All other things being equal, plans for a big new theater and a new apartment building on a prominent empty downtown lot probably get a lot of support in Rochester.
But the prominent empty lot is Parcel 5 of the former Midtown Plaza site. The proposed theater will be owned by, and used primarily by, the Rochester Broadway League, for performances by touring Broadway shows and other traveling events.
And from the moment city officials announced that they had chosen RBTL’s theater – and a Morgan Management apartment tower – for Parcel 5, the proposal has been the focus of a huge controversy. That controversy has solid roots, and I hope Mayor Lovely Warren and City Council – which has to approve the sale of the Parcel 5 land to developers – will be very, very careful as they enter this final phase.
Related
I agree with Warren that the theater will probably contribute to what is already a good upward trend downtown. It will draw people downtown who don’t go there now. And some of them will indeed eat there as well. The theater will add to the already healthy number of attractions that make downtown interesting.
And I cringe when I hear people sniff that many of the theater-goers will be from the suburbs, as if city residents alone can support key city institutions like Geva, the Rochester Philharmonic, the Little….
The next step for Parcel 5: Warren is asking City Council to approve hiring a Cleveland-based consultant, DLR Group, to look into things like job growth and “economic and social vitality” to make sure that the theater “maximizes its benefit to all of Rochester’s residents and organizations.”
An earlier study by DLR and its predecessor, Westlake Reed Leskosky, says the theater would create jobs and boost economic development downtown. In this one, DLR is asked to answer the following “supplemental questions”:
- “Is it possible to forecast direct positive or negative financial impact on other arts organizations?”
- “How can the entertainment center support the diverse arts organizations that exist in all areas of Rochester?”
- “What strategies have other entertainment centers used to minimize dark time and engage the surrounding community during the day and on nights that are not programmed?”
- “What strategies or revenues have comparable cities used to build an arts endowment that helps all arts organizations? (e.g. car rental tax, etc.)”
Council is expected to vote on the new DLR study at its March 20 meeting. If it approves the study, DLR will have until July 31 to do its work. And Warren won’t go back to City Council to ask for approval of a land sale until she gets the report.
Meantime, RBTL will keep looking for money, presumably. And critics of the Parcel 5 plan will keep speaking out. Warren and Council need to listen to them.
A huge, dark cloud has been hanging over this proposal since the beginning, and it’s foolish – and, frankly, insulting – to assume either that it’s not important or that it’ll disappear once the project is built.
Even if you set aside the argument that Parcel 5 should be maintained as open space, the RBTL proposal is suffering from a ton of baggage.
 Its very announcement was a shock. The well-founded speculation was that Warren had chosen developer Andy Gallina’s proposal for a mixed-use, commercial-residential condominium tower. The reason for the change of heart, apparently, was that as the Warren administration prepared to announce the Gallina choice, it developed concerns about whether Gallina’s financing was secured. RBTL, which had a $25 million pledge from Paychex founder Tom Golisano for the theater, put in a late addition to its Parcel 5 proposal: the Morgan apartment building. That added a taxable piece to what had been a tax-exempt development.
But Golisano’s $25 million will cover only part of the theater’s estimated $85 million construction cost. RBTL and the city hope the state will kick in another $20 million, but that hasn’t come yet. In the past, Joe Morelle, the New York Assembly’s majority leader, has resisted funding a RBTL theater, and his relationship with Warren hasn’t always been great.
In addition, RBTL has been looking for money for a new theater for decades. Previously, its leaders have said that a stumbling block has been the lack of a formal commitment of a site. It’s had that site for a year now, and there’s been no announcement about funds beyond Golisano’s $25 million.
RBTL may very well come up with the rest of the money. But its history seems to be having a huge influence on public perception about the Parcel 5 project. If at the end, it comes up short and Warren decides to try to make up the rest, my hunch is that it’ll do major damage to her reputation.
RBTL has some vocal critics in a very important part of the community: arts leaders. Rightly or wrongly, they insist that a new RBTL theater will hurt other arts institutions – that RBTL’s productions, in a big, glitzy new theater will be direct competition for productions staged by the Eastman School, Geva, and others.
You can argue that the opposite is true: that RBTL can generate more interest in live theater and other live performances. That the local arts groups could capitalize on the presence of high-profile shows like “Hamilton” and “Book of Mormon” and get those audiences to start attending their own events.
But you can also argue that local audiences don’t have unlimited funds. Local arts groups already struggle. State support for the arts has been reduced dramatically. The current federal government is downright hostile to the arts. And the loss of Rochester’s major industrial base has also hit the arts.
In addition, as one of our Feedback contributors notes this week, many smaller arts groups and individual artists feel neglected. Rochester has no arts commission or other City Hall-sanctioned organization that acts as a public arm helping look out for the interests of the arts and encouraging and overseeing public art.
And while City Council could pass legislation requiring that a percentage of new development funding be set aside for the arts, efforts to bring that about have gone nowhere.
Broadening the scope of the city’s “City of the Arts” effort won’t end all of the criticism, but it could help. And besides, it’s the right thing to do.
What will happen to the Auditorium Theatre? The big, multi-day Broadway shows that RBTL brings there would move to the new theater at Parcel 5. RBTL insists that it will continue to stage other events at the Aud, but what will be the impact on RAPA and other organizations that bring in similar events? How many events are economically feasible in Rochester? What will happen to if RBTL can’t bring in enough events to keep operating the Aud?
You could argue that this is simply marketplace competition, that it’s none of City Hall’s business. But the arts are a public concern and a public benefit. And while RBTL does indeed hire local people to assist in the productions it brings in, the shows themselves are produced by for-profit, out-of-town entities, and the performers don’t live here.
Concern about competition from a new RBTL theater, then, isn’t at all unreasonable.
Will the Morgan apartment complex need a public subsidy? Many of the new developments taking place downtown are getting some kind of tax exemption. For years, that seemed to be essential if we were to attract development and make construction affordable for developers. But interest in downtown has been growing. City officials need to determine now, before they commit further to the Parcel 5, whether the public needs to continue to offer subsidies to for-profit residential developers.
They should also develop a vision for increasing the amount of affordable housing downtown – and some specific requirements for each new development. Many of the apartments being built now are out of range for a large number of Rochesterians – not only those on public assistance, but many employed people and retirees.
The RBTL-Morgan proposal may very well be the best plan imaginable for Parcel 5. But the concerns about it are legitimate, and they’re important.
For some critics, no amount of change will make the Parcel 5 theater plan acceptable. At some point, Warren and City Council may feel that they have move forward anyway. But there’s plenty they can do to improve this plan and to document – as best they can – that it really is in the best interest of the community. They can use this plan as the beginning of an expanded effort to boost all of the arts and open downtown housing and entertainment opportunities to more people.
The July 31 deadline for the consultant’s report gives them plenty of time to make those changes.
This article appears in Mar 7-13, 2018.
Fast ferry II
This is just another big money, flashy project that does nothing to address any of the day to day concerns of Rochester. Poverty, transportation, education are all washed out in the bright lights of off, off, off Broadway.
They could have planted grass on the property YEARS ago as a test run to see if the park would be used. If not they could build something later.
But it’s a great spot for a park, be like a very small Boston Commons. That’s what downtown Rochester needs, a community space for outdoor shows like Fringe. Rochester needs another theater (in a horrible location) like they need another run down house or failing school.
Tom and David you should be ashamed of yourselves. Your misogynistic attitudes towards the Mayor and her administration are cruel. Everyone knows that the problem with the school district isn’t the administration, it’s the federal government and their lack of monetary assistance. It takes a lot to make sure a young person can graduate with a limited non-college ready curriculum. And, to your comments concerning the failure of Parcel 5 already need you be reminded that Rochester already has 12 such playhouses that are barely filled? No, it’s the failure of the President of the United States and his lack of couth that causes people to not go see the usual inept theater productions. Crime in this city is merely fake news as is the exodus of businesses from Downtown. You should start supporting the Mayor and not bashing her.
I think this is a pretty balanced article that recognizes both sides. There have been a lot of legitimate concerns as well as alot of bluster on both sides over the last year so seeing some main points/counter-points laid out in a logical structure is useful. Personally I would have liked to see parcel 5 as green space and the theater downtown but somewhere else for a lot of reasons but that’s not going to happen. Im hoping the river development will make up for that. As far as concern for the Aud-the architecture is nice but that building is filthy, it smells, there’s mold, you have to enter through some weird maze in the back where there is parking, backstage is one of the worst I have seen and there is no A/C. They will need millions to fix that fire trap.
The simple truth is that Rochester can’t afford to build a theater on Parcel 5. The city can’t afford to subsidize anything there. City Council should put the property up for auction, sell it to the highest bidder, and forget about it.
Thank you so much for highlighting this issue, and for taking a critical approach to the subtle but important complexities and opposing viewpoints. I would respectfully like to clarify that a strong piece to the argument opposing this project has NOTHING to do with support for the arts in our city. I think we can all agree, the RBTL and the scores of organizations, big and small, that make this a colorful home for the arts are the pride of Rochester. The issue, more than anything, is the location of the proposed theater, as well as the initial and continued support without a conversation with our residents. We believe that a downtown that is becoming a neighborhood is better suited for mixed use public space, which has been shown to usher in similar investment dollars and job creation in cities like Rochester across the country. Furthermore, with downtown becoming a neighborhood once again, public space is in desperate need to create a level of flexibility and livability within the area.
Furthermore, while we welcome visitors from the suburbs and beyond with open arms, the belief is that this project send a clear message to Rochester residents that their wishes are not being taken seriously. Cities across the country make the same mistakes of trying to create entertainment hubs, but the cities that are succeeding are the ones that are putting the voices of their rebounding residential populations first. And of course, our residents are our best ambassadors… when happy, they will be the ones telling their friends on the outskirts to check out Rochester again!
This isn’t about the arts at all, with all respect. It’s simply about the most important piece of land in our city, and our residents believe that their wishes should be considered first. Thanks again for a great piece, some excellent points. 🙂
I walk by Parcel 5 every day, and after over a year of imagining the possibilities, my thinking on the best use of this space has changed significantly.
I believe strongly that a city prospers from its core outward. As such I am pro-development and (even more specifically) PRO-DENSITY. For that reason, I had supported development of Parcel 5 as a way to 1) continue the street wall on Main Street, and 2) add residential population to the heart of downtown. The theater and residential tower project just seemed a convenient means to that end.
However, my opinion has flipped completely as it relates to this critically important piece of land. I believe it should be a PARK, and here is a vision of how we could pull this off with virtually all interests coming out as winners…
1) Parcel 5 should be developed as THE city park in the heart of our downtown “tower district”.
2) This park could be called “Douglass Park” and could feature the Frederick Douglass monument that once graced downtown, but now unceremoniously resides in Highland Park.
3) Devoting this space to a park could eliminate the significant cost of building underground parking for any proposed development.
4) The park could be designed to serve a dual purpose: Both as a beautiful, tree-lined urban park, as well as a “festival” venue for major performances and events that could support 5,000+ people.
5) My biggest concern with using the space as a park has always been the break in the street wall on Main St. Secondarily it was the potential loss of residential units that would add to the population density in the center city. This density is critical to the introduction and success of quality retail downtown. These concerns could be alleviated by rimming the park with a uniquely urban one-story micro-retail edifice that would essentially serve as the “fencing” to the park. There could be arched entrances in the middle of all four sides of the park as breaks in this retail wall. These miniaturized retail storefronts would encourage specialty/novelty use at low overhead costs for merchants. This could add year-’round vibrancy to the park and actually make the site lines inside and outside the park more attractive. The roof of this one-story “retail fence” could even be purposed as additional greenspace (including trees??) and seating capacity for event use.
6) On the residential side of things, the city could work with the same developers to utilize the tiny adjacent Parcel 4 as a 25-35 story ultra-thin high-rise. This would further envelop Douglass Park in skyscrapers, which is one of the things that makes the space so interesting in the first place. The addition of another residential tower so close to the newly redeveloped 88 Elm, and soon-to-be-redeveloped Cadillac Hotel, would significantly add to the density of the area. Imagine the increased attractiveness of these units if residents could simply step outside to Douglass Park.
7) Now the trickiest part… the Performing Arts Center and it’s $25 million commitment from Tom Golisano. I think there is a very logical solution: build this on Parcel 10 (the river side parking lot next to the Blue Cross Arena), which has already been studied and recommended for this project. If we are to become a more cosmopolitan city, we need to expand our definition of downtown and what is considered “walkable”. Parcel 10 is would present RBTL with everything they want to foster a vibrant scene. Imagine a riverside PAC; sort of our own little version of Sydney’s Opera House.
8) And last, but not least… Why not think even bigger and broader? If we could build the PAC on Parcel 10 next to Blue Cross Arena, why not package a new arena into the mix and build both facilities at the same time? There could probably be some savings realized by building these once-in-a-generation community assets side-by-side. We need a new arena, and the case could be made that more Rochesterians would benefit from an arena than a theater (culture be damned). What a complex that could be!
I’d like to add some more perspectives from city residents as to what they’d like to see as the future of this highly valuable vacant lot.
A video from Earth Day at Parcel 5.
Parcel 5 could be “Beating Heart” of Rochester NY https://youtu.be/Dj1Azq9dpLA
Teaser on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/floatinghomefilms/videos/1953405251337198/