Last week, City Council bucked the mayor a bit and said no to loaning $1.5 million to one of developer Robert Morgan’s companies for a project on Court Street in downtown Rochester.
I could be wrong, but I’d bet that one way or another, the project will be built anyway. Whatever happens, though, the discussion about it – like the discussion about an RBTL theater on Parcel 5 – has pushed an extremely important question in front of city officials, and in front of the public: What do we want downtown Rochester to be in the future?
Who is downtown for? Who should live there? Work there? Play there?
The Court Street project had gotten attention because of reports that the FBI is investigating the financing of a Morgan project in Buffalo. But that didn’t seem to be the concern for Rochester’s City Council members. Some of them questioned the timing. Work on the site has already begun; if the developer knew he needed a loan, why wait this late to ask for it?
Other Council members focused on the issue of rents in the project’s apartments. Most of the units will be market-rate: too expensive for many Rochester residents. And that’s the case with most of the apartments and condos being developed downtown right now.
In the negotiations with Morgan about the loan request, Mayor Lovely Warren had gotten an agreement that 10 percent of the 111 apartments would be “affordable”: half for households with incomes less than 120 percent of the federal “median family income,” and half for households with incomes less than 80 percent of the median family income. But even that is out of range for many people. And 11 units isn’t a lot of units.
It’s time to talk about this issue.
Related
A good many of downtown’s older buildings are being converted into apartments and offices, and new ones are being built. All of that will boost the city’s tax base, and those new people will patronize businesses downtown.
But the developers have gotten a good bit of public help, in the form of tax incentives and loans. While that’s had its critics, I think it’s been necessary. Is it now?
And what about the development itself? Do we care whether all of the new housing is for the relatively affluent?
In cities like San Francisco and New York, housing and commercial space for small, independent businesses have been priced out of reach for many people. We don’t have the wealth, the business concentration, and the demand for city housing that those cities have. But lack of affordable housing – decent, actually affordable housing in good neighborhoods – is a problem, too.
A recent CityLab article focused on the impact of the strong development taking place in Minneapolis and Atlanta, where housing prices have shot up – and many residents have been driven out of their neighborhoods as a consequence.
The Brookings Institution, the Urban Land Institute, and others have been studying this problem. And in Toronto, Alphabet – Google’s parent company – has embarked on a unique project, developing an 800-acre site along downtown Toronto’s waterfront as an example of what cities could be in the future.
Called Sidewalk Toronto, the project “will blend people-centered urban design with cutting-edge technology to achieve new standards of sustainability, affordability, mobility, and economic opportunity,” says its promotional material.
Alphabet plans to create mixed-use, walkable, diverse, and affordable neighborhoods; vibrant parks and other public spaces that are in use year round. It promises a “suite of design and infrastructure innovations” that will “dramatically reduce building energy consumption, landfill waste, and carbon emissions – creating a blueprint for truly climate-positive neighborhoods.”
Rochester’s not Toronto (or San Francisco or Atlanta). But we have the same problem, for different reasons, on a different scale. And we have a responsibility to solve it. The issues surrounding the Morgan development are a good place to start.
This article appears in Nov 22-28, 2017.
I agree that we have a responsibility to solve this problem. We are not San Francisco or Atlanta but there is no excuse for not investing in forward-thinking projects which enhance Rochester’s livability for all Rochestarians, not just those with higher incomes.
At the last City Council meeting, there were many who spoke on issues ranging from street scape improvements and Parcel 5 to opposition to the planned Court St. project and Cobbs Hill apartments. Every single issue discussed that night was related to the livability of our city.
Citizens from all walks of life are standing up and demanding that our leaders start prioritizing green space, walkable and bikable neighborhoods/downtown, improved public transportation, sustainability… the list goes on. These livability activists, myself included, want development to center on making Rochester better for those who already live here and not focused on projects meant to bribe suburbanites to move downtown in hopes that their money will save us.
There must be over a dozen high rises in or adjacent to downtown operated by the Rochester Housing Authority that are chocked full of low income residents. Maybe if you weren’t so hostile towards people with a little disposable income we could get some retail downtown.
All the new “accessible” apartments downtown are called “luxury” apartments, and are priced double what I pay about 1 mile away…
Not sure what businesses are actually “Downtown” after 5pm or so.
Revitalizing downtown is definitely a must, I’m just not sure we need to give tax breaks to the wealthiest developers to get it done. It will definitely take money to get it done, but I believe low interest loans and matching grants for updates/renovating are enough. Rochester desperately needs the tax revenue, so giving tax breaks to those who can afford a $300,000+ condo downtown is not the fairest idea, but I can see how it’s enticing on both sides. Those are the people with more disposable income to spend money on the surrounding businesses, so enticing them is a genuinely good idea, but I also believe there are many who truly want to live downtown regardless. I think there’s a good middle ground there if those with the integrity and know-how, plus community leaders, would just get together to discuss the best options instead of allowing back office dealings directly with the mayor.
I live in subsidized housing downtown as a disabled senior. I cannot get employment, even with a degree, because I am over 55. There are not that many living situations for people like me, many have long waiting lists, others have bedbugs, slumlords and drug and alcohol addicted neighbors.
There are also senior subsidized housing that reject good tenants over credit ratings and keeping their apartments just out of reach for DSS recipients by keeping their rents just over budget requirements, even while advertising that they take DSS. Many buildings are in crime ridden neighborhoods, are dirty and have broken windows, washing machines and elevators. I’ve been on a two year waiting list for my disability hearing and have no choice but to live on DSS until the hearing materializes, and if I finally win it, 3 more months of DSS taking a chunk of my settlement money along with the attorneys.
After rent, food, and utilities, my monthly cash totals $32 a month. I cannot afford to take the bus or even get necessities at the Dollar Tree.
And now my apartment building is in danger of being eliminated due to downtown “revitalization”. I have been pushed out of every decent neighborhood I have ever lived in as a good, quiet and clean tenant due to high rents, budget requirements and landlords putting potential tenants through credit and background checks and refusing any kind of government aid as rent, even though it is a guaranteed monthly payment.