A new coalition has formed to push back on a proposed housing project within Cobbs Hill Park. The Coalition for Cobbs Hill Park includes some residents of Cobbs Hill Village, as well as the Upper Monroe Neighborhood Association, Sierra Club, ABC Streets Neighborhood Association, and other groups.
Rochester Management Inc. wants to tear down and replace Cobbs Hill Village, a modest senior housing development in the park. The six one-story buildings are outdated and remodeling them isn’t cost-effective, the company says.
Seniors are living longer and their needs are different, says Peggy Hill, the company’s president and CEO. The new apartments will be designed to help seniors age in place, and the complex will have a small fitness room, computer lab, and indoor community space, she says.
But coalition member Lee Sengbusch says that the current buildings are in good shape and that the majority of Cobbs Hill Village residents are happy with the complex the way it is.
“Everything is fine,” he says. “They have no reason to do anything other than they want to double the population and double the rents.”
Sengbusch also plans to start a tenants’ association at Cobbs Hill Village so residents can speak with one voice, he says.
Rochester Management unveiled plans earlier this year to replace Cobbs Hill Village with two four-story buildings. The new buildings would each house a mix of affordable and market-rate apartments.
Outcry from neighbors, environmentalists, and some of the complex’s residents was immediate. They said the plan would drastically change the park and potentially displace the residents of Cobbs Hill Village — a charge that Hill denies.
Rochester Management is revising the design at the request of Mayor Lovely Warren, who said the original plan was not appropriate for the site. No date is set yet to reveal the new plans.
This article appears in Nov 23-29, 2016.
Shame on this coalition for opposing ANY senior housing in our Upper Monroe neighborhood. If the position of the coalition is the same as expressed in the June 16, 2016 UMNA letter to the City, then it is nothing more than a heartless NIMBY (not in my backyard)–no improved apartments and return of the existing senior housing back to parkland. In fact they even say, move the seniors down to the Inner Loop land. What kind of a society are we becoming when we oppose senior housing. I’m disgusted with this group.
Shame on Rochester Management for being so selfish. The existing one-story buildings that make up Cobbs Hill Village are perfect the way they are. They are unobtrusive and blend beautifully with the park. This is because they are one-story.
When you build something in a park, it’s irresponsible not to be extra stringent when considering the overall appearance and function of the landscape. Four-stories should be out of the question. Two-stories should be out of the question.
Four stories is way too much but I think a tasteful two-story design would fit in well. Saying these ancient one story buildings are outdated is an understatement
The only group who appears to be in favor of new development is Rochester Management. Construction would prove a major hassle for current residents and anyone who enjoys the park. This is unnecessary and largely unwanted.
John Thomas misunderstood. The coalition wants to preserve 60 units with an average rent under $425 a month, and not accept the substitute of rents of $650+electric and up. .
This infill community serves seniors who have more disposable income because of the very low rent. The proposed higher rents are “middle income,” rather than low income.
Cobbs Hill Village is more racially diverse than the surrounding neighborhoods, and we welcome that urban diversity. Shame on this reader for suggesting that anyone in the coalition wants to move these low income seniors to the inner loop. This is a complete fabrication. Visit someone living there: The units are spacious, excellently maintained, and have a superior site layout, akin to individual “cottages” on a broad sidewalk (mostly covered) allowing for the kind of social interaction and security for seniors not to be found in an anonymous elevator apartment house with private balconies. You are welcome to join us John. I’m in the phonebook. Richard Rosen
Richard, I don’t believe you read the June 16th UMNA letter to the City. To quote:
“Seeing that Rochester Management intends to tear down all 6 of the existing buildings, this is a unique opportunity to return this land to parkland….The proposed buildings would be suitable for parcels in the new Inner Loop where public transportation is abundant, or on the many other available sites. We do not have a shortage of housing in Rochester.”
Sounds like NIMBY, not a fabrication, to me.
Mr. Thomas, the first line in the article reads: “a new coalition has formed….”
The coalition referred to in this article is a collective of various smaller groups and interests. And the goal of this coalition is to block the tear-down and unnecessary rebuild of “new and improved” senior housing that current residents do not want or need. I see no reference to anything about moving residents to the Inner Loop. What June 16th letter are you referencing? This is a “new coalition” whose expressed opinion is to keep current housing in place. This is not NIMBY. It’s about preservation.
Michelle, I would be glad to send the June 16th Upper Monroe Neighborhood Association letter if I knew how to reach you.
I realize there is a new coalition since I attended the first organizational meeting. Thank heavens the “new coalition” has changed its position from the original UMNA position to allow residents to at least stay in their existing housing and not “return this land back to parkland.” While this is an improvement, I still have a problem with not allowing improved housing conditions for senior citizens. How would you like someone telling you that you could not make improvements to your own home, especially its aging mechanical systems? Is this really an unnecessary rebuild?
On a positive note, I have heard a Cobbs Hill Village tenants association is being formed. Let’s let the existing residents, not outsiders, decide after they hear all the facts, including use of new housing voucher programs to insure their rent will not be increased.