Gallina Development unveiled its plan for the Parcel 5 site at Midtown in downtown Rochester this morning. Gallina and partner Patrick Dutton propose a 14-story, mixed-use tower with condos, restaurants, retail, and street-level entertainment space.
Office space would take up floors two to four of the tower, while 31 market-rate condos would be located on floors five to 14. And there would be a two-story underground parking garage for more than 175 vehicles.
More amenities: a plaza, outdoor patios and outdoor terraces for the restaurants and entertainment venues, and a rooftop pool. An open area that Gallina refers to as an “urban park” is also part of the plan. Gallina says it would work with “community partners” on programming for the park.
The Gallina-Dutton proposal is one of four that the City of Rochester received for Parcel 5 – a prime piece of real estate in the heart of downtown. Other proposals include a new performing arts center for the Rochester Broadway Theatre League. The theater had been talked about in concert with a casino to be run by the Seneca Nation of Indians, but a casino proposal never materialized.
The nonprofit Rochester Visionary Square submitted a proposal to use Parcel 5 for public green space available for year-round programming. The land has been used for the Jazz Fest and the Fringe Fest.
The public space would take up most of the land, but there would also be room for retail and other services.
This article appears in Sep 28 – Oct 4, 2016.
More condos for the rich, more office jobs for the rich. This isn’t how change downtown, with more of the same. But maybe some railcars and a river park will fix everything!
David4, you make it sound like the major demographic problem in the city is too many wealthy people, and not enough people of lesser means. I hardly think that is the case.
We need to wait and see how the current conversions work before adding more residential and office space. Give it five years.
The problem with amenities is that not everyone wants them, but everyone pays for them. Developers shouldn’t predetermine that everyone will want, need, and use luxurious amenities. People end up paying through the roof for pools,state-of-the-art security systems, spas, and fitness centers. Center city dwellers want to be downtown to be within walking distance of stores, gyms, theaters, and restaurants. They don’t want everything right there as part of some rigid prefabricated gated community. Too many amenities are an incentive for tenants to stay put and that doesn’t build on the vibrancy of a city’s downtown.
We should focus on getting the kinds of people downtown who really want to be there. Some developers are only interested in building for the elite. Downtown apartments and condos with fewer amenities could be better for downtown as a whole. There just needs to be an effort to attract tenants who would more likely venture out and explore their surroundings. If more people are out walking around having a good time, then it will cost the city more in terms of walkability improvements. So be it. Isn’t it appropriate to be considerate of the people who actually live, work, and play in the center of the city?
We shouldn’t put developers first. The “urban park” portion of the Gallina-Dutton proposal appears to be merely a token of appreciation in exchange for free reign.
No, nameless Rochester person, that’s not what I’m saying.
What I’m saying is I’m sick of Rochester being the tale of two cities, there is the city for the rich and then the real city, that of the poor. The city keeps building things up, a lot of the time using millions of tax payers dollars to do so, to help the rich get a condo on the river while destroying the old subway, or building high end apartments in a historic neighborhood that the normal people of the city can’t afford.
While we waste the money on things that the majority of the city will never get to use, like a rooftop pool, the schools are failing, the city is falling down in places. I rather see the money benefit more people then that of a condo builder who doesn’t deserve tax breaks, or a condo builder that doesn’t do anything to grow the city.
Also how much would it cost to just grass over the area and add a few trees? I know it’s a government thing so probably 10 times the amount it should, but why not just test out the park, food truck stopping area, idea for a summer or two and see if it works. If not, bye-bye grass, but it’s easier to remove grass than it is to redo a failed building.
We have someone willing to invest $30- 40 million. And people are complaining.
Of course.
This will create jobs, pay taxes, create more customers for restaurants, grocery, theatre and other activities. And people are complaining. This project answers the stated wants and still, people complain.
It is truly sad to see so many people trying to find reasons to oppose this project. Gallina obviously took their time and presented something that embodies different aspects of the other proposals and takes into account what people have been saying they would like to see at parcel five.
Taxpayer money will not be used on this project. It will be privately funded.
The only reason there is a park is because ignorant people went to one show downtown on a gravel lot and had a good time. So now, rather than building more on the site and creating more jobs, profit for the developer, and tax money for the city, the developer has made a concession to those dolts screaming for more green space even though MLK Jr. Park is literally a few blocks away. And guess what? It’s beautiful! And you’re STILL complaining!
Why wait five years to see if the current conversions work before building more apartments? Do you think the developers are just blindly building without doing their research to see if their proposals would be supported and profitable? There is a high occupancy rate downtown and the demand for apartments/condos is skyrocketing. Why wait and kill all of the momentum that these projects have provided?
Too many amenities? WHAT??!! That is the most absurd claim I have heard regarding a possible development! “Don’t build that! People will have too much to do and won’t want to leave downtown!” Should we make The Strong leave? There is way too much to do there! And it’s just not realistic to think that people may shop, dine, go to other attractions etc. in the city when they are done at the museum, right? Right??!!
Yes there are problems in this city. But creating a plan that drastically enhances our downtown AND creates jobs can do nothing but help the situation.
With all the conservative-thinking people in this city, I’m surprised developers want to build anything here. It’s pathetic and people need to step back and realize how incredible it is that someone wants to invest tens of millions of dollars into our downtown. Stop getting in the way of progress! This is a plan for everyone and we should all be proud that our city has come this far.
I like the Galina development except for the park. If you want a park walk to the one that is literally 4 blocks away, or the public plaza that is immedetely adjacent to the parcel. Parks are pointless without people to use them. So keep on building
What has become clear to me since I left the city I love, and have not only lived in but visited countless other cities, is that Rochester needs to stop with the divisiveness and actually DO something. I get it: we’re afraid to make the wrong decisions and later regret them. I’m not saying to act without doing due diligence. But Rochester spend so much time spinning its wheels and dickering back and forth about projects that nine times out of ten they stall. And nothing happens.
Meanwhile other cities with similar histories – like Cleveland – are making changes for the better. The Gallina proposal looks promising, and could add a lot to downtown. Stop expecting any one project to solve every problem Rochester has – poverty, racism, classism, income gaps, lack of enthusiasm, subpar downtown destinations, etc. If this proposal can begin bridging any one of these problems, without causing dire harm elsewhere, isn’t it a good bet?
Good comment Erin. What’s with the thinking in Rochester? Against virtually everything. But don’t worry, Buffalo is more than willing to take OUR money for their city. One of the latest big things is their revived waterfront. $300 million paid for with an increased tax on our utility bills. Almost a billion for a solar plant that has cut it’s job expectation by 200% and who’s products also need to be heavily subsidized in order to make any sales.
Come on Rochester. We can do better. We were predicted to have a population of 2 million by now. There are intelligent and creative people here. We have a pretty impressive resume for a city our size. Let’s try to find ways to make things work instead of finding fault.
As a former long time Rochesterian who is now very much part time. I am excited by the Galina concept and distressed at the typical negative response from so many. The proposal is subject to modification before it is built. I love the idea of some green space on Main St, the other parks mentioned are mostly off of Main. The lovely park along the river is mostly ignored except as a walk through and a hangout for some our of low to no income residents.
I doubt the idea of a roof top pool is brilliant – one could hope for use late May to early September unless global warming extends the season. I owned a pool in Brighton for 17 years, I know the season. Apparently developers see a demand for residence in the city, otherwise they would not be rehabbing so many buildings for residential living.
Move forward now or sooner, waiting just delays the benefits. And this is Rochester if we really hate it tear it down and build something different, we are good at that. We have already destroyed much of our patrimony for the inner loop which we are now destroying.
I love all the ideas for the site. Why can’t we put off a decision until we see what happens with the current conversions?
Every new building in the city means one less existing building is likely to be rehabbed. Also, by the pictures and the article, the mixed use description does not seem to include nice low income housing or anything to alleviate poverty.
Why do you say that Tom? What if every new building downtown increased population density and created more demand down there, increasing the amount of building rehabs done? Kind of like we are actually seeing right now.