Topics

1. Bob Miller says:

   October 26, 2012 at 8:03 am

   I don’t know. The City’s history of getting things done is not encouraging, and there’s already plenty going on.

2. Patrick Chefalo says:

   October 26, 2012 at 8:03 am

   Well, the “new” design looks like a cardboard, architecture student’s model of the Bragdon structure. Can the State make it better?

3. RochesterSubway.com says:

   October 26, 2012 at 8:12 am

   I hear what you guys are saying, believe me. But the likelihood that the state is coming in because they want to make the design “better” is slim. Another concern I have is this… that USDOT TIGER grant was awarded based on the work we’ve already done. If the state changes the scope in any way, for better or worse, we risk losing that $15 Million. I doubt NY will step up to replace those funds. NY has committed to $7 Million. Do you have any idea what a 7 million dollar facility would look like? Not pretty.

   But… I’ll try to remain positive until we know more.

4. Joe says:

   October 26, 2012 at 9:26 am

   Patrick is right, while it is an improvement on the Amshack it looks cheap. It looks like that all too overly used stucco over foam finish that lets you know the bare minimum was spent and the aesthetics match that of your typical box store in Henrietta. Would it kill them to do a brick veneer with stone block corners like the original? Do architects even take pride in their work anymore?

5. Tony Karakashian says:

   October 26, 2012 at 11:56 am

   Let’s not be TOO hard on the architects. I’m sure they’re limited in what they can design simply what the customer is willing to pay to build. It seems to me the main reason old buildings were built with such “style” was because these modern, cheap building techniques weren’t around. You couldn’t do concrete over foam when Bragdon was built.

6. CM says:

   October 26, 2012 at 11:56 am

   NYSDOT will most likely lower the cost and saddle us with another inadequate and uninspiring Amshak. This is where we need Louise and Chuck and our State delegation.

7. Jim Fraser says:

   October 31, 2012 at 1:07 pm

   Mike, have you contacted Louise Slaughter’s office about this? They have been helpful to me in the past, and she’d be a natural and powerful ally if trouble is afoot.

8. Jim Fraser says:

   October 31, 2012 at 1:52 pm

   Adding to the comments on the rendering for the proposed new facility – I believe the references to the earlier stations were requested by the study group and are intentional. That said, I don’t think any of the facility’s boosters are entirely satisfied with the initial draft. Personally, I think the tower – clearly borrowed from the original station – does not relate well to the rest.

   But I also got the impression at the public presentation last year that the plan called for a phased implementation, pegged to actual rail usage, which is expected to ramp in the coming years. It’s a great strategy for winning the support of a skeptical public for one, but also a practical one that allows for a ‘wait and see’ period before spending on capacity we don’t yet need.

   Perhaps during the expansion phases, the sophistication of the architecture can be improved as well. Looks like there are missing pieces, like it ends in places where it shouldn’t, no?

9. RochesterSubway.com says:

   October 31, 2012 at 3:45 pm

   @Jim, we (meaning Reconnect Rochester) have a meeting scheduled with Slaughter. We are also reaching out to Maggie Brooks and NYSDOT. Reconnect Rochester will be sharing our official position on this in the coming weeks. And we may be asking you all to join us in writing and calling our state representatives.

   With regard to the renderings of the proposed station, we were told to look at these images as rough computer drafts of the basic structure & proportions of the building, not as fully fleshed out detailed drawings of all the architectural details, textures, materials, etc. Having said that, if held up to the original Bragdon station, this will of course always feel like a poor imitation – in my opinion. But a Bragdon do-over is what the public overwhelmingly asked for during the public input period.

   And that tower thing on the left is actually an elevator shaft. Believe me, I’ve already given them my thoughts on that nonsense. I suggested giving the elevator shaft a glass enclosure which would draw less attention away from the main architectural focus of the Bragdon arches. But regardless, this entire design may be out the window now.

10. Bob Williams says:

    November 2, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    As Mr. Subway said, I’d really urge people not to read too much into that specific rendering. There were additional architectural and site plan advisory boards convened to address aesthetic and proportion, but no updated renderings have yet been released to the public.

11. DCH says:

    November 8, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    Must also comment that this new station looks like a disaster of modern architecture. I’d rather have the present station and 22.5 million.

Post a Comment...