYC…two of the most prominent world class cities. But everyone must realize that this is a “generational investment” and don’t expect economic returns for decades forward. Once the system is established….investment capital will develop near these rail stations and a critical mass of benefits will emerge. So many times we tend look at short term benefits to dictate where to spend public money. The only short term benefits with high speed rail is a substantial increase in rail construction jobs…but the massive benefits will be medium and long term as our strategic location on the rail grid attracts major investments.

Our nation must look at other forms of transportation other the current dominance of the gas guzzling, polluting interstate grid system that thrives on the use of personal cars.

lOOKING FOR SOME HELP

Does anyone have a few nice pictures of Rochester, a nearby vineyard, and or the Hill Cumorah Pageant that they are willing to allow me to use in a Buffalo Rising story. Sorry to invade the development forum but you guys don't seem to respond anyplace else.

Slayton,

Here's my take:

Since I moved to NYC in May 2007, I've flown jetBlue to and from Rochester enough that I just received a cease and desist order because of all the letters I've written them demanding they put my name on the side of one of their planes. Seriously though, I've probably made close to 45 round trip flights. I can tell you that it takes up a lot of time on my Friday evening.

Leave my office and take the E train to Jamaica Queens - 30min
Take the AirTrain from Jamaica, Queens to Terminal 5 - 20min
Check in/drop off luggage - 20min
Get through security - 20min
Downtime/eat dinner - 30min
Board aircraft - 30min
Taxi to runway - 20min (on a good night at JFK)
Fly up to ROC - 50min
De-Plane/pick up luggage - 15min


That's about 4 hours under the BEST conditions.

So that's what I have to offer on the matter. I'd like to hear what you guys think.

I think you need a reality check. Here is a more accurate time estimate for train travel.


Leave your office and travel to train station - 30min
Check in/drop off luggage - 20min
Downtime/eat dinner - 30min
Board train - 20min
Train travel time - 120min (on a good day)
Stops - Mid Hudson, Albany, Utica/Rome, and Syracuse (20 min each) 80 min
De-train/pick up luggage - 15min


Total 340 minutes under the best conditions, that is 5 hours and 40 minutes, basically 50% longer than flying and probably more expensive to boot.

fubo, I'm not sure I agree with your estimate. While I realize that high-speed trains aren't going to travel at "Ludicrous Speed" and make trips to and from upstate instantaneous, I think they will be slightly faster than what you're predicting. Specifically, Penn Station is in midtown Manhattan, not in Jamaica Queens, and is much easier to get to. Also, the check-in process is much simpler with trains, as you don't check baggage or have to go through security. Not having to worry about getting stuck in a long security line, because a metal detector is broken, allows me to cut things much closer when traveling by train. Whenever I take Amtrak to Philadelphia, I arrive about 10-15min before scheduled departure, and enjoy a seamless process with little downtime. Also, station stops on trains aren't anywhere near 20min (see posted video). You can't have trains stopping for that length of time when doing so delays the trains behind it.

Allow me go give you my estimate of what a typical trip would look like:


Leave my office and take the E train to Penn Station - 15min
Print ticket from kiosk, and wait for boarding announcement - 10min
Board train, and wait for departure - 10min
Travel time at 200mph to Rochester - 120min
Stops at Poughkeepsie, Albany, Utica/Rome, Syracuse - 2min each (8min total)
Arrive at Rochester, leave train, and meet friends picking me up - 5min


That's roughly 2hrs 50min door to door, still better than flying.

The Hayate train on the Tohoku Shinkansen line in Japan can make the trip from Tokyo to Hachinohe (593km, roughly the same distance from NYC to Rocheter) in 3hours. This is going 170mph through worse terrain on tracks that are 30 years old. With that in mind, I don't think that 200mph, or perhaps better, is an unreasonable estimate for trains running through upstate NY.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru7AH4CYU8w

I recently heard through the grapevine that Rainaldi is going to make his plans for the Culver Road Armory public very soon. Supposedly going for site plan approval soon too. Rumored to be a mix of retail and office going into the historic building and they are trying to lure a destination retailer not found anywhere else in upstate. Keep your fingers crossed.

High speed rail is great, but what is proposed for upstate's Empire Corridor maxes out at 110-125 mph. CSX refuses to allow passenger trains above 90 mph on their rails. It's a clusterf*$k, but it will almost surely result in a nice new intermodal train station for Rochester, so that's good. Still, it will be a vast improvement over flying into JFK and making your way into Manhattan.

Just curious, does fubo stand for "Fuck You Barack Obama?" Is that why I see these moron Tea Baggers with that sign? The racial connotations mocking "FUBU" lends further credence to mainstream claims that the Tea Party is a modern day lynch mob. Bunch of classy Americans, those Conservatives. Where were they when Bush was destroying the Clinton surplus? These are the same jackasses who felt Clinton should be impeached for a blowjob. My apologies for these way off-topic remarks, but is anybody interested in some FUN (Fuck You Newt) shirts?

High speed rail is great, but what is proposed for upstate's Empire Corridor maxes out at 110-125 mph. CSX refuses to allow passenger trains above 90 mph on their rails. It's a clusterf*$k, but it will almost surely result in a nice new intermodal train station for Rochester, so that's good.

If that's the case, then I say bag the plans. If we're committed to high speed rail, then we need to do it right. Build new tracks that serve high speed trains, and only high speed trains. Sharing tracks with freight trains is going to be a mess, and largely defeat the purpose of high-speed rail. RTC, line please....

fubo, I'm not sure I agree with your estimate.


Leave my office and take the E train to Penn Station - 15min
Print ticket from kiosk, and wait for boarding announcement - 10min
Board train, and wait for departure - 10min
Travel time at 200mph to Rochester - 120min
Stops at Poughkeepsie, Albany, Utica/Rome, Syracuse - 2min each (8min total)
Arrive at Rochester, leave train, and meet friends picking me up - 5min



Correct. I have taken the Amtrak from Penn Station to Rochester several times in the last several months, and I'm actually taking it again tomorrow. Altogether (NYC apartment door to ROC house door) it takes ~7.5 hours currently by train, compared to the 5+ hours for the whole ordeal with flying (especially if you, like me, HATE having to deal with missing a flight, and consequently get to the airport 2 hours early every time). This is well worth it for me to be able to get work done on my computer for about 6 hours, compared to about a half hour of the flying time. If they could reduce the time by train to under 4.5 hours I would take it every time.

And as for the high-speed aspect, from what I understood they are currently studying the various stretches of track that currently take the Amtrak train speed down to about 10 miles an hour. Those probably add at least 1.5 hours to the travel time, and certainly must be cleared up before they can construct a new high speed track. Regardless, I think there is plenty of progress that can be made without constructing all new track, and CSX can have its arm twisted in more than one way if need be.

I'm glad to see some money being spent on this, but I would obviously like to see more. I think currently there is less public support than there should be since many people attach a similar negative stigma to trains as they do buses. If politicians really want to get widespread upstate NY support for this they will need some help selling the idea of passenger trains because many upstaters have never taken a train before.

Just curious, does fubo stand for "Fuck You Barack Obama?" Is that why I see these moron Tea Baggers with that sign? The racial connotations mocking "FUBU" lends further credence to mainstream claims that the Tea Party is a modern day lynch mob. Bunch of classy Americans, those Conservatives. Where were they when Bush was destroying the Clinton surplus? These are the same jackasses who felt Clinton should be impeached for a blowjob. My apologies for these way off-topic remarks, but is anybody interested in some FUN (Fuck You Newt) shirts?

Hadn't heard of FUBO myself, but did a Google search and came up with this (again, I didn't know any of this, but it may be old news to you)...

"Nevertheless the Bob we speak of is the founder and creator of FUBOwear, Bob Lonsberry"

Just curious, does fubo stand for "Fuck You Barack Obama?"

Haha, for those of you on this forum that decided it was worth chasing away a valuable contributor like RochesterAddict, this should get you going!!

For all those of you wanting to talk about development, you're welcome!

There is an interesting article on City Newspaper's website regarding downtown housing:

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/articles/2010/04/Downtown-in-demand/

It's interesting to see that the vacancy rate of downtown units in Rochester is only 3.8 percent, when the nationwide norm is typically around 5 percent.

If that's the case, then I say bag the plans. If we're committed to high speed rail, then we need to do it right. Build new tracks that serve high speed trains, and only high speed trains. Sharing tracks with freight trains is going to be a mess, and largely defeat the purpose of high-speed rail. RTC, line please....Nah, you need to learn to walk before you run, and the US will need to get its rail system up to, say, British standards before we can even think about Japanese standards. In the UK, most trains run at about 100 mph, but there is a train every 30-60 minutes to just about anywhere you could want to go, even small towns and villages.

Seriously, if there is currently only one 79 mph train from Rochester to Cleveland that leaves at 11 PM and arrives at 3:30 AM, surely the immediate next step is a second train during the daylight hours, not a 200 mph electrified bullet train running every 15 minutes. If we haven't been able to achieve the former, why would anyone think we have the means or know-how to do the latter?

Haha, for those of you on this forum that decided it was worth chasing away a valuable contributor like RochesterAddict, this should get you going!!

For all those of you wanting to talk about development, you're welcome!

RochesterAddict wasn't chased away, he chose to run away.

Just curious, does fubo stand for "Fuck You Barack Obama?" Is that why I see these moron Tea Baggers with that sign? The racial connotations mocking "FUBU" lends further credence to mainstream claims that the Tea Party is a modern day lynch mob. Bunch of classy Americans, those Conservatives. Where were they when Bush was destroying the Clinton surplus? These are the same jackasses who felt Clinton should be impeached for a blowjob. My apologies for these way off-topic remarks, but is anybody interested in some FUN (Fuck You Newt) shirts?

Lol you need a chill pill my friend. I am not familiar with the Obama reference. Fubo is how my 2 year old tries to say funny boy when he is joking with me

Nah, you need to learn to walk before you run, and the US will need to get its rail system up to, say, British standards before we can even think about Japanese standards. In the UK, most trains run at about 100 mph, but there is a train every 30-60 minutes to just about anywhere you could want to go, even small towns and villages.

Seriously, if there is currently only one 79 mph train from Rochester to Cleveland that leaves at 11 PM and arrives at 3:30 AM, surely the immediate next step is a second train during the daylight hours, not a 200 mph electrified bullet train running every 15 minutes. If we haven't been able to achieve the former, why would anyone think we have the means or know-how to do the latter?

Frankly, I think that we'd be doing ourselves a disservice if we try to get our standards up to either. The US is much bigger than either of those two countries, and deserves a rail system that is tailored to it's own needs. Right off the bat, I'd say we should look at China's high speed rail system for ideas and inspiration. Granted we're not going to be shuffling 1 Billion people around, but our countries do have similar sizes, as well as population distributions (highly populated eastern coasts). Also, China has only recently begun to develop high speed railways, so we can probably learn a thing or two by seeing how they develop these railways from scratch.

Also, I'm not sure I understand your argument for adding conventional trains rather than developing high speed rail lines. In my opinion, these are two totally different things. The problem with conventional passenger rail is that it's slow, and shares tracks with freight lines, which can lead to all sorts of delays. Adding additional train service is only going to gum up the works even more. The purpose of having high-speed lines is to provide a fast, and clean mode of transportation that is competitive with the airlines for regional travel. We haven't been able to achieve the aforementioned "former" because our existing lines are at or near capacity, and there's no room to. As for us not having the means or know-how to do the "latter"....c'mon, this is American engineering we're talking about. We've built railroads before, and we can sure do it again.

I think you need a reality check. Here is a more accurate time estimate for train travel.


Leave your office and travel to train station - 30min
Check in/drop off luggage - 20min
Downtime/eat dinner - 30min
Board train - 20min
Train travel time - 120min (on a good day)
Stops - Mid Hudson, Albany, Utica/Rome, and Syracuse (20 min each) 80 min
De-train/pick up luggage - 15min


Total 340 minutes under the best conditions, that is 5 hours and 40 minutes, basically 50% longer than flying and probably more expensive to boot.

i'm assuming you've never used amtrak.

check in/drop off luggage- 2 to 3 minutes
board train- 8 to 10 minutes.
stops- unless its a scheduled break less than 10 minutes each.
the biggest concern with the train today is that the rails are largely owned by freight companies. freight trains take precedence and can back up passenger trains for very long periods.

this would not be a problem when the new rails are installed.

on cost, round trip flights to NYC on jet blue are actually cheaper than taking amtrak, but only because amtrak's highest fares are in its northeast corridors.

going anywhere to the west is considerably cheaper on amtrak.

We haven't been able to achieve the aforementioned "former" because our existing lines are at or near capacity, and there's no room to. As for us not having the means or know-how to do the "latter"....c'mon, this is American engineering we're talking about. We've built railroads before, and we can sure do it again.I'm pretty sure the reason that rail service in the US has languished is because of a lack of operating funding and equipment. Amtrak can't run more trains because they simply don't have the cars and the money to hire the crew. Not because the lines are at capacity already.

Regarding my statement about the means and know-how, there is essentially no American passenger rail design or manufacturing industry today. Amtrak's closest thing to "high speed rail" (Acela) was built by a partnership of two French and German companies. While I'm sure the US has the capability of eventually developing the expertise needed to design and build a 200 mph rail system, right now it would be like a country deciding to build a spaceship to land on the Moon when their most advanced aircraft is currently a canvas and plywood biplane. I just think if you've got a Sopwith Camel, your next step is more like a Spitfire than a Saturn rocket.

i'm assuming you've never used amtrak.

check in/drop off luggage- 2 to 3 minutes
board train- 8 to 10 minutes.
stops- unless its a scheduled break less than 10 minutes each.
the biggest concern with the train today is that the rails are largely owned by freight companies. freight trains take precedence and can back up passenger trains for very long periods.

this would not be a problem when the new rails are installed.

on cost, round trip flights to NYC on jet blue are actually cheaper than taking amtrak, but only because amtrak's highest fares are in its northeast corridors.

going anywhere to the west is considerably cheaper on amtrak.I have used Amtrack to Chicago. All of the stops were in the 15-20 minute range. 375 miles at a top speed of 90-110 mph and you are still talking a trip more expensive and atleast 2 hours longer than flying. 200 mph would be great but that is not even a part of the discussion for NY. My guess is that the money will all end up downstate. Back in the70's NY passed a multi-billion dollar bond act for High Speed NYC-Buffalo rail. All of the money ended up going to the NYC subway system. High speed rail will not come to upstate NY in our lifetimes.

I have used Amtrack to Chicago. All of the stops were in the 15-20 minute range. 375 miles at a top speed of 90-110 mph and you are still talking a trip more expensive and atleast 2 hours longer than flying. 200 mph would be great but that is not even a part of the discussion for NY. My guess is that the money will all end up downstate. Back in the70's NY passed a multi-billion dollar bond act for High Speed NYC-Buffalo rail. All of the money ended up going to the NYC subway system. High speed rail will not come to upstate NY in our lifetimes.



i'm somewhat surprised.
i've taken amtrak to and from portland, oregon twice. not one stop, except for my train change at chicago(several hours), my train change at spokane(about a half hour), and a scheduled layover in havre, montana(customs runs dogs through the train looking for drugs for all of 15 to 20 minutes) lasted more than 10 minutes. many of the stops between rochester and chicago....elyra, ohio....toledo, ohio,....south bend, indiana.. for example, the train pulled up, stopped, one or two people got on/off, then the train left, literally in less than five minutes. same deal going from buffalo to albany.

as far as cost goes, when i flew from portland to rochester, round trip, it cost me about 600 dollars. a round trip train ticket cost me about 220 dollars.
granted it took two days to get there via train, but it was alot cheaper.

Revised CityGate plan takes shape...

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100422/NEWS01/4220328/Revised-CityGate-plan-takes-shape&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL

Revised CityGate plan takes shape...

"CityGate is expected to offer a mix of single-family homes and townhouses, as well as apartments totaling 1,104 residential units. There would be a 350-room hotel, plus 193,200 square feet of office space and 302,390 square feet of retail."

People feel like this is really going to happen? I think they have a good target market for people who want to have a hybrid suburb-urban type neighborhood, and I'm definitely happy this portion of the Canal Front is getting a higher and better use.

Let's hear some pros & cons. And what is Costello's reputation as far as Rochester area development? I've seen his name around a bit, I imagine someone has a fairly strong opinion one way or the other...

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/graphics/100422_CityGate_map.jpg

Where were they when Bush was destroying the Clinton surplus? These are the same jackasses who felt Clinton should be impeached for a blowjob.

there was never a clinton budget surplus. this is a myth.

clinton ran a balanced budget one year. (it wasn't even a balanced budget, there was still a 17 billion dollar net gap, but in terms of federal deficit spending this is basically nothing)

Fiscal
Year
Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

these are the real numbers from the department of treasury.


now, i will admit clinton showed the smallest net gains in national debt since prior to carter, however, the myth of clinton budget surpluses needs to stop.

this country has been financing its future through deficit spending continuously since the sixties, and probably as a general approach since the great depression.


sorry, not development news. i just felt like a little liberal myth smashing.

JSmith I get what you're saying, and I agree with the principal that it's generally advisable to walk before you can run, and that you shouldn't try to build a Saturn V rocket if you haven't undertaken similar projects before. But in this case, we're not doing any of that. We're talking about building a high speed rail network. I would also argue that the Acela (the red-headed step child of high speed rail) has allowed us to get our feet wet. It's now time to take that next step and build dedicated railways capable of accommodating 200mph+ trains. And while there may not be any American companies capable of building the trains right now, this is a free market economy. We can buy them from some one who does. How many poor countries have nationalized airlines who fly 777s or 737s? A lot. Or, if the demand for high speed train cars turns out to be that big in the US, I'm sure someone will step up to the plate and build them here. Frankly it's a small piece of the high speed rail puzzle.

there was never a clinton budget surplus. this is a myth.

clinton ran a balanced budget one year. (it wasn't even a balanced budget, there was still a 17 billion dollar net gap, but in terms of federal deficit spending this is basically nothing)

Fiscal
Year
Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

these are the real numbers from the department of treasury.


now, i will admit clinton showed the smallest net gains in national debt since prior to carter, however, the myth of clinton budget surpluses needs to stop.

this country has been financing its future through deficit spending continuously since the sixties, and probably as a general approach since the great depression.


sorry, not development news. i just felt like a little liberal myth smashing.


Still the question is legit - Where were the tea bag a-holes while the Bush regime ran up record debt? If you look around the nets you will find that this is not unique to Republican presidents. There is a chart which shows a comparison of debt and deficit levels through presidents going back to Rosevelt - You got it the Dems did vastly better in efforts to keep spending within our means.

steel, im not going to disagree.

i'm just getting tired of the blind towing of the party line. people who support the crap obama is doing just because he's a democrat are just as ignorant as the idiot tea party folks that only hate his policy because its not republican.

anyone who believes either party isn't out to fuck america in the name of big business and big profits is a tool bag in need of serious help.

"CityGate is expected to offer a mix of single-family homes and townhouses, as well as apartments totaling 1,104 residential units. There would be a 350-room hotel, plus 193,200 square feet of office space and 302,390 square feet of retail."

People feel like this is really going to happen? I think they have a good target market for people who want to have a hybrid suburb-urban type neighborhood, and I'm definitely happy this portion of the Canal Front is getting a higher and better use.

Let's hear some pros & cons. And what is Costello's reputation as far as Rochester area development? I've seen his name around a bit, I imagine someone has a fairly strong opinion one way or the other...

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/graphics/100422_CityGate_map.jpg

this is the first i've heard of this. interesting plans. are their any renderings of elevations, or any street view type renderings?
i'm curious to see the intended street level nature of this project.

steel, im not going to disagree.

i'm just getting tired of the blind towing of the party line. people who support the crap obama is doing just because he's a democrat are just as ignorant as the idiot tea party folks that only hate his policy because its not republican.

anyone who believes either party isn't out to fuck america in the name of big business and big profits is a tool bag in need of serious help.

Well I support Obama but, not because he is a Democrat and my poor opinion of Bush has nothing to do with his party affiliation -though I have to say, the Republican party today is filled with a bunch of hypocritical morons who allow idiot Limbaugh lead them by the nose into dirt bag stupidity.

VP, there are not any public renderings or elevations yet, although the buildings will range from 2-3 stories of various sizes depending on districts. Besides density, the best thing about the project, which the article did not discuss, is effective integration of mixed use buildings and parking. The blocks contain internal surface lots and garages which maximize building density to create a walkable and drivable neighborhood.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for CityGate can be found on the City of Rochester's website for those interested in learning more about the project.

http://cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589939036

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has not yet been released to the public.

I don’t know how anyone could support the Republicans/conservatives. They just represent the rich and powerful and have disdain for the masses (middle class and the poor). And the massive public debt is the direct result of their tax cuts for the rich and a trillion dollar unneeded war in Iraq. Also their deregulation of the financial markets created a casino mentality in our financial markets causing the most depressed economy since the great depression. Now the Republican party is being heavily influenced by a racist tea party fanatics! Sure the Democrats/liberals have their deficiencies ….but compared to the Republican Party, Democrats are our saviors!

That's a very politically blinded argument. The whole D is good, R is bad mindset is ignorant. It generalizes everything into one camp or another, when in reality the Democrats also supported those deregulation policies. And even when they didn't, they did nothing to reverse them when they had total control later. I'm tired of hearing Democrats complain about policies started under Reagan and ignore the fact that Congress was under Democrat control at the time. Likewise Republicans complain about policies under Clinton while congress was Republican. If "republican" policies are so bad, then why aren't democrats changing them? Why not? Because they support them too. There are plenty of democrat policies that also led to this fiasco. So forget about labeling anyone of them as our Savior. That is BS.

Homestar….my statement was a broad generalization and I did state that Democrats are also tainted by power and money. In any democracy power and money will always have a dominant influence…its part of human nature. BUT again in general…the Republicans prime interest is with the powerful and rich, the Democrats interests are for the masses (middle income people and the poor). It’s easy to say both parties are tainted by power and money so both are equally at fault. This is an incorrect statement. The influence by Republicans is MUCH worse than with Democrats….its NOT equal!!!

You have to agree that the DNA of Republicans is less government, less regulation. This substantially benefits the rich and power who are unchecked in their quest for more money and power. The DNA of a Democrat is more government in order to ensure the average person is not taken advantage of by the rich and powerful. Regulations like minimum wage, workforce safety, bank regulations…etc. Under Reganomics….Government was demonized and the dismantling of regulations created the excesses of Wall Street and the near collapse of our financial system. To me it’s very clear…but the Republicans have been masterful at deception.

Again….unless someone is very rich, it makes absolutely no sense to support a Republican/conservative. Sure there are some tainted Democrats….but in general I would aggressively support any Democrat over a Republican!!!

Yes I would agree with your general comment about the differences in parties. But I think while it used to be "in their DNA", recent decades has been more like a Hat they wear just to get elected that can be tossed aside when convenient. After all G.Bush, while cutting taxes, greatly expanded govt control for post 9/11 security issues and even created a new organization Homeland Security. And while Clinton raised taxes and made token gestures towards some social issues like health care, he did much more to benefit the Big Corporations during the 90's, sending jobs overseas, and was in full support of the late 90's bank deregulations, a key factor in some of the financial problems we are dealing with today. So I refuse to agree that the fault of deregulation is a Republican problem. The dems pushed for it just as much during the booming late-90's.

I have my own opinions on Republicans and Democrats, and on fiscal policies, etc., but I'm not going to share them. There are plenty of other places to do that. Please don't pollute the development forum with something that is unresolvable and infinite in nature... namely, politics!

agreed. back to high speed rail! :)

Did I miss something? I thought this was a development thread.

agreed. back to high speed rail! :)

Ok, here goes. it'll never happen, too slow at 90-105 mph, money will all go downstate, too expensive, will go to fast growing area, not dying upstate NY. Last one out turn off the lights, we suck, Rochester sucks, NY sucks. Subsidies are just corporate welfare, but look a new Starbucks opened!!!:nuts:

So Costello pulled the plug on backing the RBTL at his Clinton Crossings site in Brighton. Anyone think there is a chance in hell for Medley Center to get it? I can't see it happening, which means it will probably end up downtown where it belongs. If they can raise the money, or course.

Ok, here goes. it'll never happen, too slow at 90-105 mph, money will all go downstate, too expensive, will go to fast growing area, not dying upstate NY. Last one out turn off the lights, we suck, Rochester sucks, NY sucks. Subsidies are just corporate welfare, but look a new Starbucks opened!!!:nuts:

Don't hate

So I went on the Port Authorities website, and found some air traffic numbers that I think are worth noting. I found the total number of passengers who traveled to the top 50 domestic passenger destinations out of JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark for 2008. Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse are all on the list in some capacity. Here's what I found.

JFK

Toronto - 6,324
Buffalo - 624,820
Rochester - 275,540
Syracuse - 142,360


LaGuardia

Toronto - 508,399
Buffalo - 131,220
Rochester - 72,550
Syracuse - Not in Top 50


Newark

Toronto - 255,124
Buffalo - 110,040
Rochester - Not in Top 50
Syracuse - Not in Top 50


This gives us a minimum total of 2,126,377 people per year that high speed rail could potentially attract. One thing that I found interesting is the fact that Albany didn't make any of the lists. This might have something to do with the fact that it only takes about 2hrs 35min by train, which might be the preferred method of go-between.

One thing that I think is important to stress is that high speed rail isn't meant to be a fast ferry on wheels to shuttle people from Rochester to NYC. It's meant to connect an entire region of several fairly large cities.

RGRTA will give details (I hope) about the bus station on tuesday night at a public meeting.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100423/NEWS01/100423018/RGRTA-to-present-plans-for-downtown-transit-center-at-public-meetings

Removal of bus stops between the river and liberty pole, in combination with a re-energized Midtown block, could really have a major positive impact on Main Street. Should the RBTL find funding to build a performing arts center on the McCurdy's site, there would be an opportunity for the existing nightlife along East Avenue to extend onto Main. Especially with a major investment happening at the Eastman Theatre three block east.

Don't hate

So I went on the Port Authorities website, and found some air traffic numbers that I think are worth noting. I found the total number of passengers who traveled to the top 50 domestic passenger destinations out of JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark for 2008. Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse are all on the list in some capacity. Here's what I found.

JFK

Toronto - 6,324
Buffalo - 624,820
Rochester - 275,540
Syracuse - 142,360


LaGuardia

Toronto - 508,399
Buffalo - 131,220
Rochester - 72,550
Syracuse - Not in Top 50


Newark

Toronto - 255,124
Buffalo - 110,040
Rochester - Not in Top 50
Syracuse - Not in Top 50


This gives us a minimum total of 2,126,377 people per year that high speed rail could potentially attract. One thing that I found interesting is the fact that Albany didn't make any of the lists. This might have something to do with the fact that it only takes about 2hrs 35min by train, which might be the preferred method of go-between.

One thing that I think is important to stress is that high speed rail isn't meant to be a fast ferry on wheels to shuttle people from Rochester to NYC. It's meant to connect an entire region of several fairly large cities.

There was no hate I was joking.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and surmise that you are joking in your wildly optimistic belief that there are 2.1 million people that would consider taking the train to upstate cities instead of flying. You cannot be so superficial in your analysis.

1) If you had that many passengers then you 15 minute stop for each city would have to increase dramatically to handle to boarding volume.

2) This is where your fantasy number totally falls apart. Did you give any consideration why the traffic is so large between Buffalo, Rochester and JFK? These people are not going to NYC they are going to JFK to get on a plane and go somewhere else. Over 75% of the traffic between upstae cities and NYC airports represents people that are goin THROUGH NYC and not TO NYC.


In a perfect world high speed trains would exist in this region. But the sad reality is that it will not happen because: the funding is not there, the plans that are there call for trains with a max. speed of 105 miles per hour (which means a minimum travel time of 6 hours plus stops.), 6-7 hour train trips will not replace air travel. Plus your own data shows that even with the transfers Rochester is not even in the top 50 destinations from all of the NYC Airports.

Add in the fact that much larger Buffalo which represents about half of your potential 2 million customers would be another hour down the track and even less time competitive. An extra hour by train and extra 5 minutes by plane.

If High Speed rail is going to come to the US it will come first to the densly populates high growth areas of the east and west coasts San Francisco to San Diego, and places like Florida to Atlanta, Dallas-Houston. Upstate NY is very far down the list of priorities. The paltry $140 million secured by Slaughter is proof of that

fubo - I like the fact that you are willing to critique my posts/thoughts. I think that this helps me to organize my thoughts and get a better overall picture of the issue at hand. I would however ask that before you comment on my posts, you take the time to read them first.

1) I never said that 2.1 Million people are going to abandon flying in favor of taking a high speed train. I was merely pointing out that in 2008 2.1 Million people departed from the NY/NJ area on planes bound for upstate NY. With this in mind, you have a lot of people who travel upstate, and might be willing to do so by high speed rail. That's it. Very basic market analysis (if you can even call it that)

2) Speaking of which, I clearly said that the "I found the total number of passengers who traveled to the top 50 domestic passenger destinations out of JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark for 2008"....domestic passenger destinations OUT OF JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark...OUT OF. These are people specifically flying out of JFK, LGA, and EWR to upstate destinations, not people passing through the NY/NJ area airports.

I agree with you that this half-assed, 105mph, little engine that could system that is currently being proposed isn't going to be competitive at all. Since I first brought up this topic, I've always been in favor of new high speed lines, capable of running at top speeds, independent of the freight traffic. I also think that having a high speed rail system in this region could possibly act as a growth catalyst. Being able to travel to NYC, and Toronto (not to mention possible extensions to Boston or Montreal) in roughly 2.5hours from Upstate NY could be a great asset for attracting people/business to the region.

I am not trying to pick on you but even when you are saying flying out of JFK it includes all passengers that have a ticket the reads jfk to Rochester. Thus if you fly from Boston to Rochester and switch planes at jfk you are definitely included in your number. That is simply the standard way the records are kept, that is also why you pay twice the government fees when you switch planes compared to when you fly nonstop

Remember to stay on topic in here. Politics (and sports, current events, random chit-chat, etc) belongs in another thread. A lot of this random stuff should go HERE (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=571145), which was specifically created for you guys.

Ok, here goes. it'll never happen, too slow at 90-105 mph, money will all go downstate, too expensive, will go to fast growing area, not dying upstate NY. Last one out turn off the lights, we suck, Rochester sucks, NY sucks. Subsidies are just corporate welfare, but look a new Starbucks opened!!!:nuts:

Excellent post. All points well taken. I like this thread. Anyone else want to chime in on that?

Excellent post. All points well taken. I like this thread. Anyone else want to chime in on that?

Actually I was mocking the type of post I usually see coming from you. I would love to see high speed rail but it will not come here in the next 30 years. Even The politicians are only talking about 90 mph trains and trying to con you into thinking that that is high speed

fubo
I agree with you that this half-assed, 105mph, little engine that could system that is currently being proposed isn't going to be competitive at all. Since I first brought up this topic, I've always been in favor of new high speed lines, capable of running at top speeds, independent of the freight traffic. .

Totally agree.


[I also think that having a high speed rail system in this region could possibly act as a growth catalyst. Being able to travel to NYC, and Toronto (not to mention possible extensions to Boston or Montreal) in roughly 2.5hours from Upstate NY could be a great asset for attracting people/business to the region.

Totally disagree.Switching people from travel by plane to travel by train cannot possibly create growth. You are only changing the means not the end. Just shuffling people around and moving them from the airport to the train station will not create growth. If anything it might hurt the economy (at least in Rochester) where there is barely enough critical mass at our airport now to support the neighboring hotel properties. Take away a chunk of passengers from that area and i could see quite a few of the airport area hotels and eating establishments going dark.

Actually I was mocking the type of post I usually see coming from you. I would love to see high speed rail but it will not come here in the next 30 years. Even The politicians are only talking about 90 mph trains and trying to con you into thinking that that is high speed

Okay, fair enough. Let me do my own parody of the posts you tend to make. Here goes...

"It'll never happen, it's to slow anyway, and too expensive. Plus, upstate NY is dying. Last one out... turn off the lights, Rochester sucks. But let's put on a bake sale to raise money and turn everything around! Woo hoo!"

How was that?

fubo - I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You say that:

"Switching people from travel by plane to travel by train cannot possibly create growth. You are only changing the means not the end."

I don't personally think that's the right way to look at it. Yes, if a high speed train is developed, then it will most likely compete with the airlines for passengers. However, most of these routes aren't that practical to fly in the first place. SYR-BUF, ROC-TOR, ALB-NYC. These are all cities that you typically drive between, or take the existing train. The reason I'm optimistic about the high speed rail's ability to create growth is because I believe that it will create a unique piece of infrastructure that will allow upstate to compete with regions without said infrastructure for businesses and residents. This is kind of inline with RTC's amenities mindset, which I agree with.

As for the notion that this will hurt the airport hotels, I think that deserves further analysis. As I mentioned above, most of the routes on this hypothetical line aren't ones that people fly. The only routes that are going to be affected are most likely your NYC-ROC routes. Whether or not these passengers provide a necessary percent of revenue for the hotels/restaurants is something I don't have the data on. However, one thing to consider is the possibility for the train to have a certain level of ridership that someone opens up a hotel right by the train station. That's my take on it anyway.

fubo - I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You say that:

"Switching people from travel by plane to travel by train cannot possibly create growth. You are only changing the means not the end."

I don't personally think that's the right way to look at it. Yes, if a high speed train is developed, then it will most likely compete with the airlines for passengers. However, most of these routes aren't that practical to fly in the first place. SYR-BUF, ROC-TOR, ALB-NYC. These are all cities that you typically drive between, or take the existing train. The reason I'm optimistic about the high speed rail's ability to create growth is because I believe that it will create a unique piece of infrastructure that will allow upstate to compete with regions without said infrastructure for businesses and residents. This is kind of inline with RTC's amenities mindset, which I agree with.

As for the notion that this will hurt the airport hotels, I think that deserves further analysis. As I mentioned above, most of the routes on this hypothetical line aren't ones that people fly. The only routes that are going to be affected are most likely your NYC-ROC routes. Whether or not these passengers provide a necessary percent of revenue for the hotels/restaurants is something I don't have the data on. However, one thing to consider is the possibility for the train to have a certain level of ridership that someone opens up a hotel right by the train station. That's my take on it anyway.

Right that's what I am saying. A train might increase mass near a train station causing some ancillary development. But the traffic numbers you gave were for people currently flying. Thus more people near the train means fewer people near the plane. Thus business goes up in one area and down in the other.

I doubt that a HS train would have any meaningful impact on the total number of people traveling amongst the cities. Thus, with the same total number, the economic impact is nothing more than musical chairs. Suppose more people start using the train - that's good for Amtrack but ultimately bad for local gas stations, restaurants and other stops along the motor route. To much of a transfer and many of the businesses along the road route will vanish. For an example of this, one need only look at what happened to the towns along rte 66 when the interstate highway system came into being. Closer to home take a look at the old vacant or converted motels along route 5 that were supplanted by those along the I-90. No real growth just a reshuffle.

That said, I would still like to see it happen because I think it would be cool to have. But understand that it would be a quality of life issue and not an economic engine.

Right that's what I am saying. A train might increase mass near a train station causing some ancillary development. But the traffic numbers you gave were for people currently flying. Thus more people near the train means fewer people near the plane. Thus business goes up in one area and down in the other.
That depends. For example, someone traveling from NYC to Rochester would normally fly, and the train option would simple switch him from flying to train, but not necessarily mean he would travel to Rochester more often. So in that regard you might be right.

But let's say someone from Buffalo travels to Syracuse. He would never fly that route... he would drive, but it's not really a quick drive. If there were a fast train option it could mean more travel between upstate cities.

But there are other factors that make train travel more convenient for people. Flying today is a hassle. And driving can sometimes be a pain. If rail could keep it simple and not be too expensive, then people could travel more often to those cities.

Rail has to properly fill that niche in order to be successful.

As I stated before….high speed rail is a “generational investment"….high rates of economic returns will occur in the medium and long term …not in today’s statistics. And integrating high speed rail with local light rail, bus and even bikes will greatly improve the efficiencies of our regional transportation infrastructure….and trying to center this regional transportation hub in downtown Rochester will be critical over the next several decades.

Having a modern/integrated and quality transportation system is the most basic amenity for any community looking for economic growth. Our region needs to be progressive in how we determine what to spend valuable public dollars in the area of transportation. Building a $50 million bus terminal (a relic of the 1950’s) in the middle of downtown Rochester or spending tens of millions of dollars on expanding Route 431 are a couple examples or terrible decisions. High speed rail, light rail and also reviving the idea of fast ferry system at the Port of Rochester and integrating this with light rail into downtown Rochester are better progressive proposals.

The bottom line…high speed rail is a major step that will take decades to construct…and the taking the first step is critical if we want economic returns in the future. Sure the numbers may not look rather daunting today…but the real payoff will be decades forward.

The following was suppose to be the first part of my above post....somehow it was was clipped off ......

Anytime your increase the number of transportation options, you create additional “value” for a community…especially if you are improving the speed and quality of transportation. Also, increase in competition with airlines would create lower/more competitive prices for a city. And realize that there will be a “saturation rate” of air space in the highly congestion east coast corridors. Expanding airports are extremely problematic and very, very expensive. There needs to be quality/efficient/clean transportation alternatives than individual cars and noisy/gas guzzling airline service.

But let's say someone from Buffalo travels to Syracuse. He would never fly that route... he would drive, but it's not really a quick drive. If there were a fast train option it could mean more travel between upstate cities.

So by taking the train, he would by pass that little diner and not stop for lunch. So the diner closes. Same for tha gas station and other small shops along the route. Instead he eats on the train. Amtrack becomes the Wal-Mart of the transportation industry sucking the life out of countless small towns not fortunate enough to be a stop on the system. Not only does it take business away from the small shop, but they are forced to subsidise it through their taxes. Once again big government killing the private sector.

Hardly. Someone driving from Buffalo to Syracuse isn't going to be driving past mom-n-pop shops and diners. They're going to be driving down the thruway at 70 mph. If they stop at all it would be at the thruway convenience stores. I don't think high-speed rail development should be stopped simply so that thruway rest stops keep their business flowing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/realestate/commercial/21miami.html

OUCH!!! ... Local developer “Christa Development” took a financial beating recently with a speculative high end condo project in Miami Beach, Florida. Check out this article in the New York Times. I wonder how it will harm Christa as they attempt to get financing on future real estate development projects?

MIAMI — Though it overlooks the Atlantic Ocean and offers high-end amenities like a wine vault and a cigar humidor, the Caribbean condominium complex in Miami Beach seemed by last summer to be just another casualty of the glutted South Florida housing market.
There were buyers for all 103 units in the complex, which includes a small renovated Art Deco building and a new glass tower, but only 14 had been willing to close. The rest had simply walked away from their deposits.

The Caribbean, at 37th Street and Collins Avenue, resulted in heavy losses for its developers, a partnership of Christa Development of Victor, N.Y., and Bluerock Real Estate of New York City, and its lender, the now-defunct Corus Bankshares of Chicago.

But it has reaped a nice profit for another real estate investor, Melohn Properties, also of New York City, which assumed control of the property after buying the $127.7 million mortgage from Corus last August. Melohn paid less than half the face value of the loan, according to the building’s broker, Diane Lieberman, the owner of SBI Realty in Miami Beach…….

Way to paraphrase the New York Times article RTC. You make it sounds a lot worse than it really is for Christa, so anyone reading RTC's post, should also read the full article.

The Miami real estate market is over saturated/overbuilt, and when the bubble burst, there were many developers left with cranes in the sky completing buildings while demand suddenly was evaporating. I do not feel that this will negatively impact Christa's joint venture with Morgan Management to rehab Midtown Tower. I've been told that the project is all systems go, and that there is already a waiting list of people interested in the condos, as the offering plan becomes available. There will be 24 condos in the four highest floors of Midtown Tower, and I've been told that there are 15 names on the waiting list. Even if a few of those currently interested do not follow through with security deposits, I don't think Christa/Morgan will have a hard time securing the minimum number of unit sales that the bank will likely require.

I blame the lack of high speed rail in South Florida for it's above average default rate. Clearly, that would have solved all its problems.

Let me make sure I understand this: Christa builds a 103 unit condo, but when the rubber hits the road, only 14 owners (representing 13.5% of inventory) are willing to sign, leaving Christa with 89 unsold units. Not able to sell the remaining units means that Christa can't make the mortgage payments on the $127.7MM note, and goes into default. Corus Bankshares, not thrilled about the idea of foreclosing on the property, shops the mortgage around and ultimately sells it to Melohn Properties for somewhere around $60MM. Now that Melohn Properties has assumed the mortgage, it has control of the remaining 89 unsold units that it can afford to sell for less than Christa was asking, presumably allowing it to sell units much faster.

This is what happened in this case, right? If anyone can verify that this is the case, that'd be great. Distressed real estate isn't one of my strong points, and I'm always looking to get a better understanding of it.

RocCityGuy…..I didn’t realize that you were the PR/Media representative for Christa! I think I fairly represented the article. I gave the link to the full article and cut out only the part relevant to Rochester….didn’t want to paste the full 2-3 page article. And foreclosure on a $124 million project is a big deal. But I don’t know the full consequence to Christa…thus I asked the question about Christa’s future ability to obtain financing.

Moses…your correctly described what happened to Christa in its failed South Florida project. Again, what is not known is the extent of its legal/financial commitments on this deal and the amount of dollar loss for Christa and whether the financial community will be willing to risk further loans to them? This could or could not have a substantial impact on major Christa projects in Rochester like the Midtown Tower Project. I thought it was a interesting article! RocCityGuy....I'm sorry I disturbed your "client"!

RTC... I'm not the PR rep, just hate when you rush to show an example of a "failed" urban housing development, as we are all aware of your disdain for developer subsidy in downtown Rochester. The bold upper case words are frankly annoying. I was merely pointing out that Christa was not in the Miami venture alone, as you made no mention of this in your post, and one would only get the full story by reading the link.

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/blog/2010/04/The-next-big-thing-RBTL-at-Midtown/

According to this newspaper it looks like RBTL is most likely moving into a new theater which will be built as part of the Midtown project. I confess that I don't really know anything about the RBTL expect that they have strong ties to The Auditorium, seem to control much of the Off-Broadway productions in Rochester, and enjoy rattling their saber. Do they have any ties to the Geva Theater?

As far as the perfroming arts center goes, I went back to the posts from February (Page 82) and it seems that the majority of people on this board are in favor of this new theater, as it will help to attract people downtown during the off-work hours. The only thing that people seem to disagree on is how big it should be. After doing some quick research, I've come up with some figures. The Geva Theater seats roughly 550 people. This is anywhere from 1/3 to as little as 1/4 the size of major Broadway theaters. By comparison, The Minskoff Theater (The Lion King) has 1600 seats, the George Gershwin Theater (Wicked) has 1900 seats, and the multi-purpose Nokia Theater has 2100 seats. Based on those numbers, I would say that having a 1800-2000 seat theater capable of holding a wide range of events (plays, concerts, comedy acts, etc) makes the most sense.

Last I heard the Christa proposal was for a $70M, 3,000 seat complex with underground parking. Has that changed at all or is that still what is on the table?

While I still think the plan is a bit over the top in scale, I think they will still be able to get funding for this, and the potential for spurring more economic development in the immediate area is huge. Bottom line is there is no doubt that having the RBTL in a new venue at the new Midtown site would be great for downtown.

dcordova is correct. RBTL states that they need a 3,000 seat modern theatre in order to stay competative, but their cost estimate is more like $40-50 million. Shea's in Buffalo has 600 more seats than the Auditorium Theatre (3,000 seats total). You can't really use theatres in New York City as a comparison because NY is a City filled with dozens of mid sized - large theatres with multiple shows running at all times, where as RBTL is a regional theatre, and the only venue for traveling Broadway shows. We are obviously not a city that has multiple shows running at once, each in a theatre with 1200-1500 seats.

The only expansion potential at the Aduitorium Theatre was to raise the roof height, and add another balcony, which proved to be both cost prohibitive and illogical, as seats that far back are hard to sell.

Christa has kind of become the champion of the Midtown project in that they are taking on the Tower rehab, and a hoping to act as developer for the RBTL should the McCurdy site be chosen for a new theatre. It has been stated by lawmakers that no assistance would be given to the RBTL should they chose to build outside of downtown.

I'm almost 100 percent certain that the RBTL will chose the Midtown site. The bigger question is whether or not they can raise the money needed to build there.

I had to do some digging, but below is the link to the article in City Newspaper which ran last November in which RBTL explains why they feel they need 3,000 seats. It's a good recap of what their goals and objectives are for a new theatre.

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/articles/2009/11/INTERVIEW-RBTLs-dramatic-pitch/

Durham, Noth Carolina opened a new performing arts center in 2008 with 2,800 seats. It's a good example of what a modern theatre of, the size RBTL is talking about, would look like. Photos are on the theatre's website. The theatre reportedly cost $48 million to build from scratch.

http://www.dpacnc.com/default.asp?dpac=35

Thanks for the info RocCityGuy. I think they can raise the money for a new theatre at Midtown. RenSquare didnt work because it was a clusterf*#$ of ideas. Lets put a loud polluting bus terminal next to a new campus for community college students, and lets throw in a "high-class" theatre in the mix too.

The theatre struggled to raise funds before because it was tied to the other projects. Now that it is a separate project, and it is most likely going to be placed at the new Midtown site (which I believe the majority of the public likes the Midtown plans), RBTL should have an easier time drawing in investors.

Anyone care to chime in on that?

If a new theatre is built what will become of the current one? Wat's the point if they are going to buld a new theatre only to leave another one vacant? There is no City in the country the size of Rochester or even 2 or 3 times it's size that currently supports two theatres of that size with travelling Broadway shows. Sound like a huge waste of money to play musical chairs.

Regarding the need for a new extra large performing arts center…

1. RBTl has yet to establish a genuine “need” for a larger facility….though it has articulated a tremendous “want”.

2. There has been no unbiased professional analysis proving a need for a 3,000 seat theater

3. In the NE. part of the country, there are no new Performing Arts Centers for Broadway shows. All facilities that exist are historic Theaters like the Auditorium.

4. RBTL has been planning a new theater for nearly 20 years and they have NEVER showed any private sector support…not one benefactor.

5. There is little or no money from local or State sources for a $50-70 million Theater…it’s the worst time to justify duplicating an existing…profitable theater (Auditorium). This is NOT economic development. It’s just another waste of valuable public dollars.

6. Any new business in downtown Rochester from a Midtown Theater will just replace what already existed at the Auditorium Theater. Again…we are just shuffling the site from one city location…1/2 mile…. to another location!

7. There has been a study undertaken a few years ago that showed a much stronger demand for a medium size theater rather than a large theater. A medium size theater would be host to a wide variety of live entertainment from Opera to Garth Fagan….almost 320 days a year.

I would support a medium size theater at Midtown and expend $10-15 million on upgrades to the Auditorium Theater to better enhance the environment for existing Broadway Shows. This plan would greatly enhance all forms of arts/cultural activities (above and beyond just Broadway shows), and costs cheaper than a large theater and create a powerful corridor of commerce between Midtown….the Eastman Theater ….and the Auditorium Theater.

That sounds nice, but the Auditorium Theatre, while a historic venue, was never built for the types of shows that it currently tries to cram in. Unlike the Landmark Theatre in Syracuse, and Shea's in Buffalo, the Auditorium was built as a Masonic lodge, and not as a performing arts venue. The lobby is too small, the building it is not air conditioned, and the backstage area cramped.

I would argue that a new theatre at the Midtown site would create economic development. People do not walk past restaurants and cafes on their way to the Auditorium Theatre. They park in a surface lot, and scurry across East Main Street. The Midtown site is far more dense and urban, and would provide an ideal pedestrian venue for new restaurants, bars, cafes, etc. It's located two blocks from the most thriving parts of the East End, and I can honestly envision people spending money in the area before and after a show, as opposed to how the Auditorium currently functions as "see the show, then go home".

In terms of a mid-sized theatre, the renovated theatre at Nazareth seems to be the permanent mid-sized venue for our area, and it is already home to Garth Fagan.

That sounds nice, but the Auditorium Theatre, while a historic venue, was never built for the types of shows that it currently tries to cram in. Unlike the Landmark Theatre in Syracuse, and Shea's in Buffalo, the Auditorium was built as a Masonic lodge, and not as a performing arts venue. The lobby is too small, the building it is not air conditioned, and the backstage area cramped.

I would argue that a new theatre at the Midtown site would create economic development. People do not walk past restaurants and cafes on their way to the Auditorium Theatre. They park in a surface lot, and scurry across East Main Street. The Midtown site is far more dense and urban, and would provide an ideal pedestrian venue for new restaurants, bars, cafes, etc. It's located two blocks from the most thriving parts of the East End, and I can honestly envision people spending money in the area before and after a show, as opposed to how the Auditorium currently functions as "see the show, then go home".

In terms of a mid-sized theatre, the renovated theatre at Nazareth seems to be the permanent mid-sized venue for our area, and it is already home to Garth Fagan.

Shea's added AC (and heat) and enlarged its stage - I agree, seems short sighted to replace this beautiful theater with another. What happens to the old one? Tear it down - that would be stupid.

As much as we all love The Auditorium, and its place in Rochester's history, it'll never be able to become a regional attraction. Like RCG said, it has a list of deficiencies. It was never built as a theater. It doesn't have A/C. It lacks crucial space back stage. You can try and renovate it all you want, but it's going to cost an arm and a leg to do so, being that renovations are generally much more expensive than new construction is. And at the end of the day, you're still going to be stuck with a dressed up Masonic Temple, not a performing arts center. Lipstick on a pig. I'm not saying that we necessarily knock it down, but I do think that's it's worth it to seriously consider a new performing arts center downtown, where the economic benefits have the potential to spread down East Ave before and after the various shows, bringing a level vibrancy to downtown, not East Main St.

Nobody said tear the Auditorium Theatre down, Steel. RBTL is pursuing a site other than the Auditorium Theatre, so the discussion should not be about why they should stay there (because they're not), but rather it should be about the best possible site location for a new theatre.

Moses….The Auditorium theater is already a regional attraction…attracting a couple hundred thousand art patrons a year. Adding a few hundred extra seats will not change the nature of its regional pull. Again…every theater showing Broadway shows in the NE (and in the U.S) are historic theaters that have similar deficiencies as our theater….small lobbies, no a/c, limited stage size, cramped dressing rooms…etc. And most cities have rectified many of these similar deficiencies. Recently million dollar plus updates to the AUD have included all new seats, plush carpeting and expanded restroom upgrades…etc. Isn’t it strange that just about every city in the NE has decided to enhance their historic theaters rather than building a very expensive new center?

As I stated before ….building a medium size theater at Midtown instead of duplicating what we already have makes much more economic and financial sense. Rochester would then have a powerful corridor of a wide assortment of live entertainment venues from Midtown’s medium size theater, the Eastman Theater and the Auditorium Theater. Just shuffling the Auditorium’s art patrons less than ½ mile to the west costing $50-70 million makes absolutely no economic or financial senses. Its would just another badly planned capital development project…something our region is an expert on!!!

RTC, building a medium sized theatre at Midtown would duplicate the existing medium sized theatre that was just overhauled and expanded at Nazareth (which cost $10m). I doubt that a medium sized theater could be built for less than $40 million (the new addition to the Eastman Theater is costing $35m), so why not build one that accomodates the widest variety of shows? Garth Fagan is commited to Nazareth, so who would use a new medium sized theatre? A large performing arts center could be used for more than just traveling Broadway shows, and if it were located two blocks from the Convention Center, it might have greater marketing potential for other uses.

Nobody said tear the Auditorium Theatre down, Steel. RBTL is pursuing a site other than the Auditorium Theatre, so the discussion should not be about why they should stay there (because they're not), but rather it should be about the best possible site location for a new theatre.

If the primary tenant leaves the building what are they going to do with it? As I noted Sheas (which was used as an example of a good facility) expanded their stage and added AC in order to accommodate modern shows. By the measure given here that should not have been done in favor of a new building. Sheas was going to be torn down until some committed citizens saved it. Americans are too fast to toss things in the trash and replace them with bigger and supposedly better. By the way it is a myth that new construction is more expensive than renovation. This comes from the fact that often new construction is done on the cheap. If you want something more than a cheap performing arts barn it will cost far far more than retrofitting this nice old place.

http://zoominlocal.com/pub-files/123630873149b092fb05ab0/pub/GRVA-Visitors/lib/12434957514a1e3d47b7dfc.jpg

Thanks for the lecture on why buildings should be saved, but again, nobody is suggesting it be torn down. I think the Auditorium Theatre is a beautiful facility, with fantastic period detail and an important art deco exterior, but that doesn't mean it will work indefinitely for the current tenant. The facility is not just the theatre, but also has a large attached building next door. It could more easily be renovated to become a smaller theatre with less seats, as was done with the Eastman Theatre, than it could be expanded into something it was never intended to be.

The Auditorium is a landmark building, and is not destined for a landfill, should it be vacated by RBTL. Rochester is a culturally rich community, and should a medium sized theatre be required in addition to a Broadway style theatre, the Auditorium could be beautiful transformed into one, making Main Street into a cultural magnificent mile, with Blackfriars, Eastman, and a new performing arts center along its route.

Thanks for the lecture on why buildings should be saved, but again, nobody is suggesting it be torn down. I think the Auditorium Theatre is a beautiful facility, with fantastic period detail and an important art deco exterior, but that doesn't mean it will work indefinitely for the current tenant. The facility is not just the theatre, but also has a large attached building next door. It could more easily be renovated to become a smaller theatre with less seats, as was done with the Eastman Theatre, than it could be expanded into something it was never intended to be.

The Auditorium is a landmark building, and is not destined for a landfill, should it be vacated by RBTL. Rochester is a culturally rich community, and should a medium sized theatre be required in addition to a Broadway style theatre, the Auditorium could be beautiful transformed into one, making Main Street into a cultural magnificent mile, with Blackfriars, Eastman, and a new performing arts center along its route.

So what you are saying is ... you not only need to come up with money to build a new theater, you also need to find money to renovate this one and somehow make it smaller (without wrecking it) and then find new tenants. Except that is not part of the proposal except in your own mind.

A bit of a reality check!

I would give the chance of a new 3,000 seat Theater for the RBTL at Midtown at about 10%. We can discuss/debate/dream about a massive new theater but we also must look at reality. We are still recovering from a MAJOR recession and there is still a good chance of further deterioration as sovereign debt problems in Greece (not the suburb of Rochester) could expand to Portugal, Ireland…and destabilizing the world financial markets. State governments are facing massive deficits and the net worth of the average American has been reduced up to 40% over the last two years and RBTL has a pocketful of change for a down payment on a new Theater. Does anyone realistically think a new theater is possible?

As soon as the community accepts reality…and proceeds to enhancements to the Auditorium Theater,…the sooner our region will benefit. Otherwise….look for another 10 years of fantasy talk about a massive new theater!

I guess I'm confused. RTC, yesterday you seemed to support the idea of building a medium sized theatre at the Midtown site and keeping the Auditorium Theatre for RBTL. As a pointed out, the comparatively small Eastman Theatre expansion is costing $35 million, so I can't imagine a medium sized theatre would cost less that $45m. What I don't understand about your arguments is that yesterday that seemed reasonable to you, and then you post about how we're all dreaming, and not in touch with financial realities.

Steel,

I'm not saying that the Auditorium Theatre MUST be converted into a smaller theatre, and that money must be raised fot it AND a new performing arts center, I'm just tossing some ideas out there like everyone else. Isn't that what this thread is for?

One thing that seems to be getting ignored during this discussion of tearing down/renovating The Auditorium is the potential benefits that this new theater could have. A lot of this has already been mentioned by RCG. The Auditorium doesn’t do much to contribute to the 24/7 atmosphere. Like RCG said, the theater…er, rather…Masonic Templegoers drive in to see a show, stash their car in the parking lot, and then scurry back to the suburbs after the curtain drops. And really, who’s to blame them. E. Main St isn’t exactly Broadway, and there isn’t really anything to keep them around before or after. Other theaters, like Shea’s, are located in the heart of downtown areas where there are places to go before and after the show. The Auditorium has been around since 1928, and is nothing new. If private development was ever going to happen around it, it would have by now. I really think that we’re selling ourselves short by not moving this theater downtown, where it can help both the 24/7 atmosphere we’re all striving for, and the bit of growth we’re already seeing downtown. Right now, it’s just standing alone by itself on the outskirts of the city.

I also have a question about the financing of this theater. Just how certain is it that a new 3,000 seat theater is going to cost public dollars? It seems that we can all agree that it will cost around $45MM. Is it possible for a developer to privately finance the development, and then simply have the RBTL as its tenant? From what I’ve heard, a new theater will be able to draw much better productions, and won’t be subject to brutal conditions stemming from not having A/C, which will in turn generate more revenue year round. I just wonder if this new revenue will allow the RBTL to afford the rent, which will have to be enough to cover the developers payments on a $45MM mortgage.

One thing that seems to be getting ignored during this discussion of tearing down/renovating The Auditorium is the potential benefits that this new theater could have. A lot of this has already been mentioned by RCG. The Auditorium doesn’t do much to contribute to the 24/7 atmosphere. Like RCG said, the theater…er, rather…Masonic Templegoers drive in to see a show, stash their car in the parking lot, and then scurry back to the suburbs after the curtain drops. And really, who’s to blame them. E. Main St isn’t exactly Broadway, and there isn’t really anything to keep them around before or after. Other theaters, like Shea’s, are located in the heart of downtown areas where there are places to go before and after the show. The Auditorium has been around since 1928, and is nothing new. If private development was ever going to happen around it, it would have by now. I really think that we’re selling ourselves short by not moving this theater downtown, where it can help both the 24/7 atmosphere we’re all striving for, and the bit of growth we’re already seeing downtown. Right now, it’s just standing alone by itself on the outskirts of the city.

I also have a question about the financing of this theater. Just how certain is it that a new 3,000 seat theater is going to cost public dollars? It seems that we can all agree that it will cost around $45MM. Is it possible for a developer to privately finance the development, and then simply have the RBTL as its tenant? From what I’ve heard, a new theater will be able to draw much better productions, and won’t be subject to brutal conditions stemming from not having A/C, which will in turn generate more revenue year round. I just wonder if this new revenue will allow the RBTL to afford the rent, which will have to be enough to cover the developers payments on a $45MM mortgage.


$45 Million is a down payment on a project like this - I don't think you will get a quality venue for that small an amount

Steel….I agree, the $45 million is more like a down payment than the total cost for a quality cultural venue. That is the problem with building new vs. existing historic venue. Never could you match the craftsmanship and beauty of the Auditorium Theater. IFFFFFF it ever gets built…expect mediocre venue similar to the Blue Cross Arena and PAETEC Park. Its not worth it if you build on the CHEAP! …especially a venue that will suppose to attract high end art patrons.

Moses…Sure a private developer could build it and lease it to RBTL…but the rental fees would be about $5 million plus per year for a thirty year commitment. They can’t afford to pay $100,000 year let alone $5 million plus. And no bank would finance such a deal. This project desperately needs about 90% of the total costs in Public funds!
And realize that the existing AUD saturates restaurants prior and after a Broadway show. Having the theater move ½ mile to the west will just shift the business….not generate any new business. Realize also that the vast majority of visitors to the theater will park in the underground parking garage and enter adjacent or in the Theater. The illusion of thousands of people flowing throughout downtown in the winter is just fantasy talk. Having a anchor in downtown doesn’t guarantee pedestrian traffic. There are other amenities that must exists in and around the anchor to encourage pedestrian flows.

I would like to know from Buffalo residents if their SHEA Performing Arts Center creates a major pedestrian flow around and adjacent to the theater. How many restaurants are operating now along their Main Street? Sure Theaters are great anchors but without other vital amenities along a corridor or adjacent to the center and having a secure area….are just as important as the Theater anchor. Without such amenities…people will go to the theater and quickly leave afterwards.

$45 Million is a down payment on a project like this - I don't think you will get a quality venue for that small an amount

I used that $45MM number because that's what the Durham Performing Arts Center, which is similar to what we're talking about, cost. If you have other figures of projects that are of similar size and scope, do share.

I used that $45MM number because that's what the Durham Performing Arts Center, which is similar to what we're talking about, cost. If you have other figures of projects that are of similar size and scope, do share.

Well I stand corrected -
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3583/3427083813_0547e2defc.jpg
2,800 seats

Seems to me though you could spend 1/2 that on the current building and have a far more elegant theater. Spend the other half on building up the surroundings with some restaurants and such. American's are too willing to throw things out.

You cannot cherry pick a project somewhere else in the country and state that it can be built in Rochester for the same price. There are many differences in construction costs/labor costs/weatherization issues/building codes…etc. Local developers have already stated that a 3,000 seat in the suburbs would cost $50 million and in downtown Rochester up to $70 million. And I am very sure such a price tag would escalate during the design and construction phase. Large public projects…especially Performing Arts Centers are legendary for cost overruns. If you spend $45 million in downtown Rochester…you will get a "Performing Arts Barn"!

How do you spend $20 million "building up the surroundings with some restaurants and such". "Restaurants and such" are developed privately, and as RMoses has pointed out, developers have not shown interest in the area around the Auditorium Theatre.

There is no question that the Auditorium is more elegant. It's a gorgeous building with fine period details, but unfortunately it's in the wrong location. That's not to say it can't live on in another form. It's just too bad it can't be moved to Center City.

just the seats alone will cost over $2M

You cannot cherry pick a project somewhere else in the country and state that it can be built in Rochester for the same price. There are many differences in construction costs/labor costs/weatherization issues/building codes…etc. Local developers have already stated that a 3,000 seat in the suburbs would cost $50 million and in downtown Rochester up to $70 million. And I am very sure such a price tag would escalate during the design and construction phase. Large public projects…especially Performing Arts Centers are legendary for cost overruns. If you spend $45 million in downtown Rochester…you will get a "Performing Arts Barn"!


Give me something to work with then! Just because the Durham Performing Arts Center was built in NC for a price of $45MM doesn't mean that a similar building is going to automatically cost 20-30-40% more in Rochester. I realize that construction costs vary from region to region, but not by enough to justify you totally discounting that figure. ESL's new headquarters cost around $60MM to build, and that included a brand new parking garage. Blue Cross/Blue Shield's HQ cost $37MM for a 292,000sf building and 500 space parking garage.

Unless you can show us some figure that suggests that $45MM is a totally unreasonable estimate, I'm going to keep using it as the price point for a performing arts center in downtown Rochester. Furthermore, I find the notion of a theater costing $70MM in downtown Rochester laughable. The B&L Headquarters cost about $83MM in 2009 dollars. Any developer who thinks that it only costs 20% more to build a commercial skyscraper than it costs to build a theater is out of their mind. How Christa came up with this number is truly beyond me.

http://www.rochesterdowntown.com/news/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1266241236&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

Moses.....at a minimum, the dream of a 3,000 seat Theater at Midtown would cost $70 million and this early estimate (costs typically go up as final designs are finished and construction is underway) was professionally done by local developers/architects/engineering company. And you cannot compare the costs of office buildings with performing arts centers. The dynamics/costs are totally different.



Downtown Rochester PAC Plan Unveiled
February 15, 2010

Courtesy of the following:
Stuart Low, D&C Staff writer
Nate Dougherty, Rochester Business Journal
Jeremy Moule, City Newspaper
Rachel Barnhart, WHEC-TV, Channel 10

Stuart Low
D&C Staff Writer

A proposed Broadway theater at Midtown Plaza could jump-start downtownÅs revitalization, developers told the Rochester Broadway Theatre League at a Friday meeting.

In an interview, Christa CEO David Christa estimated the theaterÅs cost at $70 million. Financing would likely depend on state delegatesÅ lobbying, philanthropy and tax credits, he said.

Officials from Christa Companies, LaBella Associates and Morgan Management laid out plans for a 3,000-seat theater on the former McCurdyÅs Building site. The glass, steel and masonry building would anchor an economic hub with new restaurant, retail and residential growth, they said.

The project could be complete by early 2013, said LaBella President Robert Healy. Site demolition would take a year and construction about two years.

RBTLÅs site selection committee will analyze the Midtown planÅs finances and those of two competing sites: Clinton Crossings in Brighton and Lake Ridge Centre in Irondequoit. No timetable has been set for a decision.

OHHHHH, good for David Christa. Just because he says that $70MM is what it's going to cost to go with his plan, doesn't mean that there is no other way to get a modern performing arts center. There is no way to justify a $70MM theater in Rochester. Durham did it for $45MM, where is this additional 55% coming from?!?!

RTC - You are right that office buildings are different than theaters. Let's look at the new six-story ESL building. With this building, six floors had to be built. That means that there were six levels of columns, beams, and decking. Concrete was then poured on all of these floors. A curtain wall was then built around this six-story building. Once enclosed, each floor was then fitted out. Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and sprinkler systems were brought to each floor. Each floor was then partitioned off with sheetrock walls to make offices, copy rooms, pantries and restrooms. Suspended ceilings were hung on each floor. Compared to this, a theater isn't as involved based on its own unique design. You have the actual theater which may take up 3 stories, figure an orchestra level, mezzanine, and a upper balcony. So, right off the bat, you're looking at one full floor and maybe two floors that are 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the first floor. But these top two floors aren't entirely like the floors in the ESL building. Because everything is open inside, these floors share utilities. This means there are fewer light fixtures, less ductwork. You also aren't partitioning off space in a theater, which means you'll be spending a lot less on carpentry work. I could go on and on.

The point is that if ESL can build their new headquarters, a building whose design is inherently more complex than a theater, for $60MM, there is no reason why we should be spending $70MM for a performing arts center.

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and step back for a second. Lets look at this in pieces.

The Auditorium - everyone seems to agree that this should NOT be torn down. It is a beautiful historic building that is an asset to the city. But we should ALSO all be able to agree that the Auditorium has the potential for a variety of uses. The RBTL is not the only group that could benefit from this space. If the RBTL is unhappy with the Auditorium and wants to build a new theatre for themselves, I say let them. They would obviously go to the city/state for money because it is a cultural institution and the public benefit..blah blah, get to that in a second. But this leads into the next issue.... the cost

Renovation Cost - A study was done that found that renovating the Auditorium to what the RBTL wants would cost a lot more than building a new theatre. So all this talk about just renovate the Auditorium and keep RBTL there is pointless. The RBTL is unhappy at the Auditorium and renovating it does not make economic sense, so LET THEM LEAVE. And honestly, who cares if all the other cities in the NE have historic performing arts centers. I think thats all the more reason to build a brand new state of the art performing arts center in downtown Rochester. And lets not lose sight of the fact that the Auditorium is NOT IN DOWNTOWN. It is going to be harder to encourage street activity from a regional attraction outside of the city center than if it was located in the city center.

New theatre cost - there are a lot of figures flying around about how much a new theatre would cost. According to the Christa proposal, a new theatre at the Midtown site would cost $70M. Here is the overall plan, "The center, facing East Main Street, would include 3,000 seats, underground parking and space for a park that could have an outdoor stage". So there are 2 issues I want to look at from this: the underground parking, and the funding

Underground Parking - I take it that the underground parking makes up a good chunk of the $70M figure. My suggestion is scratch the underground parking. Its a win-win. Not only would this bring down the cost, it would help street activity. RTC is right in saying that a new theatre will not impact street activity if everyone going to the theatre drives in and parks under it. Removing this option "forces" street activity. Parking in downtown after business hours is not really a problem anyway. Let people find street parking or park in one of the many other lots/garages within a 5 minute walk. I really dont think that making people park a block or 2 away is going to deter people from seeing a show.

Funding - so if they scratch the underground garage idea the target amount would be less than $70M, but lets just keep it at $70M for the sake of argument. I think that $70M can be raised. My take is that the RBTL has had little private interest in the past because all of their other ideas/plans sucked. RenSquare was paired with a bus terminal and and campus for a community college. We already talked about how renovating the Auditorium is not fiscally responsible. And dont even talk about the idea of putting the new theatre out in Medley Center or somewhere in the suburbs. These are just not good ideas, so they didnt attract private investment. Now, a new state-of-the-art performing arts center (the only one of its kind in the NE) located at the hot new downtown development (Midtown), might raise some eyebrows for private investment. And yes, the city should put in too, but they certainly should not be footing the whole bill or even the majority of the bill.

I assumed that the performing arts center at Midtown would utilize the existing underground garage, and that additional underground parking would not need to be built. There are 1,800 existing spaces under there, and even if 250-300 are given to Midtown Tower fo resdiential use, that still leaves a large public parking facility. I don't see why PAETEC and the performing arts center couldn't share the remaining spaces. I don't think there would be much overlap in uses.

There should be a lot more detail coming in the next couple months on this, as the plans for the overall site are being further developed.

High quality performing arts centers cost a lot of money, and they're infinitely more complex than a simple five story single use office building. Kansas City's new performing arts center costs roughly $400 million. Then again, they do things right there. Why expect the same here?

Shares of PAETEC hit another 52 week high today. Things continue to look good for them, and us.

Yikes, that place is impressive to say the least.

As nice as that place is, it'd would be total overkill for our fair city. We don't need any starchitect designed performing art centers that contain multiple theaters within them. The point I was trying to make is that for $45MM we can have a nice little multi-purpose performing arts center. In construction, there's a wide ranges of potential costs for a given structure, depending on how you choose to build it out. The Dallas Cowboys Stadium cost $1.3B to build, while the Indianapolis Colts' new stadium only cost $750MM. Obviously Dallas has far more amenities, but at the end of the day both can hold NFL games. Everyone on this board seems to agree that Rochester doesn't need a massive performing arts center. That being the case, I'm optimistic that we can have a nice performing arts center for $45MM considering what else has been constructed in Rochester for around $45MM.

ERenovation Cost - A study was done that found that renovating the Auditorium to what the RBTL wants would cost a lot more than building a new theatre. So all this talk about just renovate the Auditorium and keep RBTL there is pointless. The RBTL is unhappy at the Auditorium and renovating it does not make economic sense, so LET THEM LEAVE.

Can we state the obvious - who the heck cares what the RBTL thinks or does they are pointless. They do not present shows. They are only middlemen and are NOT needed. The same producer (Albert Noccillino) that brings shows to Shea's Buffalo brings the same exact shows to Rochester (usually a year later such as Wicked and Mary Poppins) RBTL or not he will still bring shows to Rochester. Any landlord will do.

Also the fact that the same person books the shows in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Erie, Pa greatly diminishes any hope that travelling Broadway shows in Rochester will ever draw patrons from outside the area. Do you really think people from Buffalo are coming to see Wicked in Rochester when it already played for four weeks at Shea's Buffalo last season? Same for Syracuse area customers. A new theatre will not change anything and will not be an economic catalyst. It is far more likely to be an economic drain.

I used that $45MM number because that's what the Durham Performing Arts Center, which is similar to what we're talking about, cost. If you have other figures of projects that are of similar size and scope, do share.

Does this help? The Long Center in Austin, TX, which opened in 2008, includes Dell Hall (2,300 seats) plus Rollins Studio Theatre (a community theater of 240 seats), all under one roof.

The total project cost $77 million, which included hard and soft construction costs, a $10 million endowment, and administrative/operational costs through the first year of the Long Center's opening.

While the project is 'downtown', it isn't in the central business district, per se.

It was also a 'green' project, in that it reused a significant amount of materials from the previous venue which stood on the same site.

Parking for the Long center is in an existing, above-ground garage on an adjoining piece of land.

So keep in mind that a parking lot or garage didn't need to be built, nor did land need to be acquired.

DC-07 ….The $70 million estimate does not include building an underground parking garage. They plan on utilizing a portion of the existing Midtown parking facility. Again…the $70 million figure will be the minimum cost to construct….and all from public funds and private donations. GOOD LUCK on getting this!

The study regarding renovations to the AUD assumed the need for 600 additional seats! I again question this need. There has been no independent professional assessment of a genuine need…only the desperate “want” by RBTL. I feel there is feasibility for enhancement of the AUD. There is definitely no feasibility for enlarging the AUD by 600 seats…..but I don’t believe we need an additional 600 seats. The AUD is a 2,400 seat GEM that just needs to be polished!

To put price and size in perspective….I always use Salt Lake City as a comparable to Rochester's desire for a new Performing Arts Center. Salt Lake City…a region twice the size of Rochester…undertook a study and determined the optimum size theater to attract world class Broadway shows is 2,400-2,500 seats (remember Salt Lake city is twice the size of Metro Rochester). So They are now proceeding with planning and constructing a 2,400-2,500 seat theater …and they estimate a costs of $81.5 million. Its interesting that they are using Moshe Safdie & Associates (does this sound familiar?) …and another firm with ties to the new Durham PAC. Salt Lake City is a northern climate and probably equates more to our region than North Carolina. Again…their price will be $81.5 million…not $45 million.

…..I rest my case…on to the next topic.

Oh... are we done discussing this RTC? Wouldn't want to bore you. The great Oz has spoken...

i'm not sure why there is such a big debate around what the estimated cost is. Christa's proposal is for $70M. Period. Unless someone else has other information about the Christa proposal, $70M is the number that everyone should be assuming. It is NOT a minimum for construction, but assuming much more or much less is completely unjustified. So lets try to keep to this figure until more information comes out.

As far as the renovation study goes, RTC, we are talking about 2 different things. If you think there should be a "demand" type study determining whether or not a 3000+ seat theatre is needed, I'm in agreement with you.

But the study that was commissioned was to determine whether or not refurbishing the Auditorium to a 3000+ seat theatre would be more cost effective than building a new 3000+ seat theatre. The answer is no.

So logically speaking, if a separate study determines that there is demand for a 3000+ seat theatre, then the most cost effective way to provide a 3000+ seat theatre is by building a new one.

By the way, there was a study done on "19 mid-sized cities and found that the average performing arts center seats 2,409 theatre-goers". But this does NOT give any insight as to whether Rochester specifically can support a 3000+ seat theatre or not.

So, I am all for commissioning some type of demand/feasability study. I think we can all agree that if that study determines that Rochester CANNOT support a big theatre, then we shouldnt build one. But we should also all be able to agree that if the study determines Rochester CAN support a big theatre, then it should be a new theatre built downtown.

i'm not sure why there is such a big debate around what the estimated cost is. Christa's proposal is for $70M. Period. Unless someone else has other information about the Christa proposal, $70M is the number that everyone should be assuming. It is NOT a minimum for construction, but assuming much more or much less is completely unjustified. So lets try to keep to this figure until more information comes out.

As far as the renovation study goes, RTC, we are talking about 2 different things. If you think there should be a "demand" type study determining whether or not a 3000+ seat theatre is needed, I'm in agreement with you.

But the study that was commissioned was to determine whether or not refurbishing the Auditorium to a 3000+ seat theatre would be more cost effective than building a new 3000+ seat theatre. The answer is no.

So logically speaking, if a separate study determines that there is demand for a 3000+ seat theatre, then the most cost effective way to provide a 3000+ seat theatre is by building a new one.

By the way, there was a study done on "19 mid-sized cities and found that the average performing arts center seats 2,409 theatre-goers". But this does NOT give any insight as to whether Rochester specifically can support a 3000+ seat theatre or not.

So, I am all for commissioning some type of demand/feasability study. I think we can all agree that if that study determines that Rochester CANNOT support a big theatre, then we shouldnt build one. But we should also all be able to agree that if the study determines Rochester CAN support a big theatre, then it should be a new theatre built downtown.

That all sounds reasonable, as long as any studies that are commissioned are done so by a group that is impartial, not one with some sort of vested interest or agenda.

Not sure if any of you caught the rendering of the new SUNY Rochester EOC facility at One City Center in the RBJ a couple of weeks ago. While I don't like the idea of a major office facility becoming a non-taxable property, the good news is that they do plan some nice modifications to what is a very utilitarian early-1980s structure. Plus, they plan to bring back Canopy's Restaurant, which should add some life to the Chestnut Street corridor.

ManAboutTown….you mention tax exemption for the new SUNY facility. It brings up a point about development in downtown Rochester. Increasingly…you see more property tax exemptions for private development and many more public facilities being built. A new bus terminal, a new performing arts center at Midtown, the new crime lab on West Main Street…the many, many housing developments that have 10 year tax exemptions, the new ESL HQ, PAETEC’s “planned” HQ at Midtown, the new MCC downtown Campus, Sibley’s building not paying their property tax for over a decade and several COMIDA projects are NOT paying property taxes to the city. Actually….”who is paying property taxes in downtown Rochester”?

For many decades….property taxes in downtown Rochester heavily subsidized tax revenue for the total city. Increasing, the city is getting poorer (paying less property taxes) and the downtown district is not paying a significant share of property taxes. This is the main problem for the City. WHO IS PAYING THE TAXES in the city of Rochester? ….just an observation!

It seems to me that the most promising portion of the tax base are the private developments that offer rental units. I'm not aware of any tax exemptions that were given to: Buckingham Commons, Corn Hill Landing, 250 South, Michael Sterns Building, HH Warner Lofts, The Temple Building, etc. Assuming that this is the case (that they did not receive any tax exemptions) then Rochester might benefit from attracting more of these projects. The Midtown Tower project is a good example. The city and state are encouraging development by removing asbestos and getting the project "shovel ready" for Christa to develop. Provided Christa doesn't default on it (which is not a given with these guys), the new Midtown tower should provide a higher tax base for several decades to come.

I think that if the City hopes to have a buyer for the Sibley building, it's going to have to create some kind of incentive for someone to buy it. The Sibley Building needs a lot of work before it can expect to become a competitive property, and I think it's going to be very hard for any developer to come in, pay full price, pay the back taxes on it, and then start renovating it while expecting to make a profit. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense for the city to seize the property, waive the back taxes, and then auction it off so that a developer can acquire it at a price where he can expect to make money. Once the property is renovated, and has tenants, the city can re-assess the building at a higher rate.

I also don't see what the big deal is with the 10 year tax abatements is either. It's for 10 years, and in some cases it's a graduated thing. People start paying after the first year, just not the full amount. In either case, the city can expect to see more tax revenue than it was after 10 years. The City is taking a loss for a few years only to enjoy a perpetuity thereafter. It's better then doing nothing, and letting a derelict property just sit there.

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/05/02/1037446/the-housing-shuffle.html

Check out the above article from today's Buffalo News. It reflects exactly what I have been stating on this forum for a long time. Subsidized housing just creates abandoned homes and shuffles people from one neighborhood to another. Again...this is not economic/community development!!! Its a waste of valuable public capital.

I don't think that projects like Corn Hill Landing, and the other rental projects I listed have that much of a reshuffling effect at all. I've known 4 different people who have lived in Corn Hill Landing. All of them were in their mid 20's, and had never owned a home. They held junior positions at respectable firms, and wanted a nice place to live. The only thing they abandoned was their old room in their parents house. Furthermore, I've looked at units in Buckingham Commons, The Temple Building, the HH Warner Building, and 250 South. When I asked the leasing agents who else lived in the building, the response I got almost all of the time was "Young Professionals". There were even two instances where people from out of state were leasing units at 250 South and at The Temple Building. Regardless, I would hazard to guess that these urban trailblazers who are renting units in these downtown buildings, never owned houses in the first place (who in their right mind would go from owning in Rochester to renting), and therefore haven't done any shuffling whatsoever. Remember, when you're examining supply and demand of housing you're not looking at "the individual" like you do when you examine normal equilibrium models, but rather you are looking at "households that demand housing". These renters never demanded housing in the first place, as they cannot afford the downpayments.

Funny, The News never prints stories about how all the subsidized suburban developments have reshuffled people out of the city to live over the last 60 years. And if you think the suburbs are not subsidized you have your head in the sand.

Steel….There is a distinct difference between Suburban and urban subsidies. While new infrastructure is being financed to accommodate suburban growth….rarely if ever were there specific subsidies to individual private developments in the suburbs…residential/retail/commercial ….as exists now in the city. Remember, the suburban infrastructure subsidies are exactly what the city got early in the development of the city. Note all the inter-state highways are channel to downtown Rochester, most arts/cultural/professional sports/entertainment/convention infrastructure still exists for the city….whereas most suburban subsidies are just basic water/sewer and highways. Actually, the city has done a horrible job of retaining residents…rising crime, terrible public investment decisions, ignoring proper investment of major public assets that exists in the city…etc.

I still support major public infrastructure support for the city…while winding down wasteful suburban sprawl…like more suburban roads, water/sewer infrastructure. Such action would try to intensify a higher concentration of development in the city core. What I don’t support is specific and wasteful subsidies for individual commercial/residential/retail development in the city.

We know. You've mentioned that before RTC. About 100 times. Thanks for the reminder though.
On to the next topic...

Steel….There is a distinct difference between Suburban and urban subsidies. While new infrastructure is being financed to accommodate suburban growth….rarely if ever were there specific subsidies to individual private developments in the suburbs…residential/retail/commercial ….as exists now in the city. Remember, the suburban infrastructure subsidies are exactly what the city got early in the development of the city. Note all the inter-state highways are channel to downtown Rochester, most arts/cultural/professional sports/entertainment/convention infrastructure still exists for the city….whereas most suburban subsidies are just basic water/sewer and highways. Actually, the city has done a horrible job of retaining residents…rising crime, terrible public investment decisions, ignoring proper investment of major public assets that exists in the city…etc.

I still support major public infrastructure support for the city…while winding down wasteful suburban sprawl…like more suburban roads, water/sewer infrastructure. Such action would try to intensify a higher concentration of development in the city core. What I don’t support is specific and wasteful subsidies for individual commercial/residential/retail development in the city.


When infrastructure was built for the early city of Rocester it was built for a population that was increasing. The infrastructure built now in the suburbs only shifts tax payers from one municipality to another. That is waste at its worst. I can think of no greater waste of resouces than building highways and widening roads. And those highways leading into the city are at the expense of the city and the benefit of the suburbs. It is quite silly to blame the city for doing a horrible job of retaining residents when the federal and state governments have made and all out assault on the city for the last 60 years. From the earleist days of teh suburban sprawl movement government has promoted disinvestment in the city and subsidized investment in the suburbs. For example the original GI Bill after WWII gave low interest loans to returning vets but only if they bought single family NEW houses - of course this was a rare housing type in cities that had little remaining open land which has seen almost no new construction cince the start of the depression 16 years earlier.

Oh but the feds did not stop there. They made sure that the poor blacks stayed in teh city so they built massive new housing projects - in the city - pretty much locking in the city as the place for poverty and social problems. All those people had to get to the suburbs so the feds step in again and carve of the old historic neighborhoods for quick exit form downtown.

So, yea, your distinction between types of subsidies is pretty meaningless if you ask me.

Seriously RTC, blaming City government for urban crime? You must be joking. Thanks for explaining what I thought was obvious, Steel.

Steel….What I don’t support is specific and wasteful subsidies for individual commercial/residential/retail development in the city.

What a refreshing point of view - thanks for sharing it with us. It never grows old.:lol:

I've yet to hear strong evidence against these private rental developments. I'm by no means saying I'm right, I'm just trying to hear a counterpoint.

These are about the only positive things that I see happening downtown. We can't even agree to build a fully funded bus terminal. The last big significant private investment (The ESL building) does almost nothing to improve the street frontage or the pedestrian experience. Is there anything else that's been built in the last 10 years that's had as positive an effect as places like Corn Hill Landing, or The Sagamore, or The Temple building? Let me rephrase that: If we start shunning this type of private development, what do we have to look forward to? PAETEC? Maybe...I don't think that's a given by any means. After watching those plans get scaled back and back, who knows where that's going to end up. Maybe the city can use the money it doesn't give to private development projects to improve city infrastructure?? Again, this city can't even build a fully subsidized bus terminal, why should we think it can responsibly tackle projects like those which will require spending its own money.

It's kind of unfortunate that the city has to help out some of these private development projects, but at the end of the day I don't think it's unreasonable for the city to offer some assistance to move a project along with the understanding that it will see a return on its investment through an increased tax base. These developments are just about the only thing downtown has going for it right now.

Moses….you mention “return on investment” as it relates to public subsidies for a specific private development…be it Retail/Residential/Commercial. I strongly agree…this should be the most important criteria the city utilizes when decided if it should “subsidizes” any project. Where we disagree is determining what city (public sector) action garners the highest “return on investment”. This is fundamental to my argument.

Spending an increment of say….$ 1 million ….for a specific private development will create a very narrow benefit (the builder and end users who gets the specific benefit)…..versus…. that same $1 million in a general “public investment” that has a positive economic benefit for hundreds or thousands of individuals/entities that are impacted by such public investment. What I support is the widest and highest economic impact for public capital investment.

Sure giving public subsidies for a specific project can show financial positive impact on a particular project (higher property tax revenue after the project is finished). But my argument is that this same public capital investment spent on a alternative “general” project will have substantially more economic benefits. An example would be to spend $1 million on a major digital camera security system for a section of Main Street. Such an investment would benefit scores of property owners along Main Street. It would create a positive sense of security for patrons to visits and walk along such a thoroughfare. Sure it’s hard to quantify…but in general …a “general” public investment will be immensely more beneficial that just for one private development along Main Street

Another example would be instead of spending $1 million in public subsidies for 50 new residential units on Main street…an alternative public investment would be to saturate heavy landscaping and street scrape improvement for a one block stretch of Main Street. The beneficiaries of such a project would entail all property owners along this stretch of Main Street …not just the 50 unit residential project. I just think that public sector subsidies for a “specific” project borders on unethical. Government actions should NOT just benefit a person or entity…it must have very “direct” and general benefit to the public. It’s like steering public money to Mr. Smith or specific company vs…public money going towards a project that benefits the public in general.

Sure this can be an endless argument….but I have never seen where aggressive public “subsidies” turned a depressed city into a growing, vibrant city….NEVER!!! …..yet depressed city after depressed city utilize the same strategy….Toledo…Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse….etc.

Ok, so you're clearly an advocate of subsidies going towards projects that yield public benefits. I have no problem with this. I too feel that it's not the city's job to cut developers checks. What I'm curious about is where exactly do you draw the line. I want to use two examples, and see how you feel about each.

The first is Corn Hill Landing. I think it would have been damn near impossible for Mark IV to have built as nice a development as they did with out the City subsidizing the promenade portion along the river. Without the city's help, Mark IV would have been stuck flipping the bill for that portion of the project, and who knows what Corn Hill Landing would look like, or if it would exist at all. I think we can all agree that the final product is a success. We've got young people renting space, downtown, on previously vacant land. The promenade section allows for residents and non-residents alike to take a nice stroll along the river. Corn Hill Landing clearly provided a private and a public good upon its completion.

Now take Midtown Tower. Here the city is paying for the asbestos abatement so that it is economically feasible for Christa to convert the tower to rental units, with a handful of condos on top. The private benefit is obvious. Christa doesn't have to pay that portion of the development costs, and will enjoy a nice cash flow from the units that it will ultimately build. I would argue that the public is going to receive a benefit as well. By having the tower be redeveloped, the public is going to enjoy a new building to look at (which I feel can have a substantial impact on an area), smaller blocks, some new frontage/better pedestrian experience, and some amount of green space.

I guess what I'm saying is that although the city is taking steps that will directly benefit developers, I don't have that much of an issue with these projects so long as there is some public component that is a part of these projects. Do you think it would be beneficial for the city as a whole to stipulate that any projects receiving subsidies (in whatever form they may come in) needs to provide some public good?

Moses…..regarding Corn Hill Landing. I would of supported this project since clearly there is a significant public benefit. The river front walkway/bikeway along the River, the port set-up that allows boats to dock at the center including tour boats and the various public areas in the development clearly benefit the public. Walking along that “public” promenade during the day or night offers one the most spectacular views of downtown Rochester. This is a public/private project that should have been done decades ago!

The Midtown project is a different issue. I strongly support public dollars going towards the complete demolition of the Midtown complex…but where I draw the line is offering additional substantial dollars towards a specific developer like Christa to redevelop the Midtown tower for rental/condo project. The asbestos had to be removed as part of the demolition of the total site…if Christa/Morgan wanted to develop the steel shell….sell it to them….but giving additional public subsidies (including the extremely valuable 500= underground parking spots) was to excessive and the end development is more of a benefit to Christa/Morgan than the general public. If the public is spending $55 million on the demolition of Midtown…there should be a substantial economic benefit to the public…this is why I strongly supported a large central park as a “public anchor” ….and selling off perimeter parcels to developers.

When substantial public dollars are going to specific projects…that means less money goes to urgently needed public amenities that benefit the public in general. If more public amenities are constructed/planned than there would be substantially more private developer interest/investments in the city/downtown ….WITHOUT SUBSIDIES!

Who said Christa is being given the public parking which exists under Midtown Tower? I doubt that will be the arrangement. When the Sagamore on East was constructed, a small portion of parking (50-55 spaces) was gated off in the East End Garage to serve as secured parking for Sagamore residents. This parking however, was NOT given to Christa. The City owns the East End Garage, and the Sagamore Building Association pays a monthly fee to lease those spaces from the City. The cost is included in the monthly condo association fees. My point is, the City is not really subsidising these developments, and they're not really giving anything away. All they are doing is allowing for an incremental tax abatement to entice peopel to buy units downtown. How many times do we have to have this conversation?

As far as Midtown Tower is concerned, the City is not paying for asbestos abatement, the State is. While the City did purchase the complex, and will likely give away the shell of Midtown Tower once the State money has paid for demolition of the facade, the ultimate benefits will be large given that no developer would have been able to tackle the project otherwise, and it will result in a high profile mixed-use building of 186 rentals apartments, 24 condos, and significant commercial space in the base.

When I state “given” in regards to the underground parking at Midtown…it was a general statement. I realize some nominal monthly fee will be paid to the city for these parking spaces. But realize that these payments will not come anywhere near the true costs of these spaces and the maintenance and security fees that go with them. Also realize that these spaces are 24-7 exclusive use for condo/rental tenants. It’s like eliminating from public use 1/3 of the Midtown parking garage. If PAETEC uses the balance for their use…at least the spaces are free to be used by the public after 5 and on weekends. The Christa/Morgan development will have complete and exclusive use 24-7, 12 months/year of over 500 parking spots. This massive underground parking is a major “public asset”….but rental tenants and condo owners will have complete control of these parking spots for a nominal monthly fee! This is just one of MANY subsidies that have yet to be announced to the public.

RTC.... as usual you grossly exaggerate the facts to support your argument. The fee paid for the parking that was gated for the Sagamore use is not "nominal", but rather the same as any other monthly pass holder using the garage would pay. What makes you think Midtown Tower will be any different? Also, the Tower will not take 1/3 of the parking away. There will be 186 rentals (rentals usually get one space per unit) and 24 condos (which typically get two spaces), so I'd estimate 234 spaces, or let's say 250 to be generous, will be taken for residential use. There are 1800 spaces down there, so relax. Where does your instistance on 500 spots needed for the tower come from, and who says it will be a "nominal" fee?? You have no facts to back up such statements.

http://www.rochesterdowntown.com/news/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1259001818&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

The above article indicates a total of 400 parking spots will be dedicated for the development….smaller number than 500 but much higher than your estimate of 250. And when I refer to “nominal fee”, I am talking about the significant added value this fee will obtain. For an average monthly fee, one does not get exclusivity 24-7, 12 months/year. Monthly rates just gives you free access to any spot that may exist at the time one uses it. When that person is not using the spot…it can be used by other people who use it for an hour/day or special event use. So the true costs of “exclusivity of use” should be a much higher price than the average monthly rate. And the specifics haven’t been announced yet (the project is still speculative) but I would guess the monthly fee could be less than the average monthly rate. The bottom line…underground parking is EXTREMELY expensive and a tremendous asset for the city…and the thought of giving it away for a few hundred rental/condo owners does not make any financial/economic sense. And this parking subsidy is one of many subsidies that this development will get (if it gets built).

An example would be to spend $1 million on a major digital camera security system for a section of Main Street... Such an investment would benefit scores of property owners along Main Street...

…an alternative public investment would be to saturate heavy landscaping and street scrape improvement for a one block stretch of Main Street.


laugh out loud funny. worst ideas in the history of ideas.

If I am a Main Street commerical tenant, I don't give a damn about any of these things. But 50 units can be 100+ more natural customers for my business, and 200+ more eyes on the street that take away the need for creepy security cameras in the first place. RTC for Mayor! hahahaha

RTC... once the tax abatement expires on a downtown condo, and a condo unit is subject to full tax assessment, individuals begin paying something in the $15-18k range for annual taxes on a half million dollar unit. Given that these same individuals pay a monthly rate to park in a City owned garage, I personally, don't think the notion of having secured designated parking is out the question. You can't attract high end buyers without it, and the benefit to the City in the long run is substantial.

Please explain what you mean when you say that "this parking subsidy is one of many subsidies that this development will get if it gets built". You try and make general statements like this all the time with no facts to support what you're saying and it's time to either back up what you say, or don't say it at all.

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/05/02/1037446/the-housing-shuffle.html

Check out the above article from today's Buffalo News. It reflects exactly what I have been stating on this forum for a long time. Subsidized housing just creates abandoned homes and shuffles people from one neighborhood to another. Again...this is not economic/community development!!! Its a waste of valuable public capital.

this article deals with subsidizing new homes and renovations that entice people from low income to working class neighborhoods into other low income and working class neighborhoods.
the article doesn't concern itself with new luxery apartments and condominiums in downtown buffalo.

believe me, the guy in the article is not concernend with people in kensington-bailey leaving his part of town for downtown lofts. noone is leaving that nieghborhood for a half million dollar downtown condo, and if they are....good for them.

High Falls….fortunately for you …you are not a commercial tenant on Main Street. Any businessman would know that having a safe/secure corridor is the number essential need…the most basic of need to conduct commerce and attract customers. Just because you have a 50 unit apartment…do you expect them to be outside or looking outside their windows 24-7? I bet anyone could be mugged on Main Street before anyone in the apartment was able to observe it. And realize that 50 units will do little to improve commerce along Main Street…enough people to satisfy a Lemonade stand! Now if you were a “village type” business like a nail salon or dry cleaning business…you might get excited about 50 new housing units…but the dynamics of downtown development requires regional businesses that pay a higher premium to be downtown…that is the function of a “regional center” …not a common “village center”. And finally, if the Main Street corridor is considered safe with a modern up-scale look….you could attract hundreds of new visitors along Main Street that would attract higher end regional visitors/tourists.

And RocCityGuy….again you are just looking at the tax revenue benefit (after 10 years!) of one property…you fail to look at the property tax revenue from the property that will be abandoned after you generate a new product without a population gain in the region. We discussed this many times before. You are just looking at the narrow positive side…not the complete impact! And with your rationalization…local government throughout America should subsidize “every” empty/underutilized building that exists. Of course this is not practical and not cost-effective.
And there will be other public subsidies for the Christa/Morgan project….Federal subsidized loan program, possibly COMIDA and HUD grants. When…and if…the project is finalized….you will see a slew of incentives/subsidies. I realize that you live in downtown Rochester and you would like to see additional neighbors….but I don’t think it’s a function of government to subsidize where a person should live. With limited public dollars….I would rather see more “productive” projects for the general public rather than your new neighbors!

VeryProTourism….I believe the article is still quite relevant to Rochester regardless if the buyer/renter comes from the city or suburb. Subsidizing new residential construction will normally/eventually lead to an abandoned housing unit in the city regardless where the new resident comes from. And also realize that the vast majority of subsidized housing in downtown Rochester is low to medium income people…just a handful of affluent residents. Again…we are just shuffling people and creating additional
abandoned/vacant housing units. There are thousands of such units in the city! IF the city would maintain/enhance quality amenities….people would move into the city without subsidies.

http://vimeo.com/10005891

Check out the above website to view a HD time lapse video of downtown Rochester. Make sure you select HD and full screen for optimum viewing.

RTC... I'm am not about to have this conversation with you AGAIN, for the 100th time, and I doubt anyone else wants to either. You are so ridiculously stubborn on this simple point. As I've mentioned before, there are several condo owners in my building who have bought units here and came from other cities for corporate jobs in Rochester. In addition, I can assure you that people who purchase condos downtown, are NOT leaving an empty house somewhere else.

As far as new rental properties are concerned, if rehabbing a historic building downtown means that fewer garden apartments in Perinton or Webster (places that young professionals don't want to be anyway) are built, then I say that's a good thing. Again, you have no hard data to back up your claims. Stating "no net gain because of no population growth in the city" excludes a number of variables that impact the notion of supply and demand. Do we have to do this EVERY goddamn time a new development is discussed???

RocCityGuy….you are sooooo obsessed with getting downtown housing you are blinded by facts/analysis and basic economic tenets.

Your example of a couple of individuals/families that had corporate transfers from out of town will have the same economic impact. If they didn’t purchase at Sagamore…they would have purchased somewhere else in the city or suburb. So there is a house/condo that will not be purchased in the region. And the region as a whole does not have growth in population…so there will be a vacant home. Now it won’t be a high end home in Pittsford or along East Avenue…this empty housing unit will eventually gravitate/surface in the weakest link…the city of Rochester.

How do explain the thousands of vacant housing units that exist in the city and very few in the suburbs? Do you think the vacant homes breed secretly at night? Now I am not saying that the private sector should not build any more housing….but I am saying is that the public sector should not subsidize any new housing.

RocCityGuy….you are sooooo obsessed with getting downtown housing you are blinded by facts/analysis and basic economic tenets.

Your example of a couple of individuals/families that had corporate transfers from out of town will have the same economic impact. If they didn’t purchase at Sagamore…they would have purchased somewhere else in the city or suburb. So there is a house/condo that will not be purchased in the region. And the region as a whole does not have growth in population…so there will be a vacant home. Now it won’t be a high end home in Pittsford or along East Avenue…this empty housing unit will eventually gravitate/surface in the weakest link…the city of Rochester.

How do explain the thousands of vacant housing units that exist in the city and very few in the suburbs? Do you think the vacant homes breed secretly at night? Now I am not saying that the private sector should not build any more housing….but I am saying is that the public sector should not subsidize any new housing.

So no new roads, sewers, road widening, bridges, water lines etc?

RTC... again, fort the last time, the "thousands of vacant housing units in the City" are generally found in the poorest, most depressed neighborhoods, and are valued at around $30,000-$50,000, or less. Are you seriously trying to draw a parallel that vacancies like that are created through increased high end lofts and condos?? You've got to be kidding me. And I'm not "obsessed" with downtown housing, I just think your argument is bullshit, and someone needs to call you out on it.

How do you explain the hundreds of suburban homes built every year in Pittsford, Perinton, Webster, etc.? Are those the homes creating vacancies in "the crescent" of north Rochester??

I agree. I just don’t see any correlation between all of the vacant north end houses and these high end rental units as well as the minuscule amount of owner occupied units. Moreover, I really don’t care about the vacant high end houses in Pittsford or Brighton. I would also hazard to guess that nobody on this message board cares about those neighborhoods. Those places are well established, have some of the best schools in the country, continue to see growth, and are in no danger of becoming the next ghetto. People who move to this region to work at Strong, the region’s biggest employer, are going to gravitate to those areas and contribute to their growth. Any spillover that downtown can get from those neighborhoods is great.

RockGuy……you just don’t understand economics. I will try to explain it in a different manner….hopefully you will comprehend the concept. In its most basic form it is the concept of supply and demand. Our metro region is basicly stagnate…no growth in population. People move in, people move out…new people are born, old people die. After all of these movements…the yearly assessment is a stagnate population. Now if one continues to build homes (low end, mid-level or high end)….vacancies will occur. There is just not enough people to purchase all of the homes that are collectively in the marketplace. And the depository for the vast majority of homes will be the city…the place where homes have much lower values. This is why rarely there are vacant homes in the suburb vs. thousands in the city.

(rather than complicate the explanation…note that the fluctuation in the average size of households also effects the level of vacancies. During affluent times…more people form households…they have higher incomes and decide to move away from sharing a home/apt. , a divorce occurs, moving away from the parents…etc.. And during tough economic times…there is a contraction in household formations.) But such statistics don’t fluctuate much from year to year or the market compensates by building more new homes during an uptick in the economy).

As an example….when a high end house is built in Pittsford or in a high end loft in the city …some person with wealth will purchase this house and vacant their present home (which probably is worth less than the new home)….someone further down the “foodchain” purchases this recently vacated home….then the process continues to evolve until a home is vacated and this home cannot find a buyer and thus a temporary vacant home becomes permanently vacant…and the location of this vacant home will normally be located in the city. So building a new home (high end or medium end or low end) will “eventually” cause a vacant home. Again…there are not enough buyers…its basic supply and demand!
If you cannot accept this explanation….give me your theory on why there are thousands of vacant homes in the city….based on widely accepted tenets of economics!

Does anyone have any figures regarding the vacant houses. I’d be curious to know if the vacancy rate increased during the 2004-2007 credit proliferation era. If this trickledown effect were true, I would expect to see an increase in the number of downtown vacancies during those years, as it would be cheapest to move then. You want to talk about the “basic tenets of economics”, nothing is more basic than the fact that: the less it costs to do something, the more people will do it. I have a feeling that if anyone can find these numbers we WILL NOT see an increase in people leaving the city. These people are too poor to afford living in the suburbs, and when they do leave these inner city houses, they aren’t leaving them for a better, newly vacant house in the suburbs, but are leaving them because they are leaving Rochester altogether. This is just a hunch though.

Let’s also not ignore the fact that just because the region as a whole has a stagnant population, doesn’t mean that certain demographics aren’t growing. Like I’ve mentioned before UR/Strong is a major player in terms of employment. The people that they hire aren’t blue collar individuals, but are more white collar, and science/research types. These people are going to be looking at houses in the more affluent areas of the region. I really feel that any vacancies that were created in these neighborhoods are going to quickly get filled, and not necessarily by people looking to upgrade either.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s1542229.shtml

In what may be the single largest blow to the City's beer and liquor businesses since prohibition, the University of Rochester has suspended my old frat (or fraternity for you sophisticated types) for 3 years. This will no doubt put an incredible strain on Wright Wisner, Discount Liquor, Beers of the World, and the Gujar Mart on Mt. Hope Ave, all of whom have done considerable business with the brothers of Psi U over the years.

Moses….I was A TKE from Ohio State. Probably the number one reason to join a Fraternity was frequent parties and easy access to alcohol. To me that was the essence of college! The one rule change which I would strongly urge (there is a momentum of interest to change the rule throughout the country) is to lower the drinking age to 18 or 19. Such an act would drastically open up the number of bars/restaurants along with live entertainment within these establishments. I was told that once the drinking age went to 21, there was a major downturn in the number of live bands. Typically live entertainment was a major component of any bar/restaurant that catered to the youth. This would greatly enliven the commercial districts near our college campuses. In Europe, the drinking age is much lower than in the states. In Sweden, a 14 year kid can walk in a store and buy a bottle of liquor or wine!

My suggestion is to lower the drinking age to 19 and/or legalize Marijuana!

RTC... thanks for explaining economics to me. You clearly think that because I disagree with you I must be stupid. As Moses points out, just because overall population is not growing, that does not mean that trends and demographics go unchanged. There is a growing market for urban housing that is within walking distance to the central business district, restaurants, culture, jobs, etc. This horse has been beaten to death. Move on.

RockGuy……you just don’t understand economics. I will try to explain it in a different manner….hopefully you will comprehend the concept. In its most basic form it is the concept of supply and demand. Our metro region is basicly stagnate…no growth in population. People move in, people move out…new people are born, old people die. After all of these movements…the yearly assessment is a stagnate population. Now if one continues to build homes (low end, mid-level or high end)….vacancies will occur. There is just not enough people to purchase all of the homes that are collectively in the marketplace. And the depository for the vast majority of homes will be the city…the place where homes have much lower values. This is why rarely there are vacant homes in the suburb vs. thousands in the city.

(rather than complicate the explanation…note that the fluctuation in the average size of households also effects the level of vacancies. During affluent times…more people form households…they have higher incomes and decide to move away from sharing a home/apt. , a divorce occurs, moving away from the parents…etc.. And during tough economic times…there is a contraction in household formations.) But such statistics don’t fluctuate much from year to year or the market compensates by building more new homes during an uptick in the economy).

As an example….when a high end house is built in Pittsford or in a high end loft in the city …some person with wealth will purchase this house and vacant their present home (which probably is worth less than the new home)….someone further down the “foodchain” purchases this recently vacated home….then the process continues to evolve until a home is vacated and this home cannot find a buyer and thus a temporary vacant home becomes permanently vacant…and the location of this vacant home will normally be located in the city. So building a new home (high end or medium end or low end) will “eventually” cause a vacant home. Again…there are not enough buyers…its basic supply and demand!
If you cannot accept this explanation….give me your theory on why there are thousands of vacant homes in the city….based on widely accepted tenets of economics!

The logic and over-simplification of everything stated here is absolutely laughable. RTC, if you dont mind, can you tell us where you received your economics education? I have been looking for good a graduate program in economics and it would help to know what programs to stay away from.

There are many theories about why there are thousands of vacant homes in the city, but most of them revolve around a central theme....urban DISinvestment. I am not going to get into the specifics of what that means, there is plenty of material out on that topic, but if someone else wants to go ahead.

Moses….I was A TKE from Ohio State. Probably the number one reason to join a Fraternity was frequent parties and easy access to alcohol. To me that was the essence of college!

That may explain your grade in Economics class.

I think the Mayor said it best in the State of the City address last night:

"... I want to be clear that the City is not financing all of these projects. We are making investments that bring jobs and financial returns over time. Altogether, we’ve spent about $38 million in city funding sources and used it to leverage over $1 billion in private investment. This investment has helped to attract or retain employers that represent more than 35,000 jobs in our city...".

RocRot….I had a GREAT time at college….but even with a heavy hangover on a early Monday morning economics class, I was still able to understand the basic concept of “supply and demand”. Many in this forum are still confused by this concept!

ManAboutTown….the problem with the Mayors statement is that similar words were spoken by Maggie Brooks in her annual state of the county speech. Both political leaders have similar subsidy projects. Armed with COMIDA and Empire Zones, Maggie talks about leveraging public investments (subsidies) to create tens of thousands of jobs. This is the local political game of creating an “illusion of growth” for city/county constituents. Similar statements were made by Jack Doyle and Mayor Johnson for many years. Yet year after year our community doesn’t really progress. Unemployment is high, total job creation is low and still a net out migration of people out of the city/county. The only beneficiaries of these subsidy programs are the individual builder/developers and the companies that receive substantial tax breaks/grants. We are just shuffling people and businesses around the region and creating more vacancies! This is not progress and is not economic development. And similar political games are being played in Buffalo and Syracuse.

Seriously. We're done with the subsidy talk. It's happening, it's a common stimulus practice, and it's not going to change whether you like it or not. What's the point of beating this to death? Get over it and move on to a more constructive topic.

Did anyone catch the article in the D&C a few days ago about all the road projects going on in the City this summer?

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20105030326

I found it really interesting that East Avenue is being repaved from Broadway to Culver, and that its being reduced to two lanes, from four, between Alexander and Culver. It's currenlty two lanes from Alexander to the Liberty Pole, and Culver to Winton. The street width will remian the same, but the lane reduction will allow for bike lanes and/or parking. I'm surprised this is the first I've heard of it given it's happening so soon.

Culver Road Armory plans detailed in an article in City Newspaper:

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/articles/2010/05/DEVELOPMENT-Culver-Road-Armory-plans-unveiled/

RockGuy……you just don’t understand economics. I will try to explain it in a different manner….hopefully you will comprehend the concept. In its most basic form it is the concept of supply and demand. Our metro region is basicly stagnate…no growth in population. People move in, people move out…new people are born, old people die. After all of these movements…the yearly assessment is a stagnate population. Now if one continues to build homes (low end, mid-level or high end)….vacancies will occur. There is just not enough people to purchase all of the homes that are collectively in the marketplace. And the depository for the vast majority of homes will be the city…the place where homes have much lower values. This is why rarely there are vacant homes in the suburb vs. thousands in the city.

(rather than complicate the explanation…note that the fluctuation in the average size of households also effects the level of vacancies. During affluent times…more people form households…they have higher incomes and decide to move away from sharing a home/apt. , a divorce occurs, moving away from the parents…etc.. And during tough economic times…there is a contraction in household formations.) But such statistics don’t fluctuate much from year to year or the market compensates by building more new homes during an uptick in the economy).

As an example….when a high end house is built in Pittsford or in a high end loft in the city …some person with wealth will purchase this house and vacant their present home (which probably is worth less than the new home)….someone further down the “foodchain” purchases this recently vacated home….then the process continues to evolve until a home is vacated and this home cannot find a buyer and thus a temporary vacant home becomes permanently vacant…and the location of this vacant home will normally be located in the city. So building a new home (high end or medium end or low end) will “eventually” cause a vacant home. Again…there are not enough buyers…its basic supply and demand!
If you cannot accept this explanation….give me your theory on why there are thousands of vacant homes in the city….based on widely accepted tenets of economics!

do you really believe economic processes are that linear? the logic of this 'food chain' seems sound, all things equal, but you ignore several glaring variables.
for example;
the ability of the market to produce new prospective homebuyers without increasing the population (first time homebuyers, divorcees, etc.)...(your little poop-rant about how these numbers don't shift much from year to year is non-sense. household sizes have been declining in america for decades, in a no growth market this means the same number of people living in more housing units)

the potential for a shift in needs amongst a specific demographic. (recent empty nesters selling their four bedroom house for a one or two bedroom condo, a young family selling their starter home for a bigger home, etc)...

change in other parts of the market(rental, commercial) and their potential push on the home building/home sales...

obsoletion/degradation- i hate to say this, but every once in a while some stuff just can't be refurbished.

your 'food chain' model just assumes that when someone moves up the economic ladder there is always and immediately someone directly below them awaiting their position in this housing caste system. this is very presumptuous.
your food chain also suggests that if overall demand in a market is stagnant, that demand in all submarkets must be stagnant as well......THIS IS WRONG!
demand for a specialized segment of a market can be high while the overall is weak.

as for the absolute see-saw supply and demand theory......uhhg, just uhhg.

I think the Mayor said it best in the State of the City address last night:

"... I want to be clear that the City is not financing all of these projects. We are making investments that bring jobs and financial returns over time. Altogether, we’ve spent about $38 million in city funding sources and used it to leverage over $1 billion in private investment. This investment has helped to attract or retain employers that represent more than 35,000 jobs in our city...".

For years the pols have been feeding us the line that tax hadouts to private companies will stabilize our rapid population decline and job losses. Millions spent and the result anothe census that will show the City losing thousands of people and in the past year we lost yet another 7.500 jobs. Subsidies do not work, period.

VeryProTourism……I have never stated that subsidizing home construction is the ONLY reason for the thousands of vacant housing units that exist in the city of Rochester. I stated many times that fluctuations of household size, the state of the economy, low interest rates, divorce, obsolescence…all contribute to vacant homes. But I am firm that for every new home constructed in the region…there will be a vacant home created…and it will eventually surface in the city. as an example....If no new homes are constructed in a region for a full year…this will create demand for the existing housing stock…lessening the inventory of existing homes and lessening the number of vacant homes. (I am not advocating such action….but I would support a moratorium on most "public subsidies" for new construction…in order to lessen the inventory of vacant homes).

Again, its basic supply and demand. Sure there a multitude of variables that operate daily in the marketplace that raise and lower the supply/demand of homes. But how could anyone disagree that increasing the supply of homes would not impact the number of vacant homes? And note that even with a lowering in the number of household size, our region continued to create vacant homes in our region. Expect that the average household size will increase as families/individuals share homes/apts. as unemployment remains high, interest rates eventually rise and home financing requirements become more stringent. This will create higher levels of vacant homes in the city….why aggravate it further by subsidizing additional units. I just think local government should not be in the business of subsidizing ones home. If one wants to live in the middle of downtown Rochester…let them pay the full/true costs of it like most other people in the region.

Ongoing discussions on general economics, whether for Upstate or for the country, should go HERE (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=571145), which is a more appropriate thread for non-development topics in western New York and a gathering place for WNY forumers.

Economic discussions are welcome, but continue the discussion in the linked thread. Should the discussion continue in here, I'll move any posts after this into the Non-Development thread in order to keep development topics front-and-center.

Discussing the economics behind vacancy rates and new housing has everything to do with development. I agree that sometimes the discussion goes a bit far down the tangent, but I will just say one more thing.

But I am firm that for every new home constructed in the region…there will be a vacant home created…and it will eventually surface in the city.

This makes total sense IF and ONLY IF population and consumer preference remains constant. RTC I have said this a number of times already but you have yet to address it so I would love to hear your response, because this will be the last time I bring it back up.

Population - Would you still stand firm on your above statement if there was a population increase? You shouldn't because a population increase means more people, means more homes filling up. The logical follow up question would be, what would cause a population increase? There are many things, but one of them could be an INCREASE IN THE SUPPLY OF QUALITY URBAN HOUSING. I know many people leave the Rochester area because of the lack of true urban living and the poor quality/lack of existing homes in the few urban areas Rochester has (ie downtown). So if quality urban homes are supplied, then this demographic of people ends up staying in Rochester instead of moving outside of Rochester, resulting in population increase.

Consumer preference - Lets assume that even if you build new urban housing stock, population still remains stagnant. Given these conditions, would you still stand firm on your above statement if there was a change in consumer preference toward urban housing? You shouldn't because SUPPLY AND DEMAND IS DRIVEN BY CONSUMER PREFERENCE. If people suddenly start prefering urban living (which many studies show is happening) then every new home built in the region will NOT result in a vacant home in the city because the city will no longer be the weakest market. THAT is the basic tenent of economics.

Now you can still say that you are just shuffling people from the suburbs into the city, and that would be true. But shuffling people from the burbs to the city is EXACTLY what the region needs! Everyone, including you RTC, wants REGIONAL amenities centrally located, ie. the city. But without a strong tax base, which includes businesses AND RESIDENTS, it is going to be difficult to fund these regional amenities. So shuffling people from the sprawled out suburbs into denser city living benefits both city and suburban residents.

Please let me know your thoughts on this. I have brought it up 2 or 3 times in the past but you have yet to address this. And remember, it is ok to admit that you had not thought about this from the perspective I just gave. Maybe, just maybe, you DONT have it all figured out. I know I dont, that is why I want to hear your thoughts on my perspective.

xzmattzx....How do you separate the issue of development with economic development...there are so interrelated especially in depressed NE cities who are desperately seeking ways to encourage development? It could be weeks before any new raw development news occurs! Why not have a discussion of such relevant topics to development? I checked on the link you presented....it appears to a site full of photos of empty buildings and barns...along with wooded sculptures from fallen trees!!! My thinking is RocCityGuy didn't like the issues I was discussing and complained to you. If someone doesn't like a specific topic...ignore it. Its pretty strange to have a forum on development issues but "economic development" isn't considered relevant to the main thread! UNBELIEBABLE!!!

And also realize that the vast majority of subsidized housing in downtown Rochester is low to medium income people…just a handful of affluent residents.
this is true. consider this though; most of downtown's low income residents are living in buildings that were built decades ago and have been subsidized since. most, if not all of downtown's new residential construction is priced for the upper income, and people of middle income without large financial obligations(ie;children), like empty nesters/recent retirees and young professionals.
IF the city would maintain/enhance quality amenities….people would move into the city without subsidies.

possible. its certainly tough to attract people when your schools are shot, sidewalks busted up, lighting is crummy, police force inept etc.

i would assume the reason these things all went to hell in the first place is because the city was losing tax base due to the exodus of residents and businesses, and could no longer afford to effectively maintain things.

so theres the catch. you don't have money to maintain quality amenities and services because you don't have the residents to pay for it, but you can't draw the residents to pay for it because you don't have the amenities and services they want.

RTC... the ONLY person I have complained to is you. I do find some humor in the fact that you think I care enough about your stupid rants to spend time trying to get them removed.

I've never said that economics should not be part of the general development discussion, however, the point I have TRIED to make is that we seem to have this same conversation over subsidies every month or so, and it has grown VERY tiresome. We're never going to all agree on this topic, so why not move on to more constructive conversations? I tried to spark a conversation about the reduction of East Avenue from four lanes to two, and the plans for the Culver Road Armory, but apparaently this dead end conversation regarding subsidies is more interesting.

p.s. if you're going to post the word "UNBELIEVABLE" over and over again as your "catch phrase", then at least spell it correctly.

xzmattzx....How do you separate the issue of development with economic development...there are so interrelated especially in depressed NE cities who are desperately seeking ways to encourage development? It could be weeks before any new raw development news occurs! Why not have a discussion of such relevant topics to development? I checked on the link you presented....it appears to a site full of photos of empty buildings and barns...along with wooded sculptures from fallen trees!!! My thinking is RocCityGuy didn't like the issues I was discussing and complained to you. If someone doesn't like a specific topic...ignore it. Its pretty strange to have a forum on development issues but "economic development" isn't considered relevant to the main thread! UNBELIEBABLE!!!

I agree, but I'd even say on occasion, that it's been months before new development news will pop up in the media or through the grapevine.

xzmattzx....How do you separate the issue of development with economic development...there are so interrelated especially in depressed NE cities who are desperately seeking ways to encourage development? It could be weeks before any new raw development news occurs! Why not have a discussion of such relevant topics to development? I checked on the link you presented....it appears to a site full of photos of empty buildings and barns...along with wooded sculptures from fallen trees!!! My thinking is RocCityGuy didn't like the issues I was discussing and complained to you. If someone doesn't like a specific topic...ignore it. Its pretty strange to have a forum on development issues but "economic development" isn't considered relevant to the main thread! UNBELIEBABLE!!!

No need to get angry. No one complained to me. I stopped in here to check on the thread, as is my duty as a moderator, and noticed that the last page or so (and now part of a third page, since a new page has since started) is full of arguing back and forth. Maybe all of it isn't a debate on economics, which is related to economic development but not completely, but there is more back-and-forth arguing than I noticed the first time through last night.

My point is that a smattering of posts about other stuff is fine, but when it continues on for several posts, then it should be moved to the Non-Development thread, which was created for this very reason. You'll notice that nothing was moved or deleted; I was just stopping in to remind you guys this.

DC-07.....you always state that our city lacks quality urban housing and that deters new residents moving to our region. this is why you support public subsidies for such residential development. But I believe you are mixing two separate points. The lack of quality of urban housing has nothing to do with the actual home/apt/condo...its the surrounding environment is what is missing. A home is just a “structure”....what goes on outside the home like security, upscale inviting street scape, active regional anchors such as nightclubs, comedy clubs, arts/cultural evens/venues, nearby quality sports facilities...etc. ...is what creates a healthy urban environment. Public dollars should go towards creating such environments not financing specific housing projects. If our city is successful in creating vibrant urban environment....the private sector will respond in much greater numbers WITHOUT subsidies.

Now I expect you to state that having homes will generate the much sought after “urban environment”....and this is where you and I totally disagree. As I have stated many, many times...we already have the people and the structures....over a million people and 250,000 structures (housing units) in the region. PEOPLE is not the problem...its just the very poor environment in the city and downtown which discourages a healthy “urban environment”. Spending millions on shuffling the people is not the answer....you must invest public capital dollars that will encourage the development of a healthy/vibrant urban environment. And in the case of downtown housing...at the best case scenario.(not probable)....if you throw in an additional 2,000 housing units in the next decade ...these numbers spread over the large downtown district is inconsequential...the numbers could not support any regional destination/business...other than a nail salon, dry cleaning business, a few coffee shops and small restaurants. The true success of a downtown district is attracting tourists and regional residents to visit and experience downtown Rochester 24-7. I would rather spend millions attracting from a huge regional base of one million people ...plus tourists....then spending the same millions of dollars in attracting a couple thousand people. Again...do you want a village center of a few thousand....or do you want a Regional Center attracting one million plus people?

And I stand by my statement...building a new home will generate a vacant home period. Sure there are some niche markets within the region where demand maybe growing but the overall region is stagnate/declining. With thousands of vacant units...mostly in the city ...subsidizing a new housing unit is just a poor choice of public investments. And VeryProTourism....this is the reason for the crumbling infrastructure...our region has made many, many poor choices on how its spends its public dollars over the last several decades. This is why the city is losing population and private investments. Poor choices like the Aqueduct project, the $50 million bus terminal,housing subsidies ...etc. continue...yet needed city/downtown infrastructure is ignored!

RTC, wouldn't the aqueduct project create the type of high end public realm investment that you are always suggesting the City SHOULD focus on creating? The project would establish a grand civic space at the heart of the regional core, that is tied directly to the rich and unique history that shaped our City. The Aqueduct is anchored by significant regional attractions, Blue Cross Arena, Convention Center and Public Library, and there are corporate towers, hotels, and residential neighborhoods a stones throw away. I actually think the project would be a perfect example of how the City can spend public dollars on public realm improvements that can change the way people view downtown, and ultimately encourage private development.

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Bus-Terminal-Nears-Crucial-Council-Votes/GElhnQ7Z9EOBzmqJaljekA.cspx

D'oh!

In an effort to totally stick it to Mark IV construction, the RGRTA appears to be moving forward with the Mortimer Street Bus Terminal. Mayor Duffy seems to be caving under the pressure of potentially loosing the federal dollars that were given to this project, and is urging the city council to approve the plans.

So there you have it. We’re getting a half-assed bus hut two blocks from the main intersection of our fair city. I’ve only seen three renderings of the new terminal, and it looks like a one-story dressed up army barracks. Does anyone have a link to other renderings/floor plans/site plans? I’d like to take a look at those. I’ve also heard that a second site was being considered up on Franklin Street near the old Rochester Savings bank, but Markey Mark didn’t pursue it because he’d already sunk a large amount of money into studying the Mortimer St. location.

RTC - I would like to point out that you STILL have NOT addressed my points. UNBELEIVABLE!!!!!! (misspelled on purpose) I know you want to turn everything into a subsidy argument, but NO where in my post did I mention subsidies. So the entire section 1 & 2 of your previous post does not address what I was trying to explain to you. However, you did manage to muster up 2 sentences somewhere in the realm of addressing my statements:

And I stand by my statement...building a new home will generate a vacant home period. Sure there are some niche markets within the region where demand maybe growing but the overall region is stagnate/declining....

You are crazy if you classify the "households without school age children" demographic a small or niche market. This is the demographic where demand for urban living is growing. Empty nesters, young professionals, college students are all a part of this demographic...basically anyone over 18 with no kids. Do you realize how many people that encompasses?

And apparently the quick buy up of all the residential spaces in the Sagamore wasnt a big enough hint that there is a market for this. And that was really only for empty nesters because of the price point. But my point is this...there IS a market for urban living...a BIG MARKET!

But lets forget about all that....lets make it even more simple. Your statement of "building a new home will generate a vacant home period" is still under a massive assumption. You do realize that this true IF AND ONLY IF population remains stagnant, right?

Please tell me that you at least agree with the following statement: If the regional population increases, then building a new home WILL NOT generate a vacant home somewhere else in the region (assuming that the increase in population does not exceed the increase of new homes).

If you cant agree with that, then there is no sense in going into the next part of the discussion because (as you like to say) you would be disagreeing with a fundamental tenent of economics. The next part of the discussion would be: what would cause a population increase in the region. That is where subsidy talk comes in. But we can get to that once you tell me whether or not you agree with the above statement.

Wow, I leave for a week and come back to several pages of this ranting...to the point that this dude xzmattzx gives a warning...wow.

Knowing how to chose your battles in life can save a person a lot of time and energy. If everyone can keep that in mind maybe I won't have to search through pages of junk to find a few hidden bits of development news.

Anyway, thanks for the updates on the East Ave redesign and the Culver Armory plans, and that time lapse was sweet too. I'd like to hear more insights/opinion/discussion on these (note the absence of the word debate), as well as the whole context surrounding the bus terminal, especially the alternate location being proposed. Does that have any chance of happening, or is it just DiMarzo making noise?

And if anyone cared for an update on the high-speed issue, this article answered some questions I had, and also once again infuriated me over NYS government's inability to function...

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100427/NEWS01/100427021/1002/NEWS

DC-07.....regardless of subsidy or no subsidy....any new home will create a vacant home. But you distort the argument by throwing in other issues that effect the number of vacant homes. Of course new population and more household formations will cause new demand for housing but my point was specifically with a new home. Any new home that isn't built, the demand for new housing will have to tap into the existing housing stock...thus eventually a vacant home will become a utilized home.

And the niche for urban living is rather small. Where did you get the idea that all empty nesters, married without children and young singles are demanding “urban living”. Selling a handful of condos at Sagamore...or at a subsidized rental in downtown Rochester does not equate into a huge market!!! And if there was this huge demand...the marketplace would supply this demand with private investment without subsidies.

But there comes a point in a discussion where you are not going to change your mind and I will not...so I see little benefit in further discussion. On to the debate on the horrific Bus terminal proposal....which may not get city council approval...since it will take 7 of 9 council members to support! There are many other alternatives which are much cheaper...quicker and more cost-effective.

RocCityGuy....I don't want to get into the debate about the Aqueduct project again. Its a horrific project that spends way too much money but just creates a linear cement pond over the Genesee River. Do we really need an additional stretch of manufactured water space...whereas we are already ignoring the Genesee, Lake Ontario and the Erie Canal?

Ha, we're finally getting pay stations! I hope our city has a better plan than Buffalo did for Hertel Ave, where they simply cut the old meters off 6 inches from the ground, leaving a walking hazard and a ridiculous looking component of the streetscape.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100508/NEWS01/5080341/1002/NEWS

'Pay stations' could replace parking meters

The days of digging for change to plug the parking meter soon could be over as drivers instead may only have to swipe their debit or credit card at a curbside pay station.

City officials plan to launch a pilot program with five downtown pay stations by the end of next week.

If successful, up to 100 stations would be rolled out beginning late fall, if not sooner, at a cost of $1 million.

Each pay station would replace an estimated 10 parking meters, thus allowing the city to remove 1,000 of the 1,600 meters that line Rochester's streets today.

"It's really about being able to accept various forms of payment," City Councilman Dana Miller said.

As soon as next year, drivers could be able to plug their meter by phone.

Parking meters yield about $600,000 in annual revenue to the city.

The solar-powered, wireless pay stations — also used in Buffalo, Albany and Toronto — are another piece of a parking system overhaul to be detailed next week when Mayor Robert Duffy presents his 2010-11 budget proposal.

The reorganization is meant to make the city parking bureau self-sustaining, said Susan Olley, the city's parking director.

The bureau has come to rely on an annual taxpayer subsidy of nearly $2 million in recent years.

"It's been a concern that we have raised on a regular basis," Miller said, "and it's a trade-off. We understand that parking is, to some extent, subsidized because there is a price above which people are no longer willing to pay and look for alternatives, like moving their business."

City Council will vote Tuesday on another aspect of the reorganization — a new program to place immobilizing boots on cars with three or more delinquent parking tickets, instead of towing the vehicles.

Pay stations have been talked about locally the past three or four years.

The pilot phase will begin with stations on North Fitzhugh Street by City Hall, and one near Sister Cities parking garage, one on North Plymouth Avenue by Hochstein School of Music & Dance, and two in a parking lot at the northeast corner of North Chestnut and East Main streets.

Drivers still could use coins in the pay stations but not currency, which tends to jam machines in damp weather. After paying or swiping a card, they then get a time-stamped receipt to place on their dash.

One benefit, Olley said, is if a driver pays for an hour and used only 20 minutes, for example, they could take the receipt to their next parking spot and use the remaining balance instead of leaving time on a meter.

DC-07On to the debate on the horrific Bus terminal proposal....which may not get city council approval...since it will take 7 of 9 council members to support! There are many other alternatives which are much cheaper...quicker and more cost-effective.

http://heckeranddecker.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/buses-and-subways-and-trains-oh-my/

Here's a good article about why Mark Aesch sucks. OK, so maybe it's not specifically about why he sucks, but it does a pretty good job of slamming our fair city's archaic bus system. The general idea is that a hub and spoke system is inefficient, and results in congestion downtown as well as transit times that are double what they could be if the bus system were to be laid out in a grid. Down here in NYC we use a grid system, and we don't have any central transit stations. Everything runs harmoniously.

The Mark IV alternative location for the bus terminal has nothing to do with what's best for the city or the transit system. It's just about getting the station away from their Warner Lofts building. Sad thing for them is that the Mortimer Street site has been known for over a decade and supported by multiple technical analyses. In a nutshell, there isn't a chance in Hell of the Franklin St alternative site becoming reality.

Besides, the Franklin Street site would be at the foot of the Temple Building and next door to multiple residential properties on Liberty Pole Way. Mark IV's argument doesn't pass the smell test; they're just being selfish. There will be no loss of interest in their building due to the presence of the transit center. No studies have been conducted which prove that transit centers harm residential development. When I lived in that neighborhood, I was a huge supporter of the transit center because it would bring activity to a vast, barren area of town that encourages illicit activity.

We need this project to happen because without it, we're stuck with bus transfers on Main Street for at least 10 years. Further, without this transit center, you can kiss any chance of downtown streetcars goodbye. RGRTA will be the operators of any proposed streetcar system; why on earth would they choose to make that investment in downtown if the City turns its back on their desired transit center?

ManAboutTown...I agree, the Mark IV alternative site for the bus terminal is just a late “Hail Mary Pass”....put it somewhere else rather than next to my development! This shows the toxic effect of placing a large bus terminal ANYWHERE in downtown Rochester. And believe me.....no matter where you place this terminal...it will have a adverse economic effect for any development...residential/office or retail. Just look what it did to Main Street where the present linear terminal is located.

But I disagree that the only alternatives are the present Main Street scenario or the mega Bus terminal along Mortimer Street. This is the narrative that Mark Aesch wants to present! ....But there are many other alternatives which would be cheaper, quicker and logistically sound. I outlined an alternative....Moses presented a very feasible “Grid System”...and there are many others.

Realize that Mark Aesch's DNA is a political opportunist. His background is heavy with Conservative Republicans, Jack Doyle and the strong desire to become an Elected official. He has no expertise in Transportation. But he needs a tangible success...like the Bus Terminal for him to throw his hat into the next political race...like maybe “County Executive”.

Ha, we're finally getting pay stations! I hope our city has a better plan than Buffalo did for Hertel Ave, where they simply cut the old meters off 6 inches from the ground, leaving a walking hazard and a ridiculous looking component of the streetscape.
I think you must have been misinformed. Some of the meters were removed on Hertel, but the poles left for later conversion to bicycle parking. On Elmwood there was some controversy when the poles were cut down low to the ground and there was a brief period while the stumps remained until other crews came to dig them out. But they were all removed a week or so later.

The pay stations are great because you can use a credit card, but I'm sure there are people who complain about having to walk from their car to the meter and then back to the car to put the receipt on the dashboard. The other problem with the pay stations here is that the pay-for-parking hours shown on the machines is often in conflict with that shown on the street signs, and it's not quite clear to me which takes priority.

I imagine having the electronic pay stations opens up more opportunities of easily changing the parking fees to implement some type of demand-based pricing later on, to help maximize revenue and manage parking space occupancy better.

People get incredible riled up about parking for some reason. In Buffalo, the chief of parking enforcement is retiring, and he said when he took the job he had his tires slashed twice the first year! Good grief people, just pay your 50 cents!

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/05/09/1044845/sciolinos-fine-time-is-over.html

RTC, I understand that there ARE alternatives. There just are no realistic alternatives. How do you propose to unseat Mr. Aesch or whomever the Republicans put in power of RGRTA? Talk about undoing the hub-and-spoke, which I moderately disagree with, or otherwise modifying the RTS model is pie-in-the-sky and far removed from any semblance of reality. It's been nearly 20 years since the Dems ran the County, and that was for only one four year term. As long as the GOP controls the County, this will be the RTS model. So, as I said, the reality is that there are two alternatives - Mortimer Street or nothing.

Also, rest assured, as someone who used to live in the Michaels-Stern Building, I know for a fact that the transit center would be an improvement over the vast unkempt parking lot that currently exists on that site. In fact, I moved there specifically to have a birds-eye view of the former Rochester Central Station proposal being built. Needless to say, I moved out of there a long time ago and the transit center is still at Point A.

ManAboutTown....I guess I have a different personality than you. You are more conservative and willing to accept what is dealt you. I always question the rules on how I got the cards and want to re-shuffle the cards. The present bus system is not effective for bus patrons or for the dynamics of downtown Rochester and potential private sector investments. But I see no change in the dynamics with a $52 million bus terminal at Mortimer Street. We are just shuffling the location of a poorly planned transportation systems.

While you are correct...the Republicans control the bus system....I counter with the point that State Government and Federal Government control the majority of transportation "funds" and both entities are controlled by Democrats. If the Democrats want to play hard ball...they can pressure the regional transportation authority to be more flexible on how state/federal funds should be spent. What doesn't help is the City agreeing with the bus authority on how to proceed! This makes absolutely no sense!
While you think a new bus terminal is much better than the existing parking lot surrounding Mortimer Street...I strongly disagree. The present parking lot is empty because of poor planning decisions over the last couple years. Putting a massive bus terminal at this location will institute negative effects for at least a generation. I rather see a empty parking lot along with better planning decision. The bus terminal is just a massive toxic development! I cannot accept the status quo....and I cannot accept spending $52 million along with yearly subsidies (millions of dollars) to construct a worse scenario.

Happened to quickly view some new demographic data.

Check out the following new story....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/09/suburbs-losing-young-whit_n_569226.html

I don't think it is relevant for Rochester...but it is for most progressive cities like Portland, Austin and Raleigh.

I think that there are other options beyond Mortimer Street, however, it's going to mean starting from scratch, which means change will not come to Main Street for several more years. If City Council does not vote in favor of abandoning Mortimer Street, I believe that RGRTA will simply hand the $50m back to the federal government, and contunue operating buses as they do today.

That will leave the responsibility of fixing the Main Street issue on the City's shoulders. I assume that is when the City would begin lobbying hard to aquire funding for an intermodal station at the Amtrack site, but that will require several more years of studies and funding pursuits. Unfortunately, there is no quick solution to any of this.

DC-07.....regardless of subsidy or no subsidy....any new home will create a vacant home. But you distort the argument by throwing in other issues that effect the number of vacant homes.

You are still not making sense. Introducing a variable that you fail to look at is hardly distorting the argument...it is giving a more complete picture. But forget it. You have proved incapable of following anyone elses logic other than your own. Onward.

Interesting article you shared. I'm not really sure why this wouldnt apply to Rochester, but I think I know what you mean (Rochester is normally slow to join in on national trends). However, I would argue that Rochester is just as much apart of this trend than any other city. The difference is that the more progressive cities are meeting this trend with investment in their urban core (whether it be through transit, commercial development, public space or YES, urban housing), and people end up staying. In Rochester, people just leave for another city that meets the demand.

Lets talk about investment in transit since we are talking about the bus terminal. Why is this such a sh*t show? Other than sunk cost, what is the rationale behind the resistance of putting a new bus terminal at the current Amtrak station? I take it everyone here knows what the Amtrak station looks like; it is obvious that the station needs serious investment. Everyone may NOT be aware that back in 1914, at the same site where the Amtrak station is now, the city opened a beautiful, Grand Central Station-like, train station. Check out this article for pictures, http://heckeranddecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/rochester-then-and-now/

As the article states, this beautiful structure was torn down (most likely as a result of the inner loop) and replaced with the ugliness that we have now. Why not try to restore some of this history with a new intermodal station? I still have not heard any real compelling argument against putting the new bus terminal at the Amtrak station. Losing the funding is the only reason I can think of, but this is a generational investment we are talking about....we need to do it right.

dcordova, your're on the right track (no pun intended). There really is no valid argument as to why the bus terminal location can't be moved to the Amtrak site, other than RGRTA refuses to look at site alternatives this late in the game. RGRTA inisists that locating the transfer station at the Amtrak site would require extensive rerouting of their current routes, but I think that this is more of an excuse than anything else. I only wish the reveiwing agencies had pushed harder for this alternative during the environmental review process.

The glorious Rochester Central Station that was designed by Claude Bragdon, and demolished in the 1960s, is probably the most significant architetctural loss in this community. It was not torn down because of the inner-loop, in fact the loop curves away from this area in order to bypass the similarly grand Downtown Post Office, not far from the the Amtrak site, but rather it was a victim of decreased rail use, and increased maintenance costs for what had become an oversized building. It's not unlike what happened with Penn Station in NYC at the same time. The tin box of an Amtrak station that replaced the previous station is a complete joke, and should be an embarrassment to the whole region.

RCG - thanks for clarifying what lead to the loss of Rochester Central Station. I really have a distain for the inner loop, but I guess I cant blame everything on it.

I agree that the current Amtrak station is sad. It is sad that between the route from Buffalo to NYC, Rochester has the worst train station when it is the 3rd most populous region along the route. It is truly embarassing.

Regarding an alternative site for the new bus terminal: if the only reason the RGRTA is giving is that they would have to reroute their current bus routes, then all that shows me is that they are LAZY. It seems to me that RGRTA is not really concerned with providing good service. There main concern is that they stay in the black, even if that is at the expense of service. Is there anyway to oust the current managament at the RGRTA?

The only way to oust the current RGRTA management would be for a democrat to get elected County Executive. I doubt this is likely anytime soon, as the suburbs (with the exception of Brighton) tend to be heavily republican.

The only way to oust the current RGRTA management would be for a democrat to get elected County Executive. I doubt this is likely anytime soon, as the suburbs (with the exception of Brighton) tend to be heavily republican.

All the transportation authorities across NY State are controlled thru Albany. But they tend to more responsive to the needs of the suburban politicians & developers than to the needs of the bus riders.

That's certainly true of Buffalo's NFTA, which also runs the 2 local airports & is more concerned with air travelers & its oversize police force (over 100 "transit" police who spend lots of time "patroling" the expwys & Thruways, etc) than transit riders.

RGRTA encompasses many exhurban counties around the Genessee Valley region. So the many suburban & rural board members pull more weight than the urban representatives.

My sense is that there needs to be reform of these transit authorities to make them more accountable to the needs of urban transit users, current & potential.

The City has released a request for proposal on redeveloping the former Josh Lofton High School at 242 West Main Street.

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589942668

This building sits diagonally across the intersection of Main and Broad from where Nothnagle is making a considerable investment, and relocating their headquarters. The adjacent Cascade District has also seen significant investment, and the addition of a revamped Lofton Building could really anchor the western end of Main Street in downtown.

A four story brick building with a wood frame built in the 1920's. No asbestos in there I bet.

I was wondering how long it was going to be until this place came onto the market. I have no doubt that IF this place gets built it will quickly lease up and bring more people downtown. I stress the word "if" because it's occurred to me that every now and then these loft projects grind to a halt. Does anyone know why projects like the Kirstein Building, the Cox building, and the Academy Building have stopped dead in their tracks while other projects like Buckingham Commons, the HH Warner Building, and 250 South were completed in a timely manner?

Different projects have different funding sources and loan requirements, that's the most likely answer. The Kirstein Building did halt for a while, but it's moving ahead now, and is supposed to be done this fall I think. Not sure what is up with the Academy Building. It's one of the most historic vacant buildings downtown, and it continues to crumble under the ownership of a "developer".

The owners of both the Academy Building and Cox Building have no money. Despite millions in public subsidies, they don't have the capital to pull off these projects. Cox is more likely to happen than Academy, sadly. Kirstein is already nearing completion, with the first units coming online in July.

With respect to the transit center, Council approved the plans 8-1 today, which means that the project will almost assuredly move forward after next month's vote regarding partial abandonment of Mortimer Street which requires a supermajority of 7 votes. So, hopefully this will put to bed the futile conversations about alternatives and we can focus on how to make this the best possible outcome.

Additionally, the City IS moving forward with an intermodal station at the Amtrak site (go to Page 8 of this doc: http://www.louise.house.gov/images/stories/attachments/2010.03.21.fy11appropriationscompiled.pdf), it just will not have the central RTS transfer facility. I have yet to hear a single lucid argument for why it would be beneficial to have all RTS buses go out of their way to stop at Central Ave. Sounds like a recipe for decimating the growth of discretionary ridership to me. Just think, we'll have a vibrant intermodal station anchoring the north end, a bustling RTS transfer center downtown, and a modern streetcar linking the two. Sounds pretty solid to me.

Noticed that the Josh Lofton RFP refers to the North Plymouth development site (presumably the linear site at Plymouth & Main) being awarded to Graywood Properties. Graywood is the development firm run by local millionaire Dutch Summers. Didn't know that the City had actually awarded that project. Curious to see the site plans; I've heard disturbing rumors, but haven't seen any real drawings yet.

Again...how many times can a community make a wrong decision? The decision to proceed on the Mortimer Bus terminal is just another nail in the coffin in downtown Rochester. By itself...the decision is not fatal....its just the constant drip of poor decisions in totality that will destroy downtown Rochester. Next....the city wants to eliminate all mass transit on the most important stretch of Main street...then to worsen the economic impact....the plan is reduce the size of Main Street sidewalks to allow a couple hundred parking spots. Now realize that there exists over 25,000 private and public parking spots in downtown Rochester. What is the economic advantage of adding a couple hundred? And to drastically reduce the size of the current sidewalk footprint and to eliminate public transit along this stretch of Main Street is just another assault of downtown development. Then add the Aqueduct Boondoggle of eliminating Broad street as a primary east/west corridor and growing costs to resurrect the Midtown Parcel (from $55 million to $90+ million) without any signed contracts for development....etc. I just don't see progress unless you count a few hundred extra “village” residents along with a nail salon, small grocery store and a dry cleaning establishment. Why would anyone want to go downtown?

There is some hope since several dissatisfied City Council Members stated they could change their vote next month when the project would need 7 of 9 council members to give final approval. I can only hope!!!

ManAboutTown... I have also heard some disturbing rumors that the plan Graywood has developed for the Plymouth Avenue site is not great. I believe that they are proposing a small mixed-use building at the corner of Plymouth and Main, and a row of townhouse style units along Plymouth up to its intersection with Church Street. The northern half of the parcel would remain parking for now. I belive that the City is going to maintain an access easement over the parcel at the Church Street alignment, so that Church Street could potentially be extended westward to Washnigton Street in the future. I haven't actual seen the plan, but from what I've heard it is not exactly highest and best use for that site.

FYI - This comment will be similar to the one I left on the HeckerandDecker site.

The conversations about alternative sites are hardly futile. I'm not an expert but shouldnt all options be considered before a generational decision like this should is made? I could be wrong but I dont think there have been any studies conducted regarding a bus terminal at any other site other than Mortimer Street (particularly no study for the Amtrak site).

If my above statement is correct (about no other studies being done), then the RGRTA is basically saying, "bus terminal at Mortimer Street or no bus terminal at all". And they are using the possibility of losing Federal funding to hold the city hostage (Robert Moses tactic anyone?).

In my opinion, the Amtrak site makes a lot more sense for a lot of reasons. But all I am saying is that shouldn't the RGRTA at LEAST take it into consideration and do some real analysis of that site?

Like I said the other day, I can't believe the environmental review process did not force the consideration of alternate sites. That really surprises me.

Not sure if this qualifies as a 'study' but it analyzes the other bus station sites including the Mark IV proposals: http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/uploads/articles/9923-Public-Forum-RGRTA--Compilation-of-Q-&-A-.pdf

They did analyze other downtown sites but the point is...do we need an antiquated “spoke and hub” system which relies on a "massive" bus terminal in the center of downtown Rochester at a cost of $52 million and millions of dollars in annual maintenance/security cost? It maybe true that the best location is at Mortimer Street...but in a way its like saying the shit doesn't smell as bad at this location …...but it still smells like shit!

What needs to be done is a means of decentralizing the bus transfer points so that a massive bus barn in not needed. And the City must change its policy of NO buses along a major/important section of Main Street. Again placing a bus terminal in the center of downtown Rochester makes no economic, financial or logistical sense....it just appears that Mark Aesch has $52 million in the bank and needs to spend it!

There will still be bus stops along Main Street, just not between the river and liberty pole (the transfer zone) where people will be able to walk to an enclosed facility one block away. Buses will continue to operate along the rest of Main Street as they do now, so I would argue that public transportation is NOT being removed from the main corridor. Also, sidewalks along main street wil not be narrowed. The current plan is to convert the designated bus lanes between the river and liberty pole to on-street parking.

First of all...what is the point in adding a few blocks of extra parking on Main Street? In total there is over 25,000 private and public spaces in downtown Rochester .....adding a handful of parking spots will add little but create a multitude of problems. If the city doesn't reduce the size of the sidewalks...then it has to use an existing travel lane(s)...thus allowing only one lane in each direction for through traffic. To make things even worse is the plan to eliminate cross traffic over the Broad Street Bridge...making a two lane Main Street the only primary e/w corridor in downtown Rochester. Also, with only one travel lane in each direction....cars looking and then parallel parking will jam up existing traffic. In total it makes absolutely no sense to eliminate all buses on the most important corridor of Main Street, reducing the size of Main Street sidewalks or taking two lanes of traffic from Main Street to allow a handful of parking spots. This is NOT economic development ….its economic destruction!

Again.... buses are NOT being eliminated on the Main Street corridor. The segment of Main between the river and liberty pole essentialy currently operates as a two-lane road section much of the time, as buses are often lined up, and therefore blocking the two outermost lanes. Many retail studies point to the advantage of having on-street parking in order to encourage healthy retail activity. Off-street parking is supplemental. Traffic impacts during the temporary closure of the Broad Street Bridge this past winter have been analyzed, and show that while the level of service at downtown intersections during am and pm peak hour (rush hour) were reduced slightly with the bridge closed, it's really a non-issue. Downtown streets should not operate at a level of service "A". That is almost unheard off, and a certain amount of "congestion" can actually be healthy in an urban core that wants to encourage density, walkability, and mass transit.

I agree with you, RocCityGuy. Studies have shown that users of downtowns prefer on-street parking to off-street lots and garages, and that on-street parking aids in traffic calming (slower speeds). Also, there may be a benefit to merchants if customers are able to park in front of the store, even if there is ample parking a block away. The link below discusses some of these issues:

http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/articles.asp?art=3482&res=1280

ROCrising....the link referenced comments about on-street parking as it “relates to smaller cities and towns with mixed-use centers”. Sure on-street parking is strongly preferred and that it tends to slow traffic...but there are always context to these tenets. Again everyone is throwing out theories that relate to a “village”...rather than a regional center of over one million people! Does anyone really think that people will visit downtown...drive into a main street parking spot and walk right into Floyd 's barbershop...just like in Mayberry, NC? There are millions of square feet of commercial space in downtown Rochester....expect those handful of parking spots to be gobbled up by visitors to these commercial uses...not for a quick hit of food, retail or whatever.

And RocCityGuy....I realize where buses will be banned....you apparently didn't understand my words. And to state that the experiment of closing off the Broad Street bridge in the dead of winter is empirical evidence that its impact in downtown traffic will be minimal is a complete joke at many levels!!!

Again...how many times can a community make a wrong decision? The decision to proceed on the Mortimer Bus terminal is just another nail in the coffin in downtown Rochester. By itself...the decision is not fatal....its just the constant drip of poor decisions in totality that will destroy downtown Rochester. Next....the city wants to eliminate all mass transit on the most important stretch of Main street...then to worsen the economic impact....the plan is reduce the size of Main Street sidewalks to allow a couple hundred parking spots. Now realize that there exists over 25,000 private and public parking spots in downtown Rochester. What is the economic advantage of adding a couple hundred? And to drastically reduce the size of the current sidewalk footprint and to eliminate public transit along this stretch of Main Street is just another assault of downtown development. Then add the Aqueduct Boondoggle of eliminating Broad street as a primary east/west corridor and growing costs to resurrect the Midtown Parcel (from $55 million to $90+ million) without any signed contracts for development....etc. I just don't see progress unless you count a few hundred extra “village” residents along with a nail salon, small grocery store and a dry cleaning establishment. Why would anyone want to go downtown?

There is some hope since several dissatisfied City Council Members stated they could change their vote next month when the project would need 7 of 9 council members to give final approval. I can only hope!!!

I know of very few cities which have built downtown terminals for the specific purpose of serving local transit buses. Charlotte's one of the few cities that come to mind as having gone that route. Buffalo built a downtown bus terminal circa late 1970s. But as far I know it serves mostly Greyhound & other long-distance buses & its hard to see much positive impact.

Again everyone is throwing out theories that relate to a “village”...rather than a regional center of over one million people! Does anyone really think that people will visit downtown...drive into a main street parking spot and walk right into Floyd 's barbershop...just like in Mayberry, NC?

Sorry, but what's left of Rochester's downtown pretty much IS a village. And if what you're referring to as Floyd's Barbershop as this: http://www.floydsbarbershop.com/index.php/locations, then you're right - I could see people doing that.

Just two blocks from the Tennessee State Capitol, Nashville opened its' Music City Central Station in 2009 at a cost of $56 million. It is a two-story bus transfer center for 24 bus bays for Nashville MTA's hub-and-spoke bus system. It does not connect with Nashville's commuter rail or intercity bus services (Nashville is not served by Amtrak). It was built with minimal controversy, is credited with helping spur continued increases in bus ridership, and eliminated an outdoor transit mall that was considered a blight on their downtown. Sound familiar? But I guess Nashville is not a city we should try to emulate, right?

http://www.nashvillemta.org/musiccitycentral/

Just two blocks from the Tennessee State Capitol, Nashville opened its' Music City Central Station in 2009 at a cost of $56 million. It is a two-story bus transfer center for 24 bus bays for Nashville MTA's hub-and-spoke bus system. It does not connect with Nashville's commuter rail or intercity bus services (Nashville is not served by Amtrak). It was built with minimal controversy, is credited with helping spur continued increases in bus ridership, and eliminated an outdoor transit mall that was considered a blight on their downtown. Sound familiar? But I guess Nashville is not a city we should try to emulate, right?

http://www.nashvillemta.org/musiccitycentral/


Well, Nashville does have the type of consolidated city-county metro government that was advocated by Rochester's ex-Mayor Johnson.

I'm not critical of Rochester's proposed downtown bus facility. Just saying that most cities, including those with much larger bus systems seem to manage to without them. Unless their part of multi-modal terminals, those have worked out quite well.

Its too early to assess the impact of Nashville's newly opened facility. But might be worth looking at Charlotte & other cities that have built similar facilities & what the benefits were, etc.

ROCrot.....was shocked to find out that Floyd sold out to Wall Street investors in establishing a franchise for his barbershop concept! But the concept looks rather interesting and could be a great fixture in the East-end area. Its a great “regional” amenity that would benefit the downtown District. ….some broker should introduce them to Rochester. ...actually, I think it may do better in Pittsford.

ManAboutTown....you had to do extensive research to find a city with a new massive bus terminal and utilizing a antiquated “spoke and hub” bus system. But realize Nashville is more an exception than a common concept. Realize that the demographics/length of commute/connection of poverty...etc are much different than in Rochester.

And I have seen the Charlotte, NC bus terminal. Its located towards the perimeter of downtown rather then in dead center. Also like Nashville...the demographics of its downtown, bus patrons, commute...etc. ...are so much different than Rochester...its truly not relevant to Rochester's scenario.

It's pretty clear at this point that RGRTA is going to get the green light to move forward with construction of the proposed bus facility. Why continue debating how bad of an idea it is, when that's kind of a mute point?

As the bus terminal goes into final design there will be plenty of opportunity for public input which can help guide the ultimate aesthetic look of the facility (ensure it has a green roof, has an interestingly articulated building facade, pedestrian ammenities, etc). At this point I think it's more constructive to focus on positive gains (taking back Main Street for development, revitalizing Main and Clinton, etc) then wasting time complaining about how bad everything is.

ManAboutTown....you had to do extensive research to find a city with a new massive bus terminal and utilizing a antiquated “spoke and hub” bus system. But realize Nashville is more an exception than a common concept. Realize that the demographics/length of commute/connection of poverty...etc are much different than in Rochester.

I would hardly call a Google search on "Downtown Transit Center" then clicking on the 10th result "extensive research." Then again, I didn't go to Ohio State. Zing! Go Blue!

Also, Charlotte's transit terminal is directly across the street from Time Warner Arena in the heart of Downtown Charlotte, just two blocks from the Bank of America Center. Sure, it's not in the "dead center" , but I would hardly call Mortimer & Clinton the "dead center" of modern day downtown Rochester either. Important to note though that Charlotte's transit center connects with their light rail line.

RocCityGuy....seems like you wear the “PR” hat quite often! ...just about every city project gets your strong endorsement. Well the Mortimer Bus Barn proposal is not a done deal. It still has to get 7 of 9 votes next month....and I had stated already...several Council Members may switch their vote. Then USDOT must give final approval...many opportunities for this horrific project to be terminated. If this toxic development does go forward...don't look for private develop anywhere near it unless it is HEAVILY subsidized!

ManAboutTown....you didn't mention that after you discovered Nashville on the google search...you had to search the next several hundred entries looking for another central downtown bus terminal. Go BUCKEYES (god....I always hated Ohio State's moniker...a buckeye (chestnut)...it was sort of embarrassing watching “brutus” the "buckeye" running up and down the field cheering for Ohio State!!!)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3b/Brutus_in_TX_2006.JPG/250px-Brutus_in_TX_2006.JPG

RTC... I'm not trying to wear the PR hat, and I wouldn't say that I endorse EVERY city project, but I DO try to be constructive and productive with my comments, instead of toxic, sarcastic, and spiteful. It's easy to talk to the talk, but not as easy to walk the walk. Instead of bitching about everything from an armchair in the suburbs, I try very hard to improve downtown as a participating citizen, a place where I live AND work. Positive change does not come from just complaining about something that's flawed.

Wow, a lot to talk about lately. I got a number of things to say so bear with me.

As far as Nashville's bus station - I dont know much about Nashville and their demographics & geography and all that, but if this just opened in 2009, I would say that the jury is still out at least for another 5 years on whether or not the station was good for the city long term.

The new bus facility for RGRTA - discussing the good & bad of the project is not pointless discussion. I agree that window of opportunity for influencing any change on the project is quickly closing, but it is not shut just yet.

Location of bus facility - What would you call the dead center of downtown Rochester? I would call Main & Clinton the dead center of downtown. Mortimer is a short block away. Pretty damn close. So, whether you think Mortimer is the best location for the bus facility or not....saying that Mortimer & Clinton is not in the center downtown is pretty ridiculous. I mean seriously...just look at the map.

Changes to Main Street - this doesnt usually happen but I'm with RTC on this one. Adding on street parking to this area of Main Street is not smart. I am usually a big proponent of on street parking to create that barrier between pedestrians and traffic...but in the downtown core. It works great in areas like Park Ave, East Ave, Cornhill, South Wedge...but you will notice that these are less dense areas. Downtown is already really dense and has more than enough parking facilities. Ultimately, on street parking in this section of Main Street wont hurt anything, but it wont help it either.

Since I bashed the on street parking idea, I will provide what I think would be the ideal situation. Let me start by saying that the sidewalk is already wide with trees and street furniture scattered throughout, so that is already good (which serves well as a barrier between pedestrian and traffic). Also, narrowing the traffic lanes down to one each way is ESSENTIAL (keeping 2 lanes each way would be FAR worse than on street parking). However this can create some serious traffic issues with people turning left.

So I say redraw all the lines. Make Main Street 1 lane each direction with a center turning lane (possible future median with landscaping?). That is 3 of the 4 current lanes. Split the other lane making it a bike lane on either side of the street. This would accomodate a different mode of transportation while providing an additional barrier between pedestrian and auto traffic. Not to mention they can convert all the parking meters to bike parking.

That's one option. The better option would be a street car on either side of the street. That would probably be a harder sell but definitely better for downtown in the long run.

Any thoughts?

I agree with you Dcordova when it comes to a discussion about alternatives for using the other two lanes on Main Street for something other than through-traffic. I completely agree that we do not need 4 lanes of through-traffic in that segment of Main, but while I support the idea of on-street parking there, I'm not opposed to the idea of a street car in the future. I look at the addition of on-street parking as something that can be done immediately and cheaply. It doesn't require any curb work, just restriping. At a later date (should funding become available) the parking lanes could be converted to street car lanes.

I also don't mind the idea of a 3-lane road section (two through lanes and a shared center turn lane) with bike lanes, but I don't think a landscaped median is appropriate for a street like Main Street. Main Street should be a grand, open avenue, and given that it is used for civic parades 3 times a year, a median wouldn't work.

In my opinion, the functional center of downtown is no longer Main & Clinton; it's more like Clinton & Broad or South & Broad. There just isn't much activity north of Main, so how can Main be the center line? Sure, if you don't know anything about Rochester and look on a map, you'd think Main & Clinton is the 100% corner, but it is not and we should stop kidding ourselves otherwise.

On the second page of search results, I found this page from RTC's old hometown of Columbus OH. Sounds like they're gearing up to build a bus garage too! http://www.downtowncolumbus.com/plan/transit-center

You have to consider the variations in bus route structure. Most of the handful of cities that have built downtown bus stations like Charlotte & Nashville tend to be large, sprawling, cities with radial bus routes that start downtown & go way out into the suburbs. There a downtown terminal makes a good layover point.

Some of longer RGRTA routes follow that radial pattern. But Rochester's a smaller compact city & many of the bus lines are thru-routed, passing thru downtown, serving both sides of the Genessee. With a downtown bus station you'd end up with an unnecesary layover in the middle of the route.

ManAboutTown....I think you need to do further “google homework! Columbus is really not planning a new downtown bus terminal. What you linked to was just a consultant hired by Columbus Downtown Development Corporation to propose several potential projects for the next 10 years. The bus terminal proposal was just of one of ten presented. The City and the local public bus agency (COTA) don't even have it on their long term radar. Columbus is actually undertaking a major program of creating up to 17 “decentralized” bus transfer points throughout the city. There will be no ONE massive bus transfer point in the city center.

Interesting info on the Charlotte, NC facility...it is nearly 15 years old and was financed completely by the private sector (Bank of America). Charlotte has a fantastic downtown employment center along with a couple mega sports (indoor and outdoor). People using transit have their downtown as the primary destination....and the level of personal income of bus patrons in Charlotte is much higher than Rochester. Again...trying to use Charlotte as an example for Rochester just doesn't work...its not relevant to the unique characteristics of Rochester.

So the bottom line.... we only have Nashville doing a downtown bus terminal and it just recently opened. The vast majority of mid size cities are not going the antiquated “spoke and hub” system with a mega transfer center in dead center downtown!

And finally....the center of downtown Rochester is and must remain Main Street. While south of Main Has been developed, we must make sure the Northern portion is properly developed. BUT...placing a huge bus barn just North of Main Street will ensure that this area will NOT develop. I still state that a massive Bus facility at Mortimer Street makes absolutely no economic, financial or logistical sense! Its too expensive, will costs millions annual to maintain and inhibit private sector development in the norther potion of downtown Rochester. Again....I rest my case!

Could someone from Rochester actually post some photos and news articles on development around the city? :nuts:

Sorry, but on this message board we can only post new development news as fast as subsidies can get handed out.

Seems to me that the people on the Rochester forum are as bad as the people running the city, bickering but not actually contributing.

Next time I am in Rochester I will be sure to get some photos of the development and post them here.

Seems to me that the people on the Rochester forum are as bad as the people running the city, bickering but not actually contributing.

Next time I am in Rochester I will be sure to get some photos of the development and post them here.

Uh, who invited this guy??

In all seriousness, I don't think you know what you're talking about. All of us here on this forum have our own opinions about what we believe is best for the city. Any opinion that is expressed here is generally backed up by solid facts or examples as to why that opinion should be considered. While we might not agree with each other all of the time, I think that we do a pretty good job of discussing the issues facing our city. While there are times that every post doesn't specifically pertain to actual development that is happening, that doesn't mean that the urban economic issues we debate don't coincide with development in Rochester.

That being said, if you have something valuable to contribute to this forum, please do. Otherwise, I'd ask that you don't accuse us of being "as bad as the people running the city"

Uh, who invited this guy??

Oh yea, that's why I left. :lol:

In mattejb's defense, when I peruse other cities' forums, I don't like to read page after page of bickering and zero pictures of development goings-on. Every city in the country hands out incentives, every city in the country has some major project planned that stirs up controversy, and every city in the country has a diverse range of opinions amongst its citizenry that lead to generally thoughtful debate. So, it would be nice if we could get over our incessant debates and get back to the mission of this site - taking pictures and giving status updates on developments planned, proposed, underway, and complete. I meant to go out this weekend and take pics, but had too much going on. Sorry mattejb, maybe sometime this week.

The forum should deal with the "full spectrum" of development issues...be it debate, suggestions, ideas, controversy, news ...along with photos of development projects and their status. But debating on a specific issue should not preclude other topics/photos/discussions. I agree that it would be nice to see more photos on current or planned developments and would encourage it!

Since I travel quite often I would also like to know the status of planned/finished projects throughout the region. Right now I am interested in how the College Town project is doing in front of R.I.T on Jefferson. Initially, the project has had problems for the commercial tenants.....I am wondering how they are doing now?

Oh yea, that's why I left. :lol:

heh, funny thing is you came back.



In mattejb's defense, when I peruse other cities' forums, I don't like to read page after page of bickering and zero pictures of development goings-on. Every city in the country hands out incentives, every city in the country has some major project planned that stirs up controversy, and every city in the country has a diverse range of opinions amongst its citizenry that lead to generally thoughtful debate. So, it would be nice if we could get over our incessant debates and get back to the mission of this site - taking pictures and giving status updates on developments planned, proposed, underway, and complete. I meant to go out this weekend and take pics, but had too much going on. Sorry mattejb, maybe sometime this week.

no. not sorry mattejb.
other cities actually have more than a project or two to report on. we don't have development to report on so the conversation shifts to discussing why we don't have development and what kinds of things can be catalyst for new development. seems pretty reasonable to me.


i'm sorry but how many status updates can you give on two or three developments that don't show visible change for weeks at a time?

btw, the chestnut st. side of ESL looks fanstastic. i like the cornice-entrance at woodbury and chestnut.
i wish the woodbury side of the building didn't have such a blank wall effect to it, and the parking garage is, well, exactly that, but its honestly better than i had expected.

I think that there are actually plenty of development projects going on right now, and I bet I could easily make a list of 15-20. The problem is that there are only 3 or 4 that are high profile enough (like and ESL or Eastman Theatre expansion) to get the attention of most people. Currently there are lots of street projects going on, new construction (like the crime lab), rehabs like Nothnagle and the Kisrtein Building, etc.

The reconstruction of Lawn Street in downtown is nearly complete (they just need to top coat it), and new light poles are in place. It's only a block long, so a very minor street, but it was a mess before and sometimes the little things make a big difference.

Asbestos abatement at some of the Midtown buildings is wrapping up (Seneca Building, B Forman Building, and the Tower), and demolition is suppose to begin in June. I was walking down Clinton Avenue not that long ago and was taking a close look at the facade of the B Forman Building. It's all limestone, and has a very streamlined, almost Art Deco detailing around the windows. I wonder if there is any plan to remove the limestone facade and repurpose the materials. It would be a shame to waste it.

I have a photo of the facade. Anyone know how to link the photo so that it shows up on here?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/here-comes-the-neighborhood/8093

This is a great article from The Atlantic talking about the relationship between transportation and development. The case really boils down to allowing more private investment in infrastructure projects, particularly rail.

I have to say that I am all for it. It is interesting to think that this is how it used to be in Rochester. Owners of hotels and properties along the lake helped pay for the streetcar. Their businesses would thrive only if people could get out to the lake, so helping to pay for public transportation to the lake was really just a cost of doing business. It was in their best interest. Granted, the landscape has drastically changed since those years, but the underlying principle is still valid.

I also find it interesting how they highlighted the increasing demand for "walkable urban living". I would love to hear thoughts on this article.

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/300-000-a-House-in-Low-Income-Project/krkLTC2IgEabfMZ8KuqcEw.cspx

Check out the news story on Channel 13. It truly reflects my beliefs towards the many problems with subsidized housing and that in most cases...it just doesn't make financial or economic sense. The media should do another story in regards to the Mills at High Falls! But...consider this post rhetorical...I really don't want to stoke the fire on housing subsidies....but I just couldn't resist some more interesting “facts” on the issue.


$300,000 a House in Low-Income Project
Posted by: Rachel Barnhart

$300,000 a House in Low-Income Project
(Rochester, N.Y.) – For $300,000, you can build a 2,500 square-foot, 4-bedroom house in a wealthy Monroe County suburb. The house would likely have a two-car garage, 2 and ½ bathrooms, a fireplace, hardwood floors, and a host of other amenities.

“Three hundred thousand dollars would certainly be in the luxury category, suburban, for any place in Monroe County,” said real estate agent Bob Miglioratti.

You might think that $300,000 could go pretty far in one of Rochester’s most poverty-stricken neighborhoods, where vacant lots are aplenty and crime is an ever-present problem.

Think again.

Developers Rochester Cornerstone Group and Ibero American Development Corporation are putting up 23 new homes and renovating a vacant home for $7.3 million. That averages out to $304,000 per home.

The houses – most of them single-family - are attractive, but they are modest. Built on vacant lots purchased from the city for $425, the houses are between 1,200 and 1,700 square feet.

The project is called El Camino Estates, and it’s intended for low-income residents. The units will be rented to qualified families, who will have an opportunity to purchase the houses after 15 years.

“This project does cost a lot of money and a lot of it has to do with the requirements,” said Roger Brandt, President of the Rochester Cornerstone Group.

When 13WHAM News asked why the houses cost so much to build, Brandt and Eugenio Marlin, head of the Ibero, pointed to a 6-inch high stack of paperwork on a conference table.

They said the level of bureaucracy and scrutiny required for this kind of project doubles the cost.

The project received $435,000 from the city and $3.3 million in federal stimulus funds. El Camino also got $2.2 million from the New York State Housing Trust Fund. The project was also financed through tax credits.

Because they accepted these grants, the project had to follow rules specific to each provider. For example, federal stimulus funds require the use of labor that is paid federal wages. That added $1 million to the project’s cost, said Brandt.

The houses also met state design standards. They are handicapped accessible and energy efficient.

The developers say they are required to put a certain amount of money in reserve funds, in case something goes wrong.

According to City Council legislation approving the sale of the parcels, the developers are getting paid a fee of $803,058.

Marlin said if they didn’t go into the Conkey Ave. neighborhood – where the median home price is less than $50,000 – no one else would. The neighborhood would languish and the costs down the road could be much higher.

“Nobody's going to come in there and do anything for that neighborhood. Why? Because of the math. It just doesn't add up,” he said.

Eugene Hryhorenko, a 40-year resident of the neighborhood, said the project can’t be measured in dollars and cents.

“We need renewal and maybe this will be the lynchpin that will do it for us,” he said.

Good Lord, you CANNOT be serious. This is TOTALLY ridiculous. I can't be the only one who is shocked by this. How can you possibly name a development "El Camino Estates"?!?!? Has anyone associated the word "El Camino" with anything desirable since the first one rolled off the line in 1959?? The only time I use that word is in phrases like: "Man, this Acer I just bought sucks. It's like the El Camino of laptops!!" This may be due to my age and that any El Camino I've ever seen is old and in disrepair, but I still think the name could use some work.

Getting back to the story at hand, what resonates with me is the very last sentence:

“We need renewal and maybe this will be the lynchpin that will do it for us,”

It's nice to see money being spent on rebuilding the slums, rather than spending money to move people out. I remember when I did Habitat for Humanity, we worked on Love St. off of W. Main, and it was neat seeing a mix of new and old houses. Anyone who's read Jane Jacobs knows that she is a big advocate in creating a desirable environment which will act as the first step in unslumming a neighborhood. Once you have a desirable neighborhood, you can hopefully persuade those people who have the means to move out to stay instead. From there, the snowball continues to grow, and you're on the path to a better neighborhood. That being said, it's a awful lot to be spending on each house, but if this ends up being the catalyst that people are hoping for, there could be substantial benefits down the road.

Anyone get a look at this? Thoughts/reactions?

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100517/NEWS01/100517027/1168/RSS

Plans for Culver Road armory show open structure

Plans for the Culver Road armory show a more open structure, with windows restored or added, light sculptures and new walking trails through and around the property.

The plan was presented during an informational session tonight before the city’s Planning Commission. Residents will have their say during a June 14 public hearing before the commission votes on a special permit.

Construction could begin this summer. Developer Fred Rainaldi bought the World War I-era armory at auction for nearly $1.5 million in October. He did not release an estimated development cost.

Plans call for Class A office space and retail, possibly a restaurant and fitness club.

I took a look at the armory plans, and am pretty surprised by the modern spin they plan for such a historic building. While the large windows on the first floor will really open the place up, I hope Rainaldi isn't expecting to use any historic preservation tax credits on this one. It's pretty amazing that he was allowed to chop off the back half of the Monroe Theatre, and now is asking for permission to punch holes in the armory.

sounds nice. is there a rendering somewhere?

There's a rendering in the article link below:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100518/NEWS01/5180324/-1/rochester/Armory-redesign-pleases-Culver-area-residents