Send comments to themail@rochester-citynews.com, or post them on our website, rochestercitynewspaper.com or our Facebook page. Comments of fewer than 350 words have a greater chance of being published, and we do edit selections for publication in print. We don’t publish comments sent to other media.
Best for Parcel 5: Visionary Square
In the book “Happy City: Transforming Lives Through Urban Design,” Charles Montgomery discusses how successful cities have made their public spaces more walkable, bike-friendly, green, and ripe for social interaction: “the explosion of research into the benefits of nature suggests that green space in cities shouldn’t be considered an optional luxury,” he wrote. Instead, he said, researchers “insist it is a crucial part of a healthy human habitat.”
The Visionary Square proposal for Parcel 5 offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform downtown through such a space.
From Larkin Square in Buffalo to Campus Maritius in Detroit, Rust Belt cities are recognizing that green urban spaces boost property values, attract innovative businesses, reduce crime, and perhaps most important, improve quality of life. Campus Maritius in Detroit was developed on an almost identical piece of land, and soon after, Compuware decided to move 4,000 jobs to the surrounding buildings. The award-winning park is now considered “the crossroads of all downtown activity.”
Meanwhile, our neighbors in Buffalo recently announced a bold new green zoning plan and have built a similar park in Larkin Square, where residents now gather daily for lunch, and weekly for concerts and other events.
What leaders in these cities recognize is that data demonstrate the correlation between green urban spaces and increased property value (plus 19 to 35 percent for the surrounding buildings, according to researchers at Texas A&M), reduced crime, and an enhanced quality of life.
Visionary Square would be transformative. It would be the site of festivals, farmers markets, concerts, and movie screenings. It would be a place for people to meet, interact, and exercise. It would be a central location for our growing food truck economy.
It’s also the only proposal that comes with a reset button. All of the other proposals involve permanent infrastructure coming to Parcel 5, meaning once the city commits, there will be no going back. You can’t un-build a building. But Visionary Square will be developed light, quick, and cheap, with no permanent fixtures. Down the line, should the city decide to go a different direction with the property, development will still be possible.
(For information about Visionary Square: thisisnotapark.com and pps.org.)
MARY LUPIEN
Lupien, a candidate for Rochester City Council, has been helping advocate for Visionary Square.
Is there really quid quo pro?
On a Feedback letter urging the overturn of Citizens United: The problem with bashing the Citizens United decision is that the legitimacy of said bashing rests on our accepting as a given the following two points:
1) That politicians accepting corporate campaign contributions will inevitably return the favor by introducing and passing legislation, or otherwise engage in activities that will financially benefit such corporations, and
2) That there is a direct correlation between the amount of money raised by a political candidate and the number of votes garnered by that candidate.
While both points doubtless occur from time to time, I’ve seen no studies indicating that the cash generated by Citizens United has made these points any more likely to transpire, or has made them the rule rather than the exception.
JACK TUMULTY
This article appears in Mar 29 – Apr 4, 2017.
While Ms. Lupien’s proposal for a Rochester version of Buffalo’s Larkin Square certainly sounds good, I’d have to point out that Rochester’s track record for such projects isn’t too hot. If we’re honest, we have to admit that the claims made for the pre-ordained success of Visionary Square sound a lot like the hype used by Bob Duffy to promote his scheme to tear up the Broad Street Bridge, re-water the Erie Canal aqueduct, add on a park, and sit back and watch the crowds flock in. (And by the way, whatever happened to Renaissance Square?)
And I suspect that following the ferry fiasco, and the on-going debacle of the port redevelopment, the residents of Charlotte might have a tale to tell about misplaced optimism for the success of future city-lead projects.
As my grandpappy used to say, the trick is knowing when someone’s a visionary, and when they’re just seeing things.
Part of the problem with past projects was always a “If you build it, they will come” philosophy. Visionary Square addresses this by requiring active programming of the space with events and vendors. We’ve seen an actively programmed park take off in Buffalo with Larkin Square and Canalside, we even see glimpses of it at the Public Market with the Food Truck Rodeo and other non-market events. If we build it, and work to give people a reason to come, they will. The ferry and Renaissance Square failed in part because they were a means with no end. This is a much better planned project.
We shouldn’t stop dreaming and creating and trying for our city simply because other projects have been disappointing. The fast ferry was not a project that was accessible to all income levels. This is about creating a space that is unifying and raises quality of life for everybody.
Response to Jack Tumulty on Citizens United
Let me help Mr Tulmulty and others struggling to understand the full implications of Citizens United and related decisions. First, I offer the requested references to detailed academic studies.
St. Louis University published a study looking at the relationship between federal contracts and campaign contributions between 1979 and 2006. It was found that companies contributing more money to federal candidates subsequently received more contracts, more than merely suggestive of quid pro quo.
In September of 2015 professors from Princeton and Northwestern published a study that analyzed 1,778 national policy issues, looking at three distinct groups, the very wealthy, corporate interest groups, and ordinary citizens. They measured the correlation between a group’s support for an issue and the probability that the issue would be enacted into law. What they found is disturbing, “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”
Also in 2015 professors from Stanford published a study providing “evidence that corporations and business PACs use donations to acquire immediate access and favor.”
What we now know from rigorous study is that money is power in DC and our statehouses. Influence is wielded by those with big money while ordinary citizens, both registered Republicans and registered Democrats, are left essentially without representation. This reality describes oligarchy, not representative democracy. Do defenders of unlimited spending on elections sincerely believe that the authors of our Constitution intended that political influence be allocated in direct proportion to wealth? I encourage those seeking a deeper dive into the impact of money on our Republic to view this 24 minute presentation: https://youtu.be/GcxYBfYO03I
I think Eric has missed several key points here:
1) Rochester doesn’t have a track record when it comes to creating central public squares on Main Street, the reality is this has not been done before.
2) Comparing a proposal (Rochester Visionary Square) that is less than $1 million in cost to the fast ferry and Renaissance Square demonstrates that you are struggling with the context of downtown development. Those project you mentioned were in excess of $60 million and required an enormous amount of money from the public sector. The re-watering of Broad Street could be in excess of $100 million. Charlotte is yet another incorrect comparison. Rochester Visionary Square requires no public money and is low-impact development which keeps it’s cost very low.
3) To have vision one needs to reach for those things that have not been done in our city and recognize that innovative cities are reanimate their downtown’s through projects just like Rochester Visionary Square. The reality is in the City of Rochester we do not have any public realms that are designed for the 21st Century. There is also the incorrect perception that downtown has a surplus of Greenspace when in fact the Center City suffers from a lack of it, The National Parks and Recreation Association recommends 8 acres
of parkland for every 1,000 people. The Center City Planning Area
provides 2.5 acres per 1,000 people – a paltry 29 percent of what is recommended.
I’ve continued to hear how MLK park could be an alternative with no basis as it is a failure of a design for Public Space and ignores key recommendations that the Street Life Project and Project for Public Spaces has identified like clear sight lines and at surface level to overcome perceptions and issues of crime/safety.
Finally, we are ignoring perhaps the biggest elephant in the room and that is we have an equity issue in downtown. The median household income in Center City is $20, 712 with nearly 40.7 percent of people fall below the Federal Poverty Level fir a household of two at only $15,000 annually.
We need a space that will give people a reason to stay downtown, Parcel 5 with no amenities has already proven to be an iconic and central place for people to gather. Creating a space that is free and offers both passive and active programming is key for the future of Rochester. Creating a place that boasts street level activity will build pride, social cohesion, and give businesses the confidence they need to move downtown.
For more information on our proposal visit: http://www.thisisnotapark.com/proposal/
Benjamin Woelk
Co-Director
Rochester Visionary Square