For more on this topic: See Christine Carrie Fien’s “Rochester’s apartment boom” in this week’s news section.
The owners of Craft Company No. 6 have written a letter in opposition to the project.
It’s not an attractive piece of property right now: a blacktopped parking lot and a mid-1920’s stucco house on University Avenue, to which non-descript, architecturally inappropriate extensions have been affixed.
The property is the home of the Monroe Voiture veterans group, which holds its own events there, rents space to 14 other non-profit organizations, including several other veterans groups, and occasionally rents its dining space for outside functions.
Morgan Management – a Rochester firm with numerous apartment complexes in the area – hopes to take over the property, demolish the veterans’ building and build a new one for them, and build a large apartment building, three and four stories high, with 102 one- and two-bedroom units.
For the veterans, the Morgan development is a very good deal. In return for their property, they would get a brand new home, and Morgan would take over the maintenance and utility costs for at least the next 99 years.
Morgan must get approval from both the Rochester Preservation Board and the Planning Commission, and that process starts next week. On May 8, Preservation Board members will listen to public comments and then make their own remarks. Board members won’t vote, but, says Peter Siegrist, a preservation planner for the City of Rochester, “we urge our members to make pretty solid comments.” That will provide “a sense of how the Preservation Board feels,” Siegrist says.
Those comments will be sent to the Planning Commission, which will meet on May 20, take comments from the public, and vote. If the Planning Commission approves the project, the application will then go back to the Preservation Board for a vote.
Morgan Management has revised its plans several times in response to neighborhood concerns. It has lowered the number of apartments to 102 from the initial 110 and increased the number of parking spaces to 164, from 139. And it has dramatically changed the exterior. Once an undistinguished structure resembling something in a suburban office park, it now looks like a building on a college campus, with brick on the University Avenue facade and brick and hardy plank on the sides and rear.
There would be 62 one-bedroom and 40 two-bedroom units, 132 underground parking spaces, and 32 above ground spaces, the latter reserved for the Monroe Voiture. Rents for the apartments would be $1100 to $1500, and Morgan vice president Kevin Morgan says the company anticipates that tenants would be young professionals and empty-nesters.
To many public officials, new residential development is attractive, particularly in the City of Rochester, which has been losing population. The project would put tax-exempt property back on the city’s tax rolls. And unless all of the residents moved there from nearby, it would put more people in the neighborhood, adding to life on the street in that area – and, presumably, providing customers for nearby restaurants and other businesses.
With those advantages, the proposal might be expected to breeze through the approval process. But the Morgan project is in the East Avenue Preservation District, where demolition, new construction, and even minor exterior changes to a property are strictly regulated.
The Preservation Board will consider whether the Morgan proposal is appropriate for the site and for the preservation district. The Planning Commission will consider land-use issues such as density, parking, and traffic.
Both groups should deny the proposal. It is inappropriate for the preservation district. It’s too big for the site. It requires the demolition of an existing house. It dramatically changes the streetscape and the view from the neighboring George Eastman House, which is a national historic landmark.
And it is bad city planning, adding density to an area of the city that doesn’t need more. (Disclosure: My husband and I own a two-flat rental unit a few blocks from the Monroe Voiture property.)
Some neighbors are delighted with the plan. But some are not. Among them: the Neighborhood of the Arts Neighborhood Association, in which the Monroe Voiture property lies. Last week, the association issued a statement opposing the development “because the size and the scale of the project is incongruent with property in the East Avenue Preservation District.” The stand was the result of several months of studying the Morgan proposal, neighborhood meetings, and a survey of neighborhood residents, businesses, visitors, and others.
Ninety-five people responded to the survey, 59 of them residents, 20 of them neighborhood business owners or employees. Asked whether the Morgan proposal fits in “with the style of the neighborhood,” 60 said either that it was better suited to another location or that it was “jarring to the senses.” Only 19 had a favorable response to that question.
(The association said it is “open to working with Morgan Management on building in another more appropriate location in the neighborhood.”)
The opponents also include the large institutions that flank the Monroe Voiture property: the Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation and the George Eastman House. Both object to the size and density of the apartment building, which would cover the vast majority of the Monroe Voiture property and would be relatively near their property line.
Church officials also worry that Morgan tenants would park in the church parking lot, which would be only a few feet away from the apartment building.
Although Morgan would provide 30 more parking spaces for residents than there are apartments, it’s likely that many of the two-bedroom apartments would have at least two occupants – and two cars. The same may be true of some of the one-bedroom apartments. And certainly there would be times when the tenants would have guests with cars.
Motorists already use the church driveway and parking lot as an easy route between East Avenue and University, says Amiel Mokhiber Jr., vice president of the church’s board of directors, and Morgan tenants and guests would find the lot a convenient parking spot.
Morgan vice president Kevin Morgan says the company doesn’t anticipate parking problems. Even some of the two-bedroom units would have only one tenant, he predicts. And while he says he does anticipate that some tenants would park on the street, he says he doesn’t think they would use the church parking lot.
“We would make sure to let our residents know on signing a lease that we’re not responsible for where they park if they don’t park on our property,” Morgan said in a recent interview. If they park in the church lot, “they might get towed,” he said. “And I think if that happened once, it wouldn’t happen again.”
But the church would be responsible for policing its lot, and Mokhiber says the church doesn’t want to have to do that. Nor does it want to have to put up a gate, forcing church members to have to use access cards to get into their own parking lot.
The Eastman House concerns initially centered on its own future needs: it wanted expansion room for its collections, exhibits, and research. In 2011, GEH, supported by the Monroe Voiture, successfully applied for a Planned Development District that included both properties, as well as that of the Hutchison House, just to the east of the Eastman House on East Avenue.
“The explicit purpose,” says GEH director Bruce Barnes, “was to promote the purposes of the George Eastman House and the Monroe Voiture, and it allowed a wide range of non-residential uses, including a restaurant.”
The district designation also permitted the development of new multi-family residences. That would permit the Eastman House, a major, national photographic archives and research institution, to build classrooms and a small dormitory if its leaders decided they needed to.
Earlier this year, Barnes was listing the museum’s expansion needs as one of the reasons it opposed the Morgan development. But he had just become the museum’s new director, and in an interview in late March, he said his view had “changed dramatically.”
The museum hired Bergmann Associates to create a new design for its plans for the Monroe Voiture property. It includes a community garden, a sculpture area, a new parking lot for the Eastman House (augmenting the existing one off of East Avenue), and a walkway from the new parking lot to the museum. The changes would “better connect Eastman House with the revitalized Neighborhood of the Arts,” Barnes says in a statement in the museum’s “Films & Events” publication.
The plan keeps the Monroe Voiture house, and Barnes said last week that the Eastman House would be willing to renovate it and maintain it for the veterans for at least 20 years. And it would be willing to “explore other alternatives, including adapting the first floor of the Hutchison House to be suitable veteran’s club facilities.”
“We do need more room,” he said, but new construction would likely take place somewhere else in Rochester. “We already have a substantial amount of storage” in the nearby Gleason Works building. The museum could move some of its archives, library, and conservation space to another location, Barnes said, opening up space in the existing museum building for exhibitions.
“I don’t think – I’m not saying it’s impossible – but I don’t think we would put it next door,” Barnes said.
Barnes said he doesn’t rule out classroom space or another “low-impact” construction next door sometime in the future, “but near term,” he said, the museum wants to preserve its surroundings.
The Eastman House is facing a problem that is a bit of its own creation. When it first asked the city to rezone its property and that of the Hutchison House and the Monroe Voiture as a Planned Development District, the museum and the veterans reached an agreement that provided for the museum’s expansion in return for the museum maintaining the veterans’ building – or building them a new one. (There is disagreement now about the specifics of that early agreement.)
For some reason, the museum gave the Monroe Voiture a document later that changed the terms of that agreement, infuriating the veterans. Barnes agrees that the museum dropped the ball on the issue.
Unquestionably, Barnes said in late March, “we didn’t handle it well,” and he has reached out to the veterans to try to smooth things over. If the Morgan plan doesn’t go through, he said, “George Eastman House would still like to enter into an agreement” with the veterans.
But it will have to find a way to smooth things over. Clearly, the veterans find a new building and 99 years of free rent and free maintenance more attractive than a promise of renovations to their existing space and 20 years of free occupancy there.
The current building has “about three times the amount of square footage we need,” Monroe Voiture member and club manager Rene Vanmulem says. Some critics of the development proposal worry that because the Monroe Voiture members are aging, their future use of the building is uncertain. But Vanmulem says that after the development issue is settled, “we’re going to go after new members in an aggressive way.”
And he says that the other activity in the building – space for other non-profits, the events they hold – “justifies the existence of our building beyond our 100 members.”
Given the way the Eastman House changed the terms of its initial agreement, Vanmulem said he wasn’t sure how the two could have an “amicable” relationship in the future.
And Vanmulem questions whether the Eastman House will have the resources to carry out its plan for the Monroe Voiture property. “You can come up with all the highfalutin ideas you want,” he said, “but if you haven’t got the money to back it up….”
The Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation wants to be able to ease that conflict. “The church would be willing to act as peacemakers,” says Amiel Mokhiber. “And we’re willing to have a joint venture with the Eastman House to renovate the Monroe Voiture building.”
But the church is as opposed to the Morgan development as is the Eastman House. “We believe Bob Morgan is a good person and a good developer,” said Mokhiber. “The project may be a good project. But it’s just in the wrong place.”
We’ll get a sense of the prospects for the Morgan plan on May 8, when Preservation Board members make public comments about the development. There is concern that Preservation Board members will look only at the Morgan building’s design, and whether it, considered by itself, is appropriate for that site and for the preservation district.
The substantial changes that Morgan made to the building’s design seem to have swayed some area residents and some preservationists. But the Preservation Board and the Planning Commission should consider much more than design.
Its presence in the East Avenue Preservation District – the city’s first such district – should put the property under extraordinary scrutiny. For Morgan to build its apartments, it will have to tear down the building that houses the Monroe Voiture. The Preservation Board must approve not only the proposed new Morgan structure but also the demolition that will make it possible.
Only three buildings of any size have been demolished in the East Avenue Preservation District since 1969, when the district was formed. Prior to the establishment of the district, some significant houses on East Avenue were demolished, replaced by apartment buildings whose design was inappropriate to their surroundings, dramatically changing the character of part of that important street. The preservation district legislation halted that development.
The Monroe Voiture’s stucco house is not of landmark quality itself, but it is a good house, a step or two down from the grander mansions that lined East Avenue at the time. It was built as the home of the daughter of George D.B. Bonbright and his wife, a prominent Rochester family. And it is typical of some of the houses built just off East Avenue in that period.
Demolishing it would set a precedent. The East Avenue Preservation District contains many ordinary old houses – much more “ordinary” than the Monroe Voiture house. Permit the destruction of one, and the Preservation Board makes it hard to prevent the destruction of another, and another, and another… eating away at the fabric of the neighborhood.
That was the justification for making the area a preservation district in the first place – and the justification for the district’s boundaries being set at University and Park Avenues, not just along East Avenue.
The focus of a preservation district is not to preserve “landmarks,” the most historically and architecturally significant buildings in a city. Preservation districts are designed to protect the character of a larger area, all of the buildings, the open space, the streetscape, the ambiance, the feeling of a historically important neighborhood.
Any new development – any exterior change to a property – must be appropriate to its surroundings. And that includes not only the design of the building but its size, its mass.
In addition to concerns related to the preservation district, public officials must consider the impact that this large, dense development would have on that area of the city, which itself is predominantly a densely developed neighborhood.
One is the loss of green space. Morgan’s apartment building and parking lot would leave very little lawn left on property. Although stretches of East Avenue are lined with large homes and relatively large yards, Park and University Avenues and their adjacent streets are densely built.
The neighborhood is also home to three significant, low-density museum campuses: those of the Museum and Science Center, the Memorial Art Gallery, and the George Eastman House. And in an urban neighborhood, with small city yards, the museums’ open space not only has visual and passive-recreation appeal but also contributes positively to the environment. Rather than take away green space, as the Morgan plan does, the Eastman House design for the Monroe Voiture property would add to it.
And while Eastman House director Bruce Barnes agrees that the museum may want to build its own facilities on the Monroe Voiture property sometime in the future, that development would be small, he says, set back from University, and no taller than two stories. And if the Eastman House ever wanted to build on the Monroe Voiture property, it would have to go through the same scrutiny that Morgan Management is facing.
There’s also the question of the future of the University Avenue-East Avenue-Park Avenue area. What kind of neighborhood should it be? What do the people who live there want?
The Morgan development would add density to an already dense area. And its density has grown because of apartment developments, often in single and two-family homes that were once owner-occupied but are now rental units. This has created both traffic problems and parking problems. And they’re compounded by the age of the neighborhood’s housing stock. Built at a time when people were much less dependent on cars, many of the houses have nowhere near the parking space needed for the multiple tenants, each with their own car, that now live in them.
The neighborhood, with its art galleries, restaurants, and unique retail stores, has become an attractive place for apartment dwellers, particularly young adults. And their presence has attracted more apartment dwellers – and more developers interested in owning apartments in that neighborhood.
Apartment development is already under way at the old Genesee Hospital site on Alexander Street, just off Park Avenue; at the Culver Road Armory site a few blocks south of Park Avenue; and in individual large houses in the area.
City Councilmember Elaine Spaull, whose district includes the neighborhood, says she hears frequently from people interested in investing in the neighborhood and knows of several lots and buildings being eyed for apartment developments.
With the growth in investor-owner apartments, says city preservation planner Peter Siegrist, that section of the city has “fewer and fewer resident owners.” Sometimes the needs and wishes of investor owners and resident owners coincide. But sometimes they do not, and that can change the character of the neighborhood.
At what point does the density become too much? Has this part of the city’s southeast area reached its apartment saturation point? Is it time to cap the expansion of apartments in that neighborhood, letting them spread to other areas?
City officials should also consider Morgan’s proposal in the context of the goals for the city as a whole. While this project isn’t appropriate for the East Avenue Preservation District, it could be a real boon to other areas. It could, for instance, add significantly to the critical mass building downtown.
One important voice has not yet been heard on this issue: that of the Landmark Society of Western New York, which historically has been devoted not only to the preservation of significant individual properties but also to fostering the health and preservation of older neighborhoods. Its research and support have been key in the creation and protection of the city’s eight preservation districts.
The organization isn’t devoted to preservation at any price; its leaders have been careful to pick their battles, recognizing, for instance, that cost can make a preservation proposal unrealistic. And in some cases, the organization has declined to oppose development, angering some preservationists.
So far, the Landmark Society has not taken a stand on the Morgan proposal. In an e-mail last week, executive director Wayne Goodman said that the Landmark Society is “reviewing all materials.”
“We want to make sure that any new construction is done in a manner consistent with the guidelines” of the Preservation Board, Goodman said.
“We do not, as a general rule, rule out new construction as a legitimate form of investment in our historic districts,” he said. “But that new construction must be compatible with its surroundings….”
And, he said, the Landmark Society is also studying the existing building housing the Monroe Voiture. “There are many things to consider when a demolition is proposed in a historic district,” Goodman said.
Indeed there are. But there are also many things to consider when a new development is proposed for a city neighborhood, whether demolition is involved or not. Additional tax base and the architectural design of individual projects are only two of them.
It is encouraging that Morgan and other developers are willing to invest in the city. But the city has other properties that could be developed. A healthy city needs to house a variety of uses: residential, commercial, open space, institutional. When the city approved the Planned Development District for the Eastman House-Hutchinson House-Monroe Voiture properties, the purpose was to serve the needs of the museum and the veterans. The Morgan development serves the veterans’ needs, unquestionably. But it doesn’t serve the museum’s.
This won’t be an easy decision for the Preservation Board and the Planning Commission. The possibility of more tax revenue for the city is attractive. And I understand the concern of the Monroe Voiture’s Rene Vanmulem, who told me that he worries that some critics of the Morgan plan would oppose anything. For Morgan Management, and for the Monroe Voiture, the best outcome is for the Preservation Board and the Planning Commission to vote “yes” on Morgan’s proposal.
But for the neighborhood, the Eastman House, the Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation – and for the city – the best outcome is a “no” vote.
People heavily invested in the neighborhood – residents, the church, the museum – oppose the project. Neighborhood opinion shouldn’t be the sole determinant when the two boards vote on the Morgan proposal. But neighborhood opinion has to be considered in any development proposal. And in this case, that opinion has to count for a lot.
I thought about this project recently as I read a Wall Street Journal review of an exhibit focused on the works of the late architect Louis Kahn (whose First Unitarian Church graces Winton Road a little less than two miles from the Monroe Voiture property).
“Kahn saw the planning of a city much like the planning of a house, with areas of the city defined like rooms with specific uses,” said writer Colin Amery. “City housing, he thought, should always be the product of the wishes of the neighborhood.”
Residents of the neighborhood fought hard for the preservation district that contains the Monroe Voiture property. They fought hard for the restrictions that the preservation legislation provides, because they were convinced that those restrictions would improve not only their neighborhood but the city as a whole.
They were right then. And the Preservation Board and Planning Commission need to stand with them now.
The Morgan proposal is inappropriate for the preservation district, is too big for the site, and is bad city planning.
At what point does the density become too much? Has this part of the city’s southeast reached its apartment saturation point?
It is encouraging that Morgan is willing to invest in the city. But the city has other properties that could be developed.
This article appears in May 1-7, 2013.
I’m a former resident of the neighborhood who worked on neighborhood planning matters, including the original ARTWalk and the extension. I’ve spent hundreds of delightful hours at the George Eastman House, attended several meetings and community events at Monroe Voiture, and, of course, GreekFest. I’ve been heavily involved in historic preservation, community planning, and neighborhood revitalization. And with all that background, I find that this thorough and thoughtful piece is pretty much spot on.
Nice job, Mary Anna!
I too have been involved in historic preservation efforts, although not for as long as some including Mary Anna. But I find many of the arguments here to be nonsensical.
What’s been proposed by Morgan is clearly an improvement over the house and parking lot that is there now. I see no green space now that won’t be there after these apartments are built.
The 120 year old, beautiful Cataract Brewery building in the historic High Falls neighborhood was a Designated Building of Historic Value; supposedly protected from demolition. Yet, we had no problem demolishing that so it could be replaced with a HUGE parking lot forever altering the rim of the High Falls gorge.
Here we have the George Eastman House now saying it wants to build a sculpture garden and A PARKING LOT on this site? I really don’t see how that would be better than adding residents to this section of University.
Also, I find it a bit ironic this article mentions Louis Kahn. The very first design by Morgan for this site looked like it could have been designed by Kahn himself. Personally, I don’t believe his aesthetic or his teachings belong anywhere near this neighborhood.
Cities like Rochester are dying, and a major reason is the toxic, idiotic and un-American ideology that says economic growth can be made to follow the centrally-planned dictates of political pressure groups. If this kind of stupidity prevails, then the city’s inevitable demise will be richly deserved.
It’s hardly a coincidence that the only places prospering these days are those states and communities that embrace progress and welcome dynamic, creative private investment—without meddling busybodies, mountains of red tape or rapacious taxation.
You can listen to newspaper pundits and dead architects, or you can use your head and face cold, hard facts.
What would George Eastman do?
I agree with you Mike and JAM. It is because of efforts like this that will block Rochester from moving forward. This building is seriously ugly and people had the nerve to complain about Erie harbor apartments. In this case you would be replacing an ugly building with a beautiful one.
I don’t agree with the article. Parking lots are terrible for urban areas and density is almost always a good thing. When density gets high enough in a desirable area the result is usually fewer cars, better transit, and great restaurants. Parking lots lead to sterile, unwalkable, neighborhoods with few services. Morgan’s proposal looks fine and will be a fine addition to University Avenue and the city.
It’s nice to see City supporting a major advertiser, George Eastman House, even though GEH completely and totally screwed up what should have been a no-brainer acquisition of the Voiture. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if GEH had dealt with those vets in a straightforward manner. And, once GEH bought the property, and once they figured out what they wanted to do with it after they used it for a parking lot for a few years (and Lord knows the one thing Rochester doesn’t need is nicely landscaped parking lot), then City will be explaining why whatever GEH wants to do is worth tearing down the historic Voiture building. After reading this ill-reasoned piece, City has no credibility on this subject.
All the things that make Rochester a better city- better mass transit, more small neighborhood businesses, more use of bikes and walking instead of driving-require population density. The way you get population density is to developments like this.
Also, that Kahn quote is just NIMBY dressed up in elegant words.
Thank you for this well researched article on the proposed development at 933 University Avenue. Your paper serves an important role when providing substance to issues facing urban development.
My understanding of the process of having private investment of additional housing has been in existence for the last 2 decades. The influx of non tax supported multimillion dollar proposals should be taken seriously and facilitated to an outcome of quality, integrating with neighborhoods, and celebration.
This proposal at its current or alternative site reflects a very positive indicator of demand for development in Rochester. Hooray, at last! May your paper, neighborhood activists, and city officials work together towards its potential of a promising end for the City of Rochester.
I think it’s pretty clear most of the commenters here don’t live in this part of the city. Adding that many units here does not help increase the density of the city. There is little to nothing nearby. The residents would likely walk across the Eastman lawn to get to Park and East Avenues, where they would make a large trek to either the EastEnd or Berkley & Park, yes, they could also walk to Starry Nites Cafe, but the neighborhood surrounding Starry Nites, while up and coming, is still pretty dicey (wouldn’t want my daughter walking around there at night). Don’t forget the amazing foodstore of PriceRite, cheaper than Walmart!?! There is little to no residential life on most of this stretch of University, it’s mostly old warehouse buildings where manufacturing STILL takes place. Allowing this to be built would be a great example of poor city planning. The East/Park area has survived 100 years because of its preservation. While we are at it, why don’t we tear down the Eastman House and build apartments there too?!?. F$ck the majesty of East Avenue, it stands in the way of PROGRESS (and tax revenues). And for those against a parking lot, there is already a massive parking lot there. This is Rochester, where people demand free parking (hence the demise of downtown as the workplace of the region). Eastman’s plan would beautify the lot, increasing green space and including a new sculpture garden adding to the ArtWalk.
One more thing: there is nothing wrong with NIMBY. What do you think about the Village of Pittsford’s fight against Mark IV’s proposal to build apartments along the Canal!?! Second: Greater Rochester’s transit situation WON’T change until gas prices are sky high or there is significant population growth. Since neither are likely for the foreseeable future, almost all people (except hipsters and true progressives) are going to keep their cars and shop, live, and work where they can drive and park freely. Third: without change in Rochester’s schools, you are not going to see family’s clamoring to live in the city. Fourth: See City’s other article about apartment building in rochester, eventually, with so many apartments coming online, rents will decrease (without the population increase) and fringe areas (like NOTA and the Morgan location) are going to see deteriotation rather than gentrification. As Larry Glazer says in that article, apartment building in Rochester is a Zero-Sum game.
@ParkResident: “the neighborhood surrounding Starry Nites, while up and coming, is still pretty dicey (wouldn’t want my daughter walking around there at night)”
You’re throwing out accusations about people not knowing this location and then you write something like this? I’ve been in that neighborhood at night a number of times recently and would hardly call it “dicey”. Are you talking about the existence of a gay bar? Does that alone make it dicey? Perhaps you should ask the patrons of Edibles, Good Luck, Lento, Espada, Salenas and Gatehouse, just to name 6 good restaurants within easy walking distance of this new complex, whether they feel that they’re in a “dicey” neighborhood. And, btw, none of those restaurants involve a walk across the sacred grass of GEH.
NIMBYism is simply another word for resistance to any change by current residents, and an inability to imagine improvement over the current status quo. Your comments exemplify that. It’s an “industrial area”? Yes, there’s some industry there, obviously Gleason, but there’s also a huge converted-to-retail set of warehouses one block east (where Rockventures is), and a number of other former industrial buildings that are now housing high-end retail (like Joe Bean) near Price Right. Who knows what other businesses will grow there after 102 new units of housing are added?
And as to the question of where the people to populate all the new city housing will come from, young professionals and retired empty nesters will move to the city from the suburbs no matter what the schools are like. This may be a zero-sum game, but the game is played across Monroe County, not just in the city, once the city has dense enough housing that spurs the development of more retail. Look at the South Wedge as an example – I’m sure it’s far too “dicey” for you to enter, but dense housing and new apartments have led to more retail which leads to higher rent and higher housing prices, not collapse.
To Rotten: Advertising has no impact on my decisions, but so that we’re dealing in facts, not fiction: the George Eastman House is by no means a major advertiser for City. In fact, we donate a substantial amount of advertising to the museum’s film program.
@Mrs Towler: I’ll leave that between you and your conscience. All I can tell from the piece is that you’re carrying GEH’s water on this one, because, as others pointed out, your arguments are nonsensical. Example:
“At what point does the density become too much? Has this part of the city’s southeast area reached its apartment saturation point? Is it time to cap the expansion of apartments in that neighborhood, letting them spread to other areas?”
Apartment saturation point? What does that mean? Do you have any statistics to quantify this elusive tipping point? Or, am I mistaken and the name of your newspaper is “Suburb”? Because it’s suburbs that want single occupancy stand alone dwellings, And what neighborhood are we talking about, the whole SE side or NOTA? Because the only NOTA apartment expansion that I’ve seen is near Village Gate (unless you’re counting the low-income high-rise between Goodman and Upton Place). There’s no apartment expansion going on near this proposed development. That’s what makes it a good location for an apartment complex, even if its neighbors like GEH and the churches don’t like it.
OK, so we turn down the Morgan Management proposal. Then what? More years of looking at a large expanse of cracked asphalt and a decaying Tudor? More years listening to how the Eastman House blew their opportunity? More years of conflict between economic reality and the striving for an unobtainable perfect architectural and cultural use for the property?
When Lincoln was looking for a new general to lead the Union armies his critics told him to pick anybody. Lincoln replied, “Anybody will do for you, but not for me. I must have somebody”. The same philosophy applies to the Monroe Voiture property. We can not afford to wait for that perfect “anybody”, we must have “somebody.”
After talking with a collegue, I think the most important consideration should be the George Eastman House. I read on RochesterSubway Jackie’s comments about it being Rochester’s own White House and I agree. Everything in the immediate area surrounding the GEH should be subject to the museum’s enhancement. Yes, I understand this is undemocratic/uncapitalistic, but I think GEH is an asset that is much to valuable that it should take over the American Legion’s plot. Too bad GEH dropped the ball on this. I hope the American Legion can forgive the GEH and work something out. Who knows, perhaps in several years the GEH could build a massive new Exhibit wing, drawing visitors from around the world especially those passionaite about photography and film.
Written it on another story, will write it again: We don’t need another high-end apartment complex in the city. How many well-to-do Mendonites and Brightonites do people think need a pied-a-terre in the city? Why not build affordable housing for the masses of poor people in the city?
Remember the bust “low income housing” has been? How many cities in the 60s and 70s this flawed concept wrecked? This was one of the biggest flaws of late-60s – early 90s era liberalism, an era that has thankfully passed. It’s a great thing cities got smart and started to encourage high-income housing. We need to continue to build affordable housing for low income families, and that, like high income housing has its limits, too. It seems on this immediate subject, 100 units awfully high, and zero units awfully low. MUST it be this all-or-nothing?
Clarification: low income actual houses, not apartments. Even better to help them into the middle class, though.
What I see is a fairly good-looking apartment complex being built on an almost nasty site across from the Gleason Works. How is that a bad thing? That the George Eastman House would prefer to have ownership of the site, but has clearly been unwilling to deal honestly with the folks who own it, well, huh, too bad. Right now, if you are visiting the GEH grounds, the view is “impacted” by the unsightly lot on University.
@Parkresident “but the neighborhood surrounding Starry Nites, while up and coming, is still pretty dicey (wouldn’t want my daughter walking around there at night).”
Well, my daughters have grown up in this neighborhood and one thing is for certain – I wouldn’t allow my daughters to walk around at night on Park Avenue either.
So there.
Mary Anna,
I don’t know whether this apartment looks good across the street from the Gleason Works or not. I don’t know if its a good idea or not. My neighbors don’t like it so I’ll go along with that.
Me and a lot of other neighbors would definitely prefer to see something go up in the empty parking lot between Anderson and Atlantic. But we’re not developers. Maybe we’ll get frustrated enough and develop it ourselves.
On the other hand, the high rise on the corner of Goodman and University is totally incongruent and we don’t care. It’s a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. It keeps the corner store open and I want that corner store there when I need it.
One thing for certain – density isn’t a reason to oppose this. My folks live in high rises in Manhattan, which, by all accounts, seems to be surviving the density quite well.
Mary Anna Fowler writes a well-researched, thorough, balanced presention of this issue. Then she has the courage to draw a conclusion and state her OPPOSITION to this proposal. I live here, I’ve been to the meetings and full discussions about this development, and I agree with her. The majority of resisdents here are opposed
to thsis proposal becasue a Preservation District has buildings and an atmsophere that are supposed to be
preserved–the Morgan building isn’t right for thjis location. It would be fine in the new College Town, or th enew Midtown, etc. That doesn’t mean residents don’t want appropraite change. This was orinally all single and double houses, so six new town houses or condos would presrebve the characterr of the mebeighborhood–and
Park and East Ave., NOTA, ABC Streets, Upper Monroe, etc. are NEIGHBORHOODS, not districts or urban centers. They all have been brough back to life proimariily by normal working people, not developers, who
bought neglected old houses and fixed themn up with hard wirk and their oown money. It’s the historic houses and atmsohere that draws people–not 102 unit commercial apartment buildings. The Voiture building was built as a small mansion by the same architect who designed Oak Hill Country Club. The wife was a descendent of Nathaniel Rochester. The additions added to the front of the huse by the veterans who bought it in 1941 are ugly, but the house isn’t, it’s not inn riuins, or gutted by fire–it can easily be restored like most every building here has been. The Voiture group, however, doesn’t have the money to pay fror a new roodf, kitchen, bar room and other repairs. Demolishing the house and ruining the beauty of GEH and the historic charcater of this
area is not necessaruy or acceptable in a real Preservation District. The Morgans can build theitr apartments somewhere else; GEH and the Greek Orthodox Church are willing to pay for restoration, maintenasce, and at least 20 years or more of their full use: other developers are also interseted in working with the property.
“At what point does the density become too much?”
Walkscore.com gives 900 East Ave a score of 84. Pretty good. I moved here from DC where my place had a walk score of 94 so there is plenty of room to go.
“Has this part of the city’s southeast area reached its apartment saturation point? “
There is actually a really easy way to tell when a neighborhood has reached its apartment saturation point. When people no longer want to pay $1500 a month to live in an apartment in the neighborhood and prices start falling because supply has soaked up the demand. Erie Harbor is charging high rents. Hickory Place is charging high rents. People clearly want to live in the East Ave area because rents are high. Adding more housing in that area will help more people live there and it will bring even more amenities to the area.
“It is encouraging that Morgan is willing to invest in the city. But the city has other properties that could be developed.” Yes. Perhaps Morgan should build some luxury apartments on Wilkins St. However I think that street may have already reached its luxury apartment saturation point.
There are NIMBYs in every neighborhood. Every project will have some reason to be shot down because nothing should ever change because change is baaaad. I see opposition to this by neighborhood groups as complete NIMBYism. “I got mine, screw everyone else.” And yes, ParkResident, it’s the same self-centeredness as in Pittsford with the Mark IV project.
Mary Anna, I find your argument against the addition of density in NOTA unfounded. Density gives vibrancy. Also with increasing density and walk-ability the use of automobiles inherently decreases. Furthermore, the parking added by this building is self-contained. While I disagree with your density sentiments I absolutely agree with the notion that the Voiture Building should not be torn down. Hanlon Architects should try to be a bit more creative in the inclusion and rehabilitation of this building into design of the site. I also would stress that the preservation board be pointed in their criticism and recommendations,as this project demands a significant level of care and detail. Bring on the density and the main building, but save the Voiture Building!
As a further point of contention, where was the lengthy and supporting article for the Cataract Building. Why be so vehement for the opposition of the demolition of a relatively non-descript tudor revival, but yet be quiet and even supporting of the demolition of a significantly sited and unique landmark that was important not only to local cultural heritage, but also national brewery architecture as a whole. If you and or CITY are going to battle for the good of preservation, there is much needed reassessment of your values.
I agree with not having an apartment complex built in t he spot proposed.
I have a better idea. Instead of building something new, Let Morgan take the Savannah complex next to Manhattan Square Park and turn it into high range apartments / condos. There are already 126 units there within walking distance of the East End. The Section 8 housing there does no good as all of the jobs downtown have dried up and moved to the Burbs thereby defeating the purpose of having low income people live there. That should be step 1 in bringing people with money back downtown and it also helps to increase momentum on the gentrification that has already started. The restaurants and bars will follow.
Mary Anna, might your opinion on this project have something to do with the fact that you live near the East Avenue Preservation District? Given your lack of interest in saving the Cataract Building, I find it hard to believe that your viewpoint is based on your concern for preservation.
“While this project isn’t appropriate for the East Avenue Preservation District, it could be a real boon to other areas.” I think what you’re really trying to say is that you don’t want apartment dwellers moving into your neighborhood. This provincial attitude is a big part of what prevents Rochester from reaching its full potential. You should consider thinking of Rochester as a city, not as a collection of preservation districts.
By the way, I own a house in the East Avenue Preservation District, and I welcome this potential new addition to our neighborhood. I’m not sure where you are getting your data (I suspect you don’t have any) on “traffic problems and parking problems”, but a good city planner will tell you that we have a long way to go before reaching our “apartment saturation point.” If you care about the future of Rochester, you should rethink your opinion. We should encourage the approval of this project, which will bring vibrancy to our neighborhood and to the CITY of Rochester.
To Rochester Resident: I do indeed live near the East Avenue Preservation District. I hope that proximity hasn’t influenced my decision, but it’s hard for any journalist to be certain that we’re completely objective about the things we cover. I do think my long-time residence there informs my writing. And I’m not at all against apartments; we lived in one, two doors from our current home, when we moved to Rochester. And we own a rental double next door. We like living in a neighborhood that includes a variety of ages and uses. That’s why we settled there. That’s why we have stayed.
Several readers have noted that I didn’t oppose the demolition of the Cataract Building. That was a hard decision for me, personally, because I agree that the building was an important one, and we’ve lost far, far too many important buildings in this city. This newspaper has campaigned to save many of them. And we fought hard for one of the city’s most controversial preservation districts, Corn Hill. But in each case, we’ve tried to consider the feasibility of the project. Others disagree, but in our opinion, no firm, feasible alternatives had been presented.
RE: Christopher–Great reasoned OPPOSITION! Ms. Towler’s statement “adding density to an area of the city that doesn’t need more” is ambiguous since “area” could refer to NOTA or the whole Park/East Ave area. But. . .
it’s really not unfounded for either considering their one-lane roads can’t accommodate current traffic that backs up from Portsmouth to Culver when the Gleason Works lets out or such shortage of parking that one of the businesses on University is considering relocating because clients can’t find a place to park. The same is true for traffic now backing up from East Ave all the way to the 490 entrance to get out of the Park Ave area and sometimes over 30 cars waiting in line on the 490 exit to get on Culver at rush hour; of course, finding parking spots for tenants or business customers in the Park Ave. area has always been a major problem. I agree with everything Christopher says: perceptive, important, and balanced.
The city really does need to reassess its values, goals, and planning (as Ken discusses). During the last year the City approved demolition of the Cataract Building (now a parking lot built by NYC developers who never actually came here) after it spent millions to create the faltering High Falls area across the bridge. The 19th century stores there, across from the original Kodak building which could become MCC, have just been restored. Why the demolition? the complete lack of vision?
The City also approved the demolition of the last remaining historic buildings from “Old Brighton” on East Ave. so Wegmans could build its unnecessarily HUGE store which tries unsuccessfully to imitate old buildings now lost forever. So how much more of our city history will be demolished? Will 933 University be next? It certainly is change, but is it worth this ongoing destruction of Rochester’s historical “fabric” (borrowing Ms. Towler’s word). She’s dead-on right in observing this 933 University Ave. proposal of demolition and over-development is a potentially dangerous precedent and potentially (more) bad City planning.
Henry Hope Reed, who died on Wednesday at 97, pioneered the concept of urban walking tours, such that the New York Times once covered his doing this. His lessons are relevant for Rochester.
Whereas the walking tour that I gave in Victor village on Saturday focused on historical aspects of the locale’s 19th-century buildings and their occupants — such as my identifying the long-ago business in one building and the long-ago businessman’s home in his nearby house — Henry Hope Reed’s walking tours were a mobile critique of his subject locale in terms of his own architectural lens.
Reed was an unabashed classicist, and rebelled against what he considered to be an unthinking contemporary treatment in adaptive reuses of historic buildings. For a half century, contemporary “updating” via adaptive reuse has been the favored philosophy in utilizing buildings of our historic architectural heritage, following the precepts of Frederick Rath, promulgated nationwide during his tenure at the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Back in the day, I took one of Henry Hope Reed’s Manhattan walking tours, this one wending through Greenwich Village. I recall particularly his insights into the alternate preservation philosophy embodied in the Jefferson Market Courthouse, repurposed as a branch of the New York Public Library.
While praising the conservation of the Ruskinian Gothic detailing of the 1870s structure, he railed against the blanket insertions of large single-pane window glass replacing the multi-paned window treatment originally used. He felt that it changed the entire massing of the building to have such a series of large blank spaces spread across the walls.
Henry Hope Reed’s classical orientation seems to be a lonely voice today. Many in the general population have no compunction about clamoring to debase — or even destroy — significant architectural landmarks as they see fit, giving minimal respect to the carefully thought-through architectural vision which created the structure at issue.
Thus, a nationally-significant 1889 brewery castle was destroyed in Rochester last year for a parking lot, with the complicity of City Hall.
Many others have no problem with debasing an important National Historical Landmark locally in favor of inserting next door a 102-unit four-story apartment house looming over the carefully restored and tended historic lawn and gardens. They even support having a swimming pool abutting these historic gardens, while the brick and glass reflect the shouts of swimming children into the intended contemplative repose of the historic gardens.
Oh, sure, the apartment house supporters have their arguments, some of which may sound compelling in the abstract, but they all gloss over their implicit disrespect for the original creative vision of the landmark site which some are seeking to preserve for the benefit of posterity.
Douglas Fisher – As to “debasing” the Eastman House, one might argue that tacking on the museum wing has already accomplished that debasement. And since the Eastman House management themselves are the folks who threw away their best chance to preserve the, “original creative vision” of the site (assuming that the original early 1900s vision contemplated adding the aforementioned museum wing in the 1980s) perhaps you should be chastising them.
The publisher has now acknowledged not one but two significant conflicts of interest that the original print article did NOT disclose: One, her company is a “substantial” (her word) donor to one of the parties to the controversy. Two, as a competing provider of rental housing in the same market, she has a financial stake in the outcome.
To what extent either of these circumstances influenced the article is an interesting question, but not the main point. Any credible code of ethics mandates avoiding even the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. Accordingly, at an absolute minimum these conflicts should have been disclosed early and often.
J.A.M., you raise important points. Regarding our contribution to the Eastman House: we make contributions to numerous area arts organizations and other non-profits, as do many local media. That support is clearly stated on the organizations’ promotional material. We’ve written articles praising those organizations, and we’ve written articles criticizing them.
On the issue of the apartment ownership: It’s a two-flat, 100-plus-year-old house next door to our home – meager competition for a 102-unit, spanking new building. I suppose you could say any new apartments are competition for our units. But I’ve cheered on other new apartment developments, when they were in locations I thought were appropriate. And you might make the argument that the density in the neighborhood, and the resulting popularity of the area, makes our apartments more desirable. Our property value has certainly increased. So perhaps we have a vested interest in more apartments. And any development that adds to the city’s tax rolls helps every other city taxpayer, including me.
But overall, I think you’re right: On the apartments issue, I should have indicated that my husband and I own a rental property in the neighborhood, letting readers decide whether that had any bearing on the subject.
Serious? Another “NO” vote for a project which can help this area and the city of Rochester in one fell swoop? This has GOT to be the most calcified mentality toward development that I’ve ever seen in the many cities in which I’ve lived. I live in NOTA. I own rental property in NOTA. And I welcome this development! I live here because I like urban density. I like people on the street. I like businesses nearby that will only come and thrive if there are people there to purchase their goods. As for my rentals, the more peope who want to live in this area the easier it is for me to rent mine. How any business in the area (see Craft Company No6 opposition) can possibly argue against this is beyond me.
And, if you’ve not noticed, the City of Rochester is cash starved. How can turning a parcel from a tax exempt one to one paying taxes be anything but a good thing? I support Eastman House, but stop your whiny baby tactics and claims as to “your viewshed”. It is NOT your viewshed, and if you had wanted to preserve or develop it differently you’ve had a number of years in which to do so. You negotiated in bad form, and now you’ve lost it. That’s the private marketplace. Deal.
For what it’s worth, from a suburbanite, the proposed building aesthetically will be an improvement for University when compared to the Gleason façade. As far as the “character of the neighborhood” a multi unit dwelling fits right in with the pre-existing apartment building just to the east of this site. It’s not as though this is being dropped into the upper Monroe neighborhood of single and two family homes.
It sounds like the GEH just is looking for a way to lock down that real estate without paying market rates until they have the funding or interest in expansion.