The Port of Rochester is not living up to its full potential, city officials say. A redevelopment project, done right, will boost the port’s profile, make the port a year-round destination, bring in traffic for Charlotte businesses, and raise tax revenue for the city, they say.
The city’s desire for a transformational project has led to the selection of a developer who plans a multimillion-dollar reinvention of the Port of Rochester with a hotel, condominiums, townhouses, and commercial and office space. That’s on top of a marina already under construction by the city.
But the drama of the project — it is unlike anything currently in Charlotte — has some people accusing the city of turning a public asset into a playground for the rich. Penthouse units in the housing developments will range from $900,000 to $1.2 million, according to the developer’s proposal.
Others concerns involve parking, views, the character of Charlotte, and the future of the underused terminal building. There is also skepticism of the city’s ability to pull off the project; critics cite the high-profile failures of the fast ferry and the city-subsidized Pier 45 restaurant at the port terminal.
“They can’t even keep that place open year round, and it loses money in the three months it’s open,” says Sean Schiano, who is on a joint committee of the Charlotte Community Association and the Port of Charlotte Merchants Association. The groups joined up to represent the Charlotte community on the port redevelopment.
“We understand that we want development in Charlotte,” Schiano says. “But we want a sustainable development. We want responsible development — something that has community involvement and something that actually fits in the community of Charlotte.”
A community meeting with the developer, Edgewater Resources, will take place at 7 p.m. on Thursday, May 8, at the Robach Community Center at Ontario Beach Park, 180 Beach Avenue.
Edgewater’s proposal includes a 96-room hotel, 120 for-sale condominiums, and 50 townhomes. The primary market will be young professionals and empty nesters — the same demographics that experts say are driving the resurgence of downtowns nationwide.
Sale prices of the housing units will start at $199,000 for a one bedroom and climb with the height of the buildings. “Affordable” units will be included on the lower floors of the condominiums and townhouses. The way that the City of Rochester defines affordable, officials say, means that the units will essentially be middle income. A single occupant wouldn’t be able to make more than $56,300 annually, for example.
City Council approved a zoning district for the port area in 2012 that allows considerable height for the buildings. The hotel, for example, could be 13 stories tall. Mark Gregor, the city’s manager of environmental quality, says the height is a compromise to make sure the project is viable for the developer. A very early proposal had private development covering about 20 acres of the 25-acre site, Gregor says. The current plan is slightly less than three acres. The trade-off, Gregor says, is that the buildings have to be higher.
But the city has taken steps to preserve the views from Lake Avenue, he says, by limiting the height of the parts of the buildings that are on the road. The zoning allows a three-story maximum on Lake, Gregor says, and then the buildings will go in and up.
Regarding the hotel, Gregor says that market research shows it is viable. And transient boaters say they would come to Rochester if they had a place to tie up their boats and stay, he says.
“We’ll have a boater lounge with restrooms and showers,” Gregor says. “They’ll be able to buy ice. They’ll be able to do their laundry.”
And Gregor refutes the suggestion that the city is privatizing the port. The marina will be open to the public and surrounded by a park and public promenade that will connect the Genesee River Trail to the Charlotte pier. And there is talk of a civic square with a reflecting pool or skating rink as part of the port project.
Although the developer mentions plans for the terminal building in its proposal, Gregor says the city has not committed to selling the building. The city did give Edgewater a list of questions regarding the building, however, to find out how a redeveloped terminal would fit into the rest of the project.
That the uproar over the project would happen now is a bit curious, considering the city approved the zoning district with the building heights in 2012. Gregor says he thinks people perked up because construction has begun on the marina, and because Mayor Lovely Warren agreed to show all the proposals the city received for the port.
Normally, the public would only see the selected project. Without the context of the city’s internal review of the proposals, Gregor says, people reacted to the designs they saw in the media. But those designs aren’t final, he says. People are seeing one version of what the project could look like when it’s fully developed, Gregor says.
“It’s a very, very early point in the process in terms of what the concept of the development will look like,” he says.
A proposal by a different developer, CEA International acting on behalf of local firm Morgan Management, was much more modest: 200 rental apartments with underground parking.
The city chose the Edgewater proposal because it contains all owner-occupied units, which is better for the neighborhood, Gregor says. And it includes a variety of housing options at a wide range of prices. And the CEA proposal doesn’t have the transformation potential of the Edgewater plan, Gregor says.
Some people are worried that the project will alter Charlotte’s cozy charm. The neighborhood is strictly middle class, with a mean household income of less than $50,000, according to Census data.
Gregor says the city has been talking, with varying intensity, about redeveloping the port since the 1960’s. The port is vastly underused, he says, generates no property tax revenue, and has a bit of an inferiority complex.
“If you talk to other harbors and other ports around Lake Ontario, we have been simply known as the harbor with the parking lots,” Gregor says. “And no place for guest or day boaters to go, reliably.”
A successful project will give a boost to the whole area, he says. Anywhere from 20 percent to 40 percent of Lake Avenue storefronts are vacant, Gregor says.
Although there’s been talk in the community about creating an atmosphere similar to Niagara-On-the-Lake, Steve Golding, the city’s manager of downtown development, says the port project should be distinctly Rochester.
“You want to create something that hopefully the community will like and the developer can work with, but will also have its own character,” he says. “They’ll know they’re in the Port of Rochester.”
This article appears in May 7-13, 2014.
I think the cities reasoning for building a high density development project is valid and well thought out.
I think if people are upset about the high rises they should consider moving to the town of hamlin which likely won’t be the site of high density development in the foreseeable future.
Wow I attended this meeting and I wasn’t sure any questions were answered. The city did have people speaking but they seldom answered the questions. The key problem here is that many people in this area have been involved with this process and this is not what they were working on. Again and again they asked why the unique nature of the area was not considered by this project and Mark Gregor never had an answer. When the zoning was proposed the questions of height was raised and council members and city officials promised they would not allow towers in the port district. Well apparently things have changed. Mark Gregor started out explaining how they did not want rental in this project but could not explain how the townhouses in the plan are not listed as for sale units. The city was clear there will be no subsidized or low income housing though there will be some market rate. They maintained this even though the builder claims they will apply for Low Income Housing Tax Credits. As for questions about emergency services the city did admit they may need to examine this. Many wanted to know what studies were done to show a demand for this sort of building and the poor Mark Gregor could only claim that he was sure the developer had done this. Finally when asked about the city’s financial contribution to this project they claimed that is open to negotiations but would not rule out tens of millions of dollars of city funds in the form of grants and loans. While on tax breaks they did mention developments in Empire Zones get huge breaks but failed to mention this is also in an Empire Zone.
With all this evasion and misinformation it should not be surprising that the public is angry over this. Despite years of working with residents the city did not mention the idea of towers until recently. They failed to get input and seem to have raced into this without considering how city services will be stretched in Charlotte by such a project. Like all projects the cities financial obligations and tax returns were not mentioned and so as usual the public was unable to weigh the benefits verse the costs. So the public was asked to trust the city to make this right but unfortunately too many of the residents had been disappointed or deceived too often in this area and they are unwilling to continue to just believe.
Hey John Smith did you ever live in Greece off Denise?
Well, said Mr. White!!
This just sounds so disastrous for Charlotte. Nobody ever asks the question “once this project is completed, who has the responsibility for the marketing and sales of the project, till it reaches full occupancy”? What will the annual marketing and sales budget be, and who will be responsible for that appropriation…where will the money come from in the 5 years it will take to establish this project once it is completed”? Get somebody to ask that question publicly and watch everybody back up…the developer, the city and the Port commission. Just another development without any long term planning or infrastructure established up front. More empty structures, is my prediction.
This reminds me of the Erie Harbor fiasco in the South Wedge. One design was shown to residents that was generally accepted and agreed upon (much like the earlier three to four story rendering for Charlotte), then the developer (or the city in this case) basically said “yeah, we changed our minds about that”.
Perhaps the city should go back and read their own “Port of Rochester Master Plan” with regard to building heights and preserving views (specifically Appendix D pages A32-A33):
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=8589950273
This is a grand project that is doomed to fail; just like the fast ferry.
It happens every time. Greed and corruption win out over sensible planning. And Rochester ends up with some empty, embarrassing hulk.
Well, we do need to walk before we run. I do believe there’s a market for new housing and even a hotel, but not the quantity proposed. Rather than offering 3 acres, the city should just offer 1. Once than shows a success, then open some more property for development. I think that that’s what most of the residents are afraid of. Vacancies.
On the other hand, there already are 2 highrises in Charlotte now. We are such small thinkers. There are 1.1 million people in Rochester and we have the most pitiful waterfront.
After Thursday’s presentation by the developer of the port of Rochester one question has become the most important. At this meeting both the Mayor and the developer claimed there would be no low income housing in this project. Yet on page 26 of the proposal submitted to the city for the purpose of obtaining this contract it clearly states Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) as a source of funding. As this source could be as high as $22 million it draws into question the developers ability to complete this project without this funding. So what we really need to know is simple. Are the city and the developer lying about the low income housing or did the developer commit a crime by submitting a fraudulent or misleading document to the city for the purpose of obtaining a contract?
We are probably the only city with waterfront property (2 sources of it) that has no idea how to utilize it. We build ugly tenement-style low-income housing on Mt Hope and then don’t maintain it or the area around it. Now we want to build “market value” (read: low-income housing) on the lake. But the City continues to whine about the dwindling tax base.
We can’t get out of our own way. It’s like the new Transit Center. Why put it on Main and Clinton? To attract more kids waiting for buses after school? You want people to come downtown —- not just city residents who now have to go to the ‘burbs for groceries or other goods, but also people from all over the city and county looking for shopping and entertainment. Put a transit center slighly east or west of the area inside the inner loop. People don’t want to walk to Main and Clinton? They can hop a bus.