The neighborhood association for the Neighborhood of the
Arts has released the results of a survey conducted
on a proposed apartment building on University Avenue. NOTA
has also come out against the Morgan Management proposal, but says in
the survey report that the association would be open to working with Morgan to
find a more appropriate site in the neighborhood.
Morgan proposes removing a veterans clubhouse at 933
University in the East Avenue Preservation District, and replacing it with a
102-unit apartment building. A new veterans clubhouse
would be built behind the apartment complex.
An alternative plan for the property, proposed by the George Eastman House,
calls for keeping and renovating the Monroe Voiture building and creating
gardens, a sculpture area, and parking lot. The property is adjacent to the
museum campus.
NOTA opposes the Morgan plan because the size and
scale are incongruent with the preservation district, the survey says.
NOTA received 95 valid responses to its survey. About 62 percent of the
participants were NOTA residents, and the rest include business owners, former
residents, and visitors.
Approximately 43 percent of participants said the Morgan proposal would be
more suited to another site. About 22 percent said the proposal is “jarring to
the senses,” while about 20 percent describe the plan as a “nice change up.”
The survey results are below.
933 NOTANA Survey Report 042513
This article appears in Apr 24-30, 2013.
Do you want an economically viable city with a stable population and tax base, or yet another rotting urban wasteland? This kind of mindless, cranky political meddling will end in nothing but misery. It’s just insane. The next prospective investor will learn the lesson.
A word to the wise ought to be sufficient: Detroit.
Highly disappointed.
Good for NOTA. That Morgan plan does nothing to enhance the neighborhood. The Morgan apartment building would likely cannabablize likely residents from other parts of the city (including downtown). Unlike other areas of the city, the area surrounding the Eastman House is not in need of further gentrification. There are plenty of areas nearby that could use the developement, but preserving the Eastman House and its surrounding environment should be the most important factor for the longevity and success of the area.
@Nathan: If somebody thinks this development would create greater value at another site, they’re perfectly free to put their money where their mouth is. Otherwise, that decision belongs to those who are in fact putting their own resources at risk to improve the city.
@j.a.m.: I am heavily vested in the city. I’m not sure you know this area very well. It is one of the few sections of Rochester that is not on the welfare dole. This particular development is not an improvement for the immediate area. What we do see, is a giant footprint that it will reduce our property values and increase apartment inventory (which will reduce rents and likely make the overall neighborhood less desirable). As I said before, in a region and city that is seeing zero population growth, a ton of new living spaces are coming online in the next few years, this development will only canabalize other renters and help to decrease the value of those other new developments and existing rental prices in the neighborhood. There is value in preserving the aesthetics and livability of an area. Development at any cost is not worthwhile. Why not invite wal-mart to build on this property adjacent to the Eastman House. I know of neighborhoods in Henrietta fighting rezoning near RIT to preserve their own property values while Henreitta has a chance to increase its tax base if it rezones.
This is exactly like what I was looking for when I still lived in this neighborhood. As part of the young professional demographic the city so desperately wants to retain, I was tired of the endless succession of dumpy absentee-landlord college student apartments around East/Park/Monroe. Anything that was in even halfway decent shape either had insane rents or was snatched up immediately. The neighborhood could use more higher income young tenants. Don’t hate on renters – these are the people with well-paying jobs! Shame on the Eastman House for offering up yet another parking lot as the only viable alternative.
@Nathan, funny how in a mere two days j.a.m. can go from calling Neighborhood of the Arts “downright bucolic” to a “rotting urban wasteland.” “Rotting urban wasteland” – Really? This is a great area, one that has steadily improved in the past generation, thanks in part to folks like NOTA. We’ve seen the real urban blight caused by some developers who managed to get the last word. By contrast, neighborhood associations in our city have been the real life-blood and glue. So thanks, Nathan, for expressing this so well.
@Nathan: I live there, so I’m well familiar (and btw would be thrilled not to have to drive out to the suburbs to get to Wal-Mart). The point is that, when it comes to economic need or viability, a rational person would trust the investor risking his own capital before the assorted cranks, naysayers and ax-grinders. You can go on about “aesthetics” and “development at any cost,” but you ought to be terrified of ending up another failed city.
@Troll: You completely misrepresented my earlier comment, whose meaning was plain enough and I won’t belabor.
Funny when j.a.m. accuses anybody about – get this – misrepresenting anything; this hours after characterizing the Neighborhood of the Arts as a “rotting urban wasteland.”
This development would be much better located at the corner of Atlantic & Fairmount, on the run down vacant lots controlled by the MUCCC. There, future residents would be much more likely to walk or bike to destinations, rather than the farther removed Monroe Voiture property. But that is the developer’s call.
My big problem with this and other apartment proposals is the amount of parking “required” to make the proposal “viable.” It seems as though our city is finally on the rebound, with more and more interest in development. Now would be a good time to start thinking about how to rid this city of its car-dependency. Parking lots are not our city’s path to vibrancy. If we cannot improve our prospects for car-free living, our current rebound will be very short-lived. This means continuing the City’s push for better walking and bicycling, but also incentivizing active first-floor uses, expanding car-sharing opportunities (ZipCar), starting a bike-sharing program, and working with RGRTA on more and better transit options (i.e., increased bus frequency, Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and yes, even light rail). It will also require smarter land use planning on the regional level to discourage Victor-style sprawl and instead, build more compact communities that have a fighting chance at being transit-supportive.