It’s not easy to hear an outsider’s appraisal of your faults. In Rochester’s case, the evaluation comes from members of the Rose Fellowship, which brings officials from different parts of the country together to essentially size up each other’s cities.
The fellows studied three areas of downtown Rochester: Main Street between Plymouth Avenue and Chestnut Street, the Genesee River corridor between Andrews Street and the Court Street dam, and the Broad Street aqueduct.
At a presentation on Friday, the fellows said that Rochester lets past failures get in the way of forward progress; that it has turned its back, literally and figuratively, on arguably its greatest asset, the river; that downtown suffers from a dearth of retail and walkable amenities; and that while attitudes are changing, Rochesterians on the whole have a negative perception of their city.
But the fellows balanced out the challenges with praise for the investment happening downtown, for the strength and activity of the city’s arts community, and for Rochester’s many cultural and educational institutions.
And contrary to some people’s perception, the fellows said, downtown Rochester does not have a parking problem. The parking exists, they said, though it may not be right in front of your destination.
The fellows offered many short- and long-term suggestions to enliven downtown, such as implementing ride and bike sharing; offering incentives for retail; creating a public space on the Main Street bridge overlooking the river; and developing an overall vision for downtown.
The Daniel Rose Fellowship is a program of the National League of Cities and the Urban Land Institute. Each year, the program selects cities to receive technical assistance to improve themselves. In addition to Rochester, this year’s cities are Birmingham, Denver, and Long Beach.
This article appears in Mar 16-22, 2016.
“And contrary to some people’s perception, the fellows said, downtown Rochester does not have a parking problem. The parking exists, they said, though it may not be right in front of your destination.”
It’s not necessarily a parking location issue, but also a cost issue. I’d rather park on the street for free (after 6pm) than pay $7 to park in a garage when going to GEVA or the Amerks. That’s been a nice thing about college town near Strong. Instead of being ripped off for $6 to park in their garage to visit friends or family, I can park in the lot behind the restaurants for free and walk a block.
Eric, that was their point. There’s plenty of places to park. And there are plenty of free places to park on evenings and weekends. I’ve been going downtown for years and I’ve ever paid for parking. I think it’s a mind-set that people need to get over. Embrace walking downtown too. So as part of the enjoyment of going to the events, restaurants, etc, save the 6 bucks and enjoy walking a few blocks.
I think they got it right. Taking advantage of the waterfront (River and or Lake Ontario) has not been a priority. It is a pity that no one has stepped up with a plan to exercise some creativity, some out-of-the-box thinking to make better use of the river.
Parking has never been a real concern, the “why am I Down Town” is. High Falls comes to mind. The opportunities are there and they are a plenty. Currently it looks like a ghost town. What could we do?
I’ll share one with you. You have the Port of Charlotte and then the river that leads (upstream) to HIgh Falls/Down Town. Did a study on a cable car/tram, whatever you want to call it, to and from. The river is a geological treasure. It is one of the few rivers that flow north. Think about the connection,…the Port of Rochester with down town via a cable. Think of the educational opportunities for kids, think of the visitor (by boat) opportunity for connecting with down town. There are plenty of positive aspects to down town for visitors. Currently (for boaters) there are two things to do in Charlotte, ride the merry go round and buy and ice cream cone. If you want to go down town, you take lake Avenue. Now there is a well come to Rochester. (not)
The winter the snow and ice on the river, the spring can be a wild flower spectacle, holidays festive, Christmas with a river light display that will attract from far and wide. An attraction that would have Rochester and the surrounding counties come to experience a fantastic tour of the river. Wouldn’t you rather see a sea of yellow busses at the Port of Charlotte?! I would.
I can pay for itself, be self supporting. I know, CAN’T be done. It’s that attitude that stymies creativity. I’ve done the math and the research. That doesn’t make me an expert, but it may be worth a looksee.
I like Dutch’s idea of a cable car/tram from Charlotte Pier into downtown. Fantastic! All that’s missing is a way to deliver tourists into the port (like a Fast Ferry from Toronto), and an indoor mall downtown with high-end restaurants and shops (like Midtown Plaza). D’oh!
The aerial tramway that was built in Portland OR last decade spans a horizontal distance of just over 1/2 mile, and cost $57 million to complete.
A tram running between High Falls and the port would be 8 miles long.
Without a doubt, there are select locations in downtown Rochester where the Genesee River can engender strong feelings of exhilaration and euphoria. It’s tempting to suggest that such places be transformed into public spaces. However, it would be wise not to rush to judgement before identifying some of the blatantly obvious downsides associated with a mostly non-utilitarian river that bisects a city.
First off, visitors aren’t going to be mooring alongside downtown Rochester riverbanks anytime soon. That’s because there can be no boat traffic through downtown Rochester. Both Lower Falls to the north, and the Court Street dam to the south, are physical barriers that cordon off the Center City to outside boaters.
In addition, inherent risk of water aside, there are multiple hazards near the downtown portion of the Genesee River. It comes with the territory: High bridges, embankments, waterfalls, gorges with steep walls. Thankfully, it’s rare that someone tumbles down a cliff and gets hurt or killed.
Visitors may not initially understand why more people aren’t being drawn to the river. But they aren’t, and if we build it, they won’t come.
The Rose Center is absolutely correct. Genesee Crossroads “Park” is a disgrace and a complete embarrassment to the city… As you walk the length of the “park”, non-existent sight-lines keep you wondering if someone will jump out from one of the carved-out seating areas and mug you. I’ve been hassled by a homeless gentleman there before who walked almost the entire “park” with me asking for money… it’s a safety issue, especially since no one else was around – and can you blame them?? What a horrible excuse for a public space. Please Mayor Warren, I realize budgets are tight, but this “park” needs to go ASAP! Level it and start over. Surely there must be some sort of environmental grant available to make it “greener” – similar to what was done at the Civic Center. /rant
J, the city is in the process of planning the redevelopment of Genesee Crossroads Park. They are seeking public input. You can find more info here: http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.asp…
“… creating a public space on the Main Street bridge overlooking the river…”
We used to have our own Ponte Vecchio – buildings lining both side of the Main St bridge. Then in the 1950s and 1960s, cars/modernism/lunacy took over, and we got rid of it. You can compare the bridge, past vs. present, here: https://www.instagram.com/p/BDOCUUWI_Qc/?t…
To be honest, if we have leaders who are set on maintaining the City of Rochester as a large, car-focused office complex with a few luxury apartments, then the City is gonna stay that way.
The Rose Fellowship is spot-on. Rochester’s urban core has wilted because of the automobile-centric redevelopment of the 1960s: the Inner Loop noose, the overabundance of parking garages, and the sterile skyway which was intended to pipe people from garage to destination without touching the city.
Modern urban design for aesthetically pleasing and livable urban space values people over automobiles. People live, work, shop, dine, and attend events in cities – automobiles do not. Automobiles congest streets and consume valuable real estate, replacing livable space with ugliness.
Rochester earned the dubious distinction of the “golden crater” award for its parking madness last year: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/04/09/roch… . Automobile accessibility and parking here is unfortunately too abundant and cheap. Ask anyone in Toronto, Montreal, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Washington how they would feel about paying a mere $6 for event parking! In fact, parking rates here – both on-street and in lots / garages, should be well over $10, in line with other metropolitan areas. The revenue generated would go a long way toward funding sensible, human-scale, low impact multimodal transportation in the urban core.
Thankfully, we are slowly reversing our previous errors. New people-centric development is making our urban core attractive once again, and young people are beginning to recolonize the city abandoned by their predecessors in the automobile-driven flight to the suburbs.
I applaud the initiatives of our city planners and visionary developers who are making progress against both the negative image of our city and the automobile-oriented design which caused it.
In response to Eric Maloney’s comment about parking “for free”: Parking is definitely not free. Parking consumes valuable real estate which could otherwise be used by a revenue generating business. Businesses must provide parking in order to be allowed to operate; they must pay for this expensive requirement, and that cost is an overhead charged to their customers. It is also very unfair: if I choose to walk, bicycle, or take the bus to patronize a business in CollegeTown, I pay that parking overhead nonetheless so that others using automobiles may park “for free.”
On-street parking is perhaps the worst incursion of parking into urban livability. Cars parked on the side of the street consume lane space, displacing bus lanes, bike lanes, and travel lanes. Because of on-street parking, streets must be wider, resulting in narrower, less appealing sidewalks. Parked cars cause visibility problems for both drivers and pedestrians, and make the roadway transit of a pedestrian longer and more dangerous. This applies especially to children and disabled people, who lack the height advantage to see over at least some parked vehicles.
Finally, because people tend to avoid places where cars are parked – they are dark, ugly, and cluttered (with cars) – there is a cost in aesthetic appeal to businesses with “free” parking. There is reinforcing feedback associated with this: because these lots are unpleasant, people don’t want to have to walk past them, which drives the demand for parking immediately adjacent to the destination.
It is not quantifiable, but the difference in appeal between a restaurant on Park Avenue in the City (with its “parking problems”) and a similar restaurant on West Ridge Road in Greece (embedded in a wide ring of asphalt) is obvious. Just imagine sidewalk seating at the latter location!
Mark, I disagree that the Genesee River has not been a priority. I spent a 30 year career as City transportation planner working on projects along the River–first the South River Corridor (eg. Brooks Landing, and the pedestrian bridge), then High Falls (eg the Pont de Rennes pedestrian bridge and a new Brown’s Race) and, then the Port of Rochester (eg. the ferry terminal and trails along the River). Can we do more–you betcha. But the City only has so much money in any one year. Where is Monroe County in all this? The river is a regional draw.
I had mixed feelings about the Main Street bridge expansion. That is a historic structure and the canti-levered park on the north side of the bridge would cover those beautiful arches. Probably better to rehab Crossroads Park or create a park along the Riverside Radisson Hotel to serve this kind of activity–and cheaper. When I came to Rochester in 1979, Crossroads Park was beautiful and thousands of people used it for lunch and all kinds of events. But like me, it is now tired and needs an upgrade (maybe a knee replacement).
Thanks Adam – I provided my input.
And now (at the risk of angering some folks) my unsolicited opinion of the Broad Street aqueduct: Tear the top off (and the walls down) so that traffic would operate on what was once the canal/rail bed. “Why” you ask? Although unquestionably a unique and interesting place created by the elevated Broad Street, the second layer of the aqueduct (where traffic now operates) obstructs what could be a great view of the Freddy-Sue Bridge from Main Street, as well as a view of Main Street from Court Street. I have no doubt that the graffiti artists (and I mean artists in the truest sense of the word as there’s some really beautiful, exceptional work down there) will find a new place to go.
Despite the recent economic challanges it is hartwarming to see many of the improvements in the downtown area. I find myself in and around the downtown area plus many of the residental areas of Rochester on a regular basis. One thing that would improve the look of the city greatly would be a massive cleanup effort and advertising campaigns to try and keep it clean. There is so much trash flying around; it is very unsettling for a city in this wealthy country to have the filth that it does. Many feel that it is a problem for developing nations, but truly it is a problem right here in our own backyard. Posted by E 3/30/16
The Rose Fellowship folks are spot on, although it’s always a little sad that these sorts of “hard truths” need to come from outsiders. There have been locals saying many of these same things for years and have been roundly ignored by various “leaders.”
As far as waterfront planning, it’s time for the media to start asking more pointed questions about the interminable Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) process (http://www.cityofrochester.gov/LWRP/). The City received a grant in 2007 (9 YEARS AGO) to update the original 1990 plan. The consultant was not hired until 2012 and the anticipated completion date was December 2013, which came and went. Finally, a draft plan was submitted to the state for approval in December 2015. If the city were serious about waterfront planning and development, it would be far more aggressive with these timelines.