The plan for a new apartment building at 933 University Avenue is back in the news.
The proposal, by Morgan Management, is on the Rochester Preservation Board’s August 7 agenda. The board won’t vote that night on whether the project should be built. But it will come up with a position on a key issue: whether the project might have a significant adverse effect on adjacent properties, the character of the neighborhood, traffic, noise, and other concerns.
That position statement will be sent to the City Planning Commission, which will likely hear the Morgan case on September 16. And it will help the city’s director of planning and zoning decide whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be done on the project.
Morgan has revised its plan several times, and its latest proposal eliminates one serious objection. Originally, Morgan planned to demolish the 1920’s house on the northeast corner of the property, and the city seldom grants permission to demolish a structure in a preservation district. Morgan now says it’s willing to restore the house and provide space in it for the building’s current owner, the Monroe Voiture veterans group.
The apartment building design has not changed, though. Neither have critics’ other objections.
The building would be three and four stories tall and would have 99 apartments and 157 parking spaces – 132 of them underground, reserved for residents, the others available for Monroe Voiture. Officials at the two adjacent institutions, the George Eastman House and the Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation, insist that the development would adversely affect them.
Church officials say that the project will create serious traffic problems, that it doesn’t include enough parking for all of the apartments’ tenants, and that they will end up using the church parking lot.
Morgan officials dispute this, but it’s logical to assume that every one-bedroom tenant will have a car, and that most of the two-bedroom apartments will have two tenants with cars. And when they can’t find space at the Morgan development, they will park in the church parking lot – conveniently just a few feet away.
The Eastman House argues, among other things, that because of its scale, the building will damage the view from the Eastman House property. That can sound elitist. This is, after all, a city. And in cities, a variety of uses (and sounds and views) must co-exist. But this is not Manhattan. The City of Rochester has room for a wide variety of uses, without one of them butting up against another.
More significant, though, is that the Eastman House is a National Historic Landmark. As such, the State Environmental Quality Review Act protects it from harm, and adjacent development could need an Environmental Impact Statement if it might have a significant adverse impact on the museum. And the act states specifically that the “visual proximity” of a proposed development can be considered in determining whether it would cause an adverse impact.
The project will unquestionably have an impact on the neighborhood, part of which is the city’s first preservation district. Significantly, a big reason the district was established – at the urging of neighborhood residents and the Landmark Society – was the construction of a growing number of large, out-of-scale apartment buildings on East Avenue. The preservation legislation pretty much put an end to that development.
The East Avenue Preservation District is a neighborhood of houses, commercial buildings, and institutions. Some of the houses are grand, to be sure. But they are not massive. They fit their surroundings. The proposed Morgan building covers much of its property, and its mass will look completely out of character on University Avenue.
University Avenue is not East Avenue, of course. It has numerous commercial buildings, as well as apartments and houses. But they are of small scale. And when the preservation district lines were drawn up, University Avenue was included – because district supporters and city officials believed it needed protection.
Once we start nibbling away at that protection, the district and its quality are at risk. This won’t be the only property that developers will find attractive.
The development would also increase the neighborhood’s density, clearly affecting its character. It’s good that this city neighborhood is so popular, and it’s good that developers want to invest in the city.
But just outside the preservation district, this neighborhood already has numerous apartments, many of them in houses converted from single- or two-family uses. Among the adverse results: an excess of cars, paved backyards, and noise.
It is significant that the neighborhood group serving the area opposes the development. These are people who already live there and have made personal investments in the neighborhood. They are among the people who would feel the adverse impact of the development.
Theirs are not the only interests that should be considered, of course. The Preservation Board could find that the project would have an adverse impact, but the Planning Commission could decide that the benefits of the development outweigh the negatives.
I hope not. The Morgan development might provide a small economic boost to nearby businesses and add to the city’s tax rolls, but there are numerous other development sites available – including downtown, where the city wants more housing.
A negative vote on this particular project is not a vote against new development. At stake is the question of what the neighborhood will be in the future. Will it continue to be a mix of tenants and homeowners, young singles and families and empty nesters? Or will it become predominantly a neighborhood of tenants?
Also at stake: whether we support the intent of the preservation legislation – which protected the neighborhood’s architectural quality and generated its current popularity and strong tax base – or we start undermining it.
(A disclosure: A reader complained – rightly – that I didn’t note in an earlier column that my husband and I own a two-apartment house adjacent to our home a couple of blocks from Morgan’s proposed project. Theoretically, new apartments could be competition for ours.)
“The proposed Morgan building covers much of its property, and its mass will look completely out of character on University Avenue.”
This article appears in Jul 31 – Aug 6, 2013.
This is a great analysis, and as someone very familiar with the neighborhood (lived there for over a decade and worked on the planning for the original ARTWalk and the extension) I’d say pretty much spot-on. While their willingness to rehab the Tudor house is crucial, I’d say Morgan’s path forward also depends on their willingness to reduce the number of units and the project’s footprint.
Unfortunately, it seems Morgan intends to push the limits of what it can get away with in the East Ave preservation district, at every turn. It has also been engaged in discussions (which might merit some coverage here) to replace the unique, defining windows in their Art-Deco apartment building next to the Strathallan with VINYL windows, which would irretrievably alter the character of that building.
With reference to the disclosure, (which I appreciate) I think the community would benefit from the opportunity to have this degree of thoughtful, detailed analysis of all of the key preservation issues that surface from time to time, whether or not they happen to be in a neighborhood with which a City writer is closely familiar.
Ms. Towler – It appears that not everyone is as impressed as you by the crocodile tears being shed by those at the Eastman House…..
“The public should know that we had previously tried to work with George Eastman House to redevelop our property. Now that another developer is working with us, the George Eastman House has suddenly decided to try strong-arming us into surrendering our privately owned land….The plan by Morgan Management falls well within the zoning regulations for the Planned Development District. We are asking for nothing more than a fair approval process and to develop our land according to the rules — rules the George Eastman House asked the city of Rochester to create in 2011”
– Rene Vanmulem, club manager of Monroe Voiture 111, Aug. 3, 2013
One false assumption is “that every one-bedroom tenant will have a car, and that most of the two-bedroom apartments will have two tenants with cars.”
4 out of 5 one bedroom units will have TWO cars, and many 2-bedroom will have 2 or 3 cars. The parking density & consequent neighborhood stress will be MUCH higher than is now being shrugged off.
This is surreal. This “alt” newsweekly advocated FOR demolishing the Genesee brewhouse because, “hey, business, whatev!” but now advocates in favor of preserving a parking lot – a PARKING LOT – because “preservation.” I wish I had the words to describe how insane this is, but I’ve been tragically/comically reduced to “LOL.” If you people want to retard the development of your own neighborhood because the sainted George Eastman House told you to do so, then, by all means, proceed….
But, ugh.
As for Ms. Towler’s specific arguments:
1. Parking:
A significant portion of your neighborhood is already paved over. This proposal is to build on top of a parking lot – ON TOP OF A PARKING LOT – so there is no pavement problem here. This argument is specious. If you disdain cars and asphalt so well, you should take that issue up with Village Gate, Writers & Books, the Gleason Works, the Memorial Art Gallery, (ahem) the George Eastman House, et al.
By the way, the converted duplexes you mention are completely irrelevant. “Paved backyards.” Uh huh. Did I mention this proposal is to build a building on top an existing parking lot? Right. You don’t have to love the proposal, but you shouldn’t make completely specious arguments against it. “Converted duplexes with paved backyards outside of the preservation district” is so completely irrelevant as to be farcical and, quite frankly, stupid.
2. The character of the neighborhood:
You asked if the neighborhood will continue to be: “a mix of tenants and homeowners, young singles and families and empty nesters? Or will it become predominantly a neighborhood of tenants?”
Everything about this is wrong. “Young singles and families and empty nesters” will still be the tenants of this proposed apartment complex. So, they are irrelevant to the question of “who will live here?” The character of the people who live there won’t change, so you are left with nothing more than “tenants vs. owners.” The notion that tenants are bad for a neighborhood is Smugtown gospel, but it is, as most smug things, dead wrong. Bad tenants are usually the direct result of bad owners. Problem properties are almost inevitably owned by absentee landlords. The root cause of almost any “tenant” problem is usually the sainted owners who don’t care. Target them if you want to keep your neighborhood clean. And, I have a feeling Morgan will do a fine job screening its tenants for its $1500/month apartments. If they don’t, at least they are easy to locate!
Nevertheless, I ask in response: So what if the percentage of tenants increases slightly? What of it? What ills will befall you? I also wonder just how the percentage of renters-to-homeowners will actually change if you add 100 apartments to the mix. You can’t just say that adding some apartments will change the character of the neighborhood and imply that the percentage of renters will skyrocket without offering actual data. Can you offer any specific arguments on this point based on actual data?
3. Density:
You imply that density is bad. Do you have any actual argument to back this up? Or data? Because I’d love to offer a counter-argument that, in fact, density is good. Unfortunately, you didn’t actually make an argument against density so I have nothing to respond to. You merely opted to be a “concern troll” and ask us all “WHAT IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECOMES TOO DENSE? WHAT THEN???” No rational person can respond to this. Density is not inherently bad. Increased density is arguably good. But if you want to make an argument against density, then make it with facts and logic, not your subtle concern over the alleged density problem.
Speaking of density, wtf? The 12-story building at the corner of University and Goodman has, so far, failed to ruin the neighborhood. If that building doesn’t count (because….????), then perhaps I should point out the building on the corner of University and Atlantic. You know – the one that defines your entire neighborhood! That one. That “huge” four-story building just doesn’t fit with your neighborhood! And all of the occupants are TENANTS!!!! Or the entire Village Gate complex – those buildings do not fit with the neighborhood AT ALL! Or the City Newspaper building – it is huge and out of scale, eh? And what of the huge parking lots surrounding these buildings? What of all the cars that drive in and out to access these buildings on daily basis? And what of the massive Gleason industrial complex that dominates this exact location? What’s going on there? Cars? Asphalt? “Huge” building? No?
4. The slippery slope:
That’s not how the administrative process works and you know it. Each development is considered by the Board on its merits. If Morgan gets to build apartments here, the next logical step is not tearing down the Eastman House for a condo tower with Mapplethorpe photos instead of windows. That’s not happening. So, let’s debate each particular proposal on its merits, not on its reductio ad absurdum (what if one the future tenants of the new Morgan apartments is crazy like the Christian Bale character in American Psycho? WHAT THEN? WHAT IF HE HAS STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT PHIL COLLINS? NONE OF THIS EVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF….).
It would be funny, if it weren’t so depressing, that the publisher of a newspaper named “City” would trot out such anti-urban arguments to oppose the Morgan apartment project on University Ave. Density is bad? Replacing a surface parking lot with apartments and underground parking is bad? Mixed-use neighborhoods are bad? (Jane Jacobs spins in her grave.) Maybe you should change your name to “Suburbs Newspaper.”
When I first heard about the Morgan project, I thought, “what a perfect place to build apartments.” It’s close to three grocery stores, to the restaurants of Park Ave., to downtown, and walking distance to museums, galleries, and coffee shops.
The stretch of University between Culver and Goodman is already a mix of different uses and building types–factories, old commercial buildings, single homes and duplexes, museums, apartment buildings, a literary center in an old jail house. More people (that evil “density”) might bring even more amenities that people could bike or walk to.
This is what makes a vibrant, liveable city. This is what moves us towards a more sustainable way of life. Not surface parking lots.
Regarding the “visual proximity” to the Eastman House: I love the GEH; I’m a member. But I don’t believe either the expanse of asphalt parking lot bordering East Ave., or the new film archives building, were part of the viewscape when George lived there. If the GEH were willing to restore Mr. Eastman’s farm and stables, I would be more sympathetic to their objections to being able to glimpse an apartment building through the trees at the back of the Eastman property.