RochesterSubway.com : Fortified Rochester

Fortified Rochester

February 13th, 2013

The following is a guest post submitted by Joel Helfrich.
Submit your story today.

You do not have to be a designer to see that Rochester has a problem—well, a number of problems, actually. That we continue to make the same mistakes, however, regarding design of our built environment, is perhaps one of the most egregious. This column highlights some of the worst offenders in Rochester—some of which are still being built…

Nearly every example brings to mind historian Mike Davis’s magnum opus: City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles (1990) . The title reminds me of attempts in Rochester such as through the Rochester Regional Community Design Center, Rochester Subway, Reconnect Rochester, and various enlightened architects to draw attention to the social, cultural, and design-based decisions that allowed Rochester to have much of the bad architecture that it has today. People in Rochester are trying to fix this problem, however, in an attempt to bring back design standards that worked: housing atop storefronts, buildings built to abut the street for easy access to rail, rail systems that promoted vibrant, productive urban centers, streets that promoted walkability, et cetera. Davis’s fascinating sequel, titled Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster (1999) , builds on his first book by continuing to show with devastating reality how Angeleños fail to realize the disconnections between their lives and the physical surroundings.

I found Davis’s book convincing as an undergraduate and again as a graduate student. I recently reread the book and found it not so radical—tame, in fact—than I had remembered it. His descriptions of prisons, no-go areas, fortresses, windowless buildings, and unwelcoming places, many of them created intentionally, made me think about my own city. Whilst thinking about his work, I considered especially what designs the City Planning Commission must have approved within the last 10 years—quite clearly a great amount of schlock. What follows are some examples of horrible places and architecture that might actually be doing damage and harm to our residents and visitors of the city. Clearly these are not welcoming spaces, nor do they evoke a sense of pride, health, or happiness:

The Rochester Riverside Convention Center is a case in point. The front is not better than the back along South Ave or from the Broad Street Bridge. The front along Main Street, although it has some windows, is separated from the people on the street by railings and concrete. This building created an entire block that is now a wasteland, devoid of people and brimming with cars all heading one direction: away from the urban core. Rochester’s main natural landmark, the Genesee River, is shielded from many views by this behemoth. A vital, cultural resource is made inaccessible for an entire block.

The Excellus BlueCross BlueShield headquarters nearby spans an entire block in nearly every direction, yet appears from most angles to lack an entrance or exit or any doors, its employees trapped in a corporate structure that, as the Eagles put it in “Hotel California”: “You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave!” Even from a safety standpoint, this offense seems astonishing.

The planning people in City Hall do not appear to be getting any better at the process of approving new construction. The intersection of Main and Culver recently saw the sprouting of a new McDonald’s where an old McDonald’s once stood, but the sitting of the building to the corner is notable because of its windowless back to the intersection. In fact, one section of the building facing Culver Road gives the impression, because of a separate brick color, that the windows were bricked in. The back door, often with plastic pallets and metal dolly just outside, faces the intersection. It locks down the corner. Its design is solely for the benefit of cars that drive through the back (front?) of the building that faces the neighborhood. McDonald’s was just the latest piece of the puzzle that is the intersection of Main and Culver. The high security windows (reflective glass!), doors, and set-back of the Volunteers of America, as well as the drive-through clothing drop-off, harms another corner of the intersection. The old Papa John’s and East High, with its miles of chain link fence, do little to make the other corners of this intersection any better. Clearly the message is well taken here: the needs of neighbors and people travelling by foot or bicycle are secondary to cars. Moreover, impoverished neighborhoods are not worthy of good design.

But even up-and-coming neighborhoods like the South Wedge have felt the burden of bad design. Postler & Jaeckle’s addition to its headquarters on the corner of South Ave and Hickory Street, with its high windows and long expanses of brick, is dreadful. While it may serve its purpose as a storage area for P&J’s equipment and supplies, it does nothing to add to the area around it, the new businesses and housing on South Avenue, the surrounding architecture, or any feeling of peacefulness.

Nearby EchoTone Music on South Ave reminds me of a Medieval Times restaurant chain or, better still, a brown colored White Castle restaurant—fortress-like in design and appearance. Yet even the average White Castle, the original hamburger chain, has windows.

Perhaps the worst offender of the South Wedge is School Number #12 , in part because it is supposed to be a place for children to learn. Its Soviet style prison-like architecture is extremely oppressive. Even the lunchroom does not have windows, a terrible environment for little children who attend that school yet must close their eyes to imagine a life outside of concrete. Parts of Highland Hospital are also atrocious, especially the parking garage on the corner of Rockingham and South, but also the back of the hospital along Rockingham and Mount Vernon.

Last, but certainly not least: the forgettable East Ave. Wegmans , which opens in May. Many people are drawn to the Wegmans chain. My relatives take visitors to Wegmans. People who move away from the area wish that they could take a store with them. Overflowing with proprietary architecture, fake windows, and security glass, the new East Ave. Wegmans is the latest edition to our social and cultural fabric—our built environment. Many people view Wegmans as an “institution.” After all, it is less museum and more prison like, in my opinion. It is not hard for your average Rochesterian to recognize the brand. It is the same shoddy inferior design, no matter if you are in Pittsford or Geneva , New York; in Virginia or Maryland ; or on East Ave. in Rochester. That there was ever a fight over this place from City officials and the City Planning Commission seems hard to imagine, given that it looks exactly the same as the last local Wegmans built in Greece on Mount Read . This abysmal place features nearly three sides of a “new” building in an “old” wrapper without windows, greenspace, or anything that makes a human feel happiness, healthiness, or wellness. Let us not forget the massive parking lot. As my late father-in-law would put it: “Sons a bitches!”

There has to be a different way of doing business in Rochester. Couldn’t the City create a green code so we can be like Buffalo or obtain some additional green infrastructure with plans similar to Syracuse? Imagine permeable paving, a green roof, solar panels, a small wind turbine (not banned by Rochester city code, yet), a green wall, bioswales, a rain garden, water harvesting from the roof, et cetera. The list goes on!

The questions from looking at and thinking about all of Rochester’s sad places remain: will Rochester continue to fortify itself, creating spaces that are not worth anything? Or will we turn the tide and make aesthetically pleasing places that are worth caring about? The former is most likely what this City will do, but I would love to hear your opinions and learn about the places in Rochester that make you feel sick, as well as those that continue to lift your spirits.

• • •

About Joel Helfrich:

Joel Helfrich is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of history at Monroe Community College and a Visiting Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Joel is also a father, entrepreneur, educator, and activist who has worked on animal rights, environmental, historic and sacred sites preservation, and social justice issues. He holds the conviction that a myopic focus defeats the most important work any historian does—being an informed and informative member of society. He sees the environment as a site where much of his historical training can be brought to bear, so he continues to pursue those interests as well as others.

Tags: architecture, City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles, East Avenue Wegmans, EchoTone Music, Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield, James PB Duffy School No. 12, Joel Helfrich, McDonald's, Mike Davis, Postler & Jaeckle, Rochester Riverside Convention Center, South Avenue, South Wedge, urban design, Wegman's

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 13th, 2013 at 8:01 am and is filed under Architecture, Opinion, Reader Submitted Stories, Rochester Images, Urban Development. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

68 Responses to “Fortified Rochester”

Sarah says:

February 13, 2013 at 8:18 am

agreed on most, but MAN, i love wegmans!
mike says:

February 13, 2013 at 8:51 am

Good collection of what’s gone wrong. I’d be good to see a “best of Rochester architecture” as you attract more flies with sugar than vinegar. Good job.
mike says:

February 13, 2013 at 8:52 am

PS-Good place to see how other cities are correcting similar errors Rochester has made with city planning:

http://www.cnu.org/resources/projects
Mary says:

February 13, 2013 at 8:54 am

McDonald’s wanted to face E. Main, but North Winton Village Neighborhood Association had its own idea of how it should look.

I was expecting to see the new multi-colored monstrosity across the river from Corn Hill Landing, and I have an extreme hatred of the hi-rise on St. Paul with its crooked balconies.
Bailey says:

February 13, 2013 at 8:55 am

Why would you want to attract flies?
Brian says:

February 13, 2013 at 9:02 am

I believe that the Beechwood and North Winton Village neighborhood organizations were actually heavily involved in the McDonalds design. I read that the main concern was moving the building to abut Culver, as the previous building was set back a la the VOA, with the parking lot fronting the street. I understand the concerns about the intersection though.
Wren says:

February 13, 2013 at 9:11 am

Maybe I’m an anomaly, but I am always uplifted when I go into a Wegmans, particularly Pittsford. The stores have great energy, even if the outside is bland. As for outside, I do like the facade of the East Ave store. And it looks like they’re putting in wide sidewalks to be more pedestrian friendly – the old store was a deathtrap for anyone who wanted to walk in!

I believe Excellus HQ was designed intentionally to be uninviting to the passerby. It’s a health plan, so I don’t imagine that kind of building to be visitor-friendly. But on the inside it’s beautiful, lots of windows – and balconies for employees to use. I’ve taken conference calls from a balcony there and it was quite pleasant.

As for the other examples you’ve shown, I agree with all, especially the Convention Center! It’s dreadful. I love Vancouver’s, which would be a perfect example for Rochester to follow if there’s ever a chance to rethink that building: http://www.vancouverconventioncentre.com.
Bob Williams says:

February 13, 2013 at 9:52 am

Wren, you’re not an anomaly and this isn’t meant to be personal, but I don’t get it.

It’s just a grocery store. I’ll never understand this reverential attitude around here about an oversized grocery store chain who doesn’t give a damn about our city. Everything that differentiates Wegmans from other grocery stores (Eg. Prepared Foods) is a tremendous ripoff.
Dave says:

February 13, 2013 at 9:59 am

I don’t disagree with you, Joel — oddly enough, I pass most of these buildings on my daily commute — but this just sounds like a bunch of whining. Yes these building are ugly. We get it.
How about some examples of what is good and what works?
RochesterSubway.com says:

February 13, 2013 at 10:14 am

I don’t want to speak for the author, but I think the buildings in this post were all designed within the past 15-20 years. Not sure about the EchoTone building. But that would be why obvious choices, like the Xerox tower, or the big brown apartment building with all the crooked balconies, were left off the list.
Jimmy says:

February 13, 2013 at 10:25 am

I totally agree that the convention center is absolutely terrible but other than that this seems like a random compilation of bad architecture in Rochester. Of all the buildings you could have picked, you picked the Exellus building and the new wegmans. What about all the affordable housing structures in the city like the towers on st. paul, or all the affordable housing around Joseph Ave? Or the stetch of land on the south side of west main inbetween Renoylds St. and Ford St? The IBM building. The list goes on and on. The new wegmans is practicle and will help that area of the city. The new parking lot won’t really be that big. Or what about the Kodak building MCC is moving to? that is ugly and should be demolished.
Jibreel Riley says:

February 13, 2013 at 10:41 am

Post riot Rochester architetture
David says:

February 13, 2013 at 12:28 pm

about Wegmans: it can be both a delight to shop there and an architectural horror. And it is.

This city is in the center of a ring of suburbs filled with people who despise it. It’s not a pleasant fact but it’s a fact. as long as any body whose name begins with “Monroe County…” has any influence on anything that happens within city limits, you can see what the result is.
Mike D says:

February 13, 2013 at 12:48 pm

AMEN! Especially the convention center. That block is the most boring, depressing block along south/st. paul.
Jill says:

February 13, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Thank you for this post, and for bringing light to these issues. I am from the area but live outside of Washington DC, where for the most part, neighborhood design seems to work fairly well. Most people who live in the District do not own cars, therefore it’s much more visually appealing and safer for pedestrians, not to mention its the kind of city that has been able to connect destinations in a way that makes sense.

There is a field which correlates very well with one of the comments here regarding the CNU projects, called sustainable zoning. A lot of buildings and designs are constrained by what zoning will allow, for instance insane amounts of parking. SURFACE parking. Shame on Rochester for not adopting a more sustainable and density-driven way to develop. See this article for a comparison of Rochester and Toronto: http://therochesterian.com/2013/01/26/rochester-toronto-downtowns-same-size-really/

One space that comes to mind is a fairly recent development in Webster near 104 and Holt. It’s a huge, sprawling suburban nightmare with an implied pedestrian “walkway” cutting through the abyss of parking that separates three huge sections of shopping plazas. Who in their right mind is going to traverse across all the parking spaces, mountains of snow in the winter, the massive wind tunnel its created, just to go from the Target over to Kohl’s? It’s really a shame. If we could get Rochester’s leadership to approve projects with higher density and less unnecessary surface parking, it may become a nice place to walk once in a while!

Thanks again for this article.
Scott K says:

February 13, 2013 at 12:57 pm

During our 7 month stretch with no vehicle, we’ve walked through the South Avenue Dead Zone many times. Sure wish there was something there to break up the feeling of walking past a prison. It really does make quite a barrier between Main, Broad, and the river, doesn’t it? And what a nice, cold wind tunnel it is this time of year, too. No doorways or alcoves of any kind to shelter in at all, especially if you make the mistake of waiting at the bus stop there!

All those other long expanses of forbidding, blank brick, are almost as bad, but South is the worst.

BTW, which students of MCC say they prefer the Kodak location? The ones with cars, I imagine! So much for the convenience of the main bus stops, especially for anyone who takes the 50 to Brighton, rather than the overcrowded MCC shuttle.
Matthew Denker says:

February 13, 2013 at 1:40 pm

Wow, so yeah.

First, very nice write up. Thank you Joel.

Second, of all the issues Rochester has, Zoning is one of the lowest on the pole. There is already contextual zoning. There are already stipulations for siting that are incredibly progressive. There are surprisingly few FAR limits, and there are pretty solid rules about street wall treatments. A city like DC, and more importantly the developers in it, would salivate over zoning like Rochester has.

Third, if there’s one thing to be worried about, it is why Rochester has not seen real construction in the CBD in the way so many other small to medium sized cities have in the past 10 years. Rochester is in the same orbit as Spokane, WA; Boise, ID; Richmond, VA; Salt Lake City, UT; and numerous others. What conditions are in these cities that are not here? These aren’t even all of the suburban cities in the orbit of New York City that have benefited from spillover. I contend that the vision of our developers and the wherewithal of our local financial institutions are to blame. Why should Conifer need to come to town to make something happen? We can sit on our hands until they whither and fall off before Toll Brothers shows up and builds something in Rochester.

Fourth, beyond the developers, it is Rochester’s pathetic local “benefactors” that are deeply to blame for the area’s weakness. To name names, Wegmans, RIT, UofR, Constellation, Cooper Vision, etc. are all happily humming away in the burbs without caring the least bit about the city that puts them on the map. It is their abdication of responsibility that continues to hurt the region. And really, why should they care? Rochester has one of the lowest rates of car ownership in the country, not because of it’s advanced transportation system, but because of its advanced state of poverty. That works to the advantage of these firms looking for cheap labor, but then what?

Fifth, the people of Rochester lack vision. Truthfully, none of the cities that are moving, shaking, or really doing much of anything are geographically close to Rochester. It’s easy to look at Toronto or NYC and say, “That’s different, it’s not us. They’re huge/rich/foreign/etc.” The problems of Rochester are the problems of Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, Binghamton and Albany. The best parts were bulldozed for highways and parking lots, and surprisingly, when everything worth driving to in the first place was torn down the music stopped and we were all out of chairs. If the people of any of these places could see what it was like to go to Hoboken or Boise or Salt Lake City they could get to know something different, something better.

Sixth, and finally. Thank you all for reading me lose my sh*t out loud (in writing) here.
Meghan says:

February 13, 2013 at 2:21 pm

LOL Joel.
This was great.
You missed one…. the new County Crime Lab.
And you are right on about the East Avenue Wegmans. Truly horrible and sorely misses the mark. This is an example of what happoens when an organization modifies a design to pacify a 150 different groups that had their own design vision.
David says:

February 13, 2013 at 2:57 pm

FYI discussion going also at https://plus.google.com/u/0/113741752590980422007/posts/RAogju6SAWZ
Hano says:

February 13, 2013 at 8:27 pm

I love how a pack of lazy pretentious people that probably do little to nothing to be involved in our community want to sit here and bash it. You people are nit picking over a fucking McDonalds, a Wegmans, and a corporate office building… there are a couple valid points here… but the buildings are there, the owners could care fucking less you what a pack of dirty hipsters that think they are architects have to say.
Wow says:

February 13, 2013 at 11:09 pm

Thank you, Rochester Subway and your recent post from the eloquent Hano. Reminds me why I should never sign up for email reminders. How unbelievably rude of this person as well as the website that decided to not filter it’s responses.
David says:

February 14, 2013 at 12:22 am

As my mother-in-law likes to say, “There’s always an idiot.” Or a troll, same difference.

Someone’s SUV got dented?
RochesterSubway.com says:

February 14, 2013 at 7:53 am

@Wow, while I am sorry some people feel it necessary to use objectionable words now and then, I don’t have time, nor desire, to act as Big Brother. I can remove you from the notifications. Just let me know.
Bridget Watts says:

February 14, 2013 at 10:27 am

Thank you. I drive through the intersection of Main and Culver at least once a day, and the new McDonalds with its rear end facing East Main really bugs me.
You mention the VOA building on the NW corner of that intersection. That piece of schlock with its vast (and usually mostly empty) parking lot was built as an Eckerd Pharmacy. (Because the other 3 chain pharmacies within a 3 mile radius weren’t enough.) They had to tear down whatever was there before because all their buildings had to be built in the same cookie-cutter design. In the process, they were allowed to cut down two street trees–oaks that were at least 80 years old, irreplaceable in our lifetimes. And then the drugstore went belly up, of course.
Those oaks belonged to the citizens of Rochester. It still burns me that a private company was allowed to destroy them to build disposable crap.
And the new East Ave. Wegmans: When you approach from the east or south, it definitely looks like a minimum security prison, complete with guard towers. They have a great southwest exposure for solar panels–maybe they could add some.
Dave says:

February 14, 2013 at 10:37 am

Regarding the McDonalds, as a (very) former East High student, I recall that McDs wanted absolutely nothing to do with the students. This may explain its unfriendliness. Which is weird since they seem to like putting franchises across from high schools.
Scott K says:

February 14, 2013 at 11:48 am

I’m no kind of “Hipster” or architect at all, just a man who doesn’t like having to walk down featureless canyons (with my children) to get to and from what little is actually left in our city.

Not to be insulting, but I’d be willing to bet most, if not all, of the above posters, can still drive everywhere they want to go. Especially the “gentleman” with the “eloquent” way of speaking.
Matthew Denker says:

February 14, 2013 at 12:53 pm

Well this conversation took an unexpected turn! I will need to investigate this McDonalds this weekend. Since I don’t have a car, it’ll involve some walking. I actually think the best fast food build in Rochester (they can be done right) is the KFC at Culver and University. http://goo.gl/maps/oo0Gh It’s unfortunate that the Tim Hortons wasn’t constructed to similar standards, considering it would have involved moving the building all of 20 feet or so.
David says:

February 14, 2013 at 2:01 pm

Quite agree about that KFC. My wife and I live within a mile of it and we actually find it more amenable to walk there than to drive. As it should be!

yes, we own a car but since I live within a watermelon-seed-spit of three bus lines I tend to use the bus for commuting. This opens up my perceptions of what I can and can’t do on the bus alone – and I have selected my medical providers for being on transit lines, in addition to the usual factors.
Matthew Denker says:

February 14, 2013 at 2:18 pm

Funny addition that I had forgotten previously: that same corner is home to a formerly miserable HSBC branch (it must be FN now) with no walk up ATM (you have to walk into the drive through, which usually involves you getting honked at by unruly motorists), and a door that faces only the parking lot. It’s a shame, because the siting of the building is perfectly adequate.
Rich Rolwing says:

February 15, 2013 at 12:31 am

I hope to God they do something aesthetically interesting (is “pleasing” too much to ask?) with that hideous structure (a Central Trust(?) bank ages ago, I think–I won’t flatter it with the designation “building”) immediately south of the Wilder building on Exchange that they are turning into apartments.
Jason Haremza says:

February 15, 2013 at 10:14 am

As always, I greatly enjoy the online discussion that posts like this stimulate.

There are so many issues I’d like to comment on, but I’ll focus on a couple.

McDonald’s at Culver and East Main went through multiple public processes with the city, including a Zoning Board hearing on May 19, 2011, for variances to waive the height, setback, transparency, and sign requirements.

It was approved with various conditions, which McDonald’s has met. The neighborhood representatives spoke in favor of the project at the time. NO ONE spoke, or submitted letters, in opposition. Without public opposition at the time of project review and approval, city staff can only push the envelope so far.

I also take issue with some of the “blame the city planners” tone of Mr. Helfrich’s article. City planners work under a system of strong private property rights, duly adopted land use laws, and an elected leadership.

On the larger issue of density, Rochester can wish and hope all it wants for increased urban density, but as long as we remain a slowly shrinking city, in a stagnant region without strong REGIONAL land use policies, with cheap and easy travel by private automobile, the market for urban density will be limited. City zoning laws can mandate building placement, entrances, transparency, etc. but is it extraordinarily difficult to mandate density where there is no real or perceived market for it.
Jason Haremza says:

February 15, 2013 at 10:21 am

Incidentally, it was the construction of the Excellus Building, with its bunker-like facade along South Avenue, that motivated the City to revise it’s zoning code and adopt the new, much more urban-friendly code, in 2003.

So bad examples can sometimes cause good things to happen.
Matthew Denker says:

February 15, 2013 at 10:31 am

I think perceived demand is one of the key issues. There’s always a risk to take. Target and Whole Foods were told they were crazy for opening urban stores (think DCUSA) 5 years ago, and now not only are those stores wildly profitable, but the only failing part of them is the giant parking decks that were built to accompany them.

I believe there is demand for spacious, well-laid-out apartments downtown in Rochester. For empty-nesters, for young professionals who can work remotely, for people who want easy access to NYC as well as the great outdoors in abundance around Rochester. The trick, then, is to find money and take the leap. Just about every major downtown housing development (whether is new, like Cornhill Landing, or adaptive, like the Temple Building) has been wildly successful. But every time a new building is proposed (when one even is), it will be the one that fails. Or worse, the neighbors in a dense, walkable neighborhood will slam the gates. “We don’t need 100 new apartments on Park Ave.” Completely foolish. Where else would be better? Where else would generate less traffic, drive more demand for amenities than right there?

The answer is deceptively simple.

Nowhere.
RochesterSubway.com says:

February 15, 2013 at 10:32 am

Thanks Jason. All great points.

And for those people who have questioned why the Andrews Terrace apartments, or the Erie Harbor apartments, etc. are not on this list… People live in those buildings. And I recognized that we’d be getting into sort of a dicey area to criticize people’s homes. Yes, those buildings were designed by architects whose design instincts might be questionable… but some things go without saying anyway. So for now, this discussion focuses on those, corporate and/or public type buildings – the likes of which should be able to take the design critique without taking it personally.
Matthew Denker says:

February 15, 2013 at 10:36 am

Oh, I wanted to post this as a separate comment, because it’s unrelated to the last one. One of my biggest issues with the giant new parking lot for Wegmans is that it represents a terrible poor tax on the users of the store. Anyone who uses the store, but does not own a car, is subsidizing everyone else’s not-God-given right to free parking. It’s not right. It is not human. We need to find it within us to stop with the “those people” BS. It is time to understand what we can do to be inclusive. Free will can only take a man in shackles so far.
Jason Haremza says:

February 15, 2013 at 11:39 am

I hate that I have to use this line, but “Rochester is not DC (or Boston or Toronto or NYC or fill-in-the-big-congested-dense-expensive city of your choice).”

Target and other big boxes can be profitable with an urban format in DC because a lot of urban dwellers don’t have cars and for those that do, driving to the Maryland suburbs is a pain in the neck. We have no such constraints here; I can be in Penfield or Henrietta in 15 minutes. To date, it has not been worth the added development costs for Target, Wegmans, or any other big box store to construct an urban format in Rochester. Will that change in the future? Maybe… hopefully…
Jason Haremza says:

February 15, 2013 at 11:49 am

I completely agree with Mr. Denker on the subject of urban development in urban neighborhoods though. It is true: “We don’t need 100 new apartments on Park Ave.” Completely foolish. Where else would be better? Where else would generate less traffic, drive more demand for amenities than right there?”

The problem is, when projects like these go before public hearings, it tends to be the opponents that come out to provide testimony. Where are the neighbors that would welcome new neighbors to the community? Where are the urbanists, no matter where they live, that see this as a positive addition to their city? Where are the businesses that would welcome 100 new housing units within walking distance of their establishments? Where are the major employers that would value new, high quality, urban apartments as a recruitment tool for new out-of-town employees, many of whom might be relocating from a much more urban environment?

They are not there. So the Planning Commission or Zoning Board or City Council only hears the voices of the aggrieved opposition.
Matthew Denker says:

February 15, 2013 at 11:57 am

Oh, sorry, I wasn’t advocating a Target in the Rochester(although as a low cost provider of quality goods in a city where 1 in 4 people don’t own a car but could get downtown by bus easily, this might be a very good thing). It was more so as a comparison to other places where someone willing to take a risk beat out the nay saying and won. In Rochester it is generally with regard to building anything other than a new Tim Hortons. For example, how is it that buildings like 88 Elm and 79 Clinton are vacant? Either would convert easily to affordable and effective student housing, if not nicer market rate apartments.
RochesterSubway.com says:

February 15, 2013 at 12:15 pm

@Jason, I have to jump in here because you hit on something that has troubled me for a while. I try to use this site as a platform to reach the people who might come to a public meeting to support good urban projects. But I find it a struggle to stay on top of latest projects and public input meetings.

With so many projects and city boards (zoning, planning, council, etc.) it seems like there should be one comprehensive calendar of public input opportunities on the City’s web site or Facebook page or somewhere. I’ve contacted the City’s webmaster about this before. He pointed me to the events page and RSS feeds. But the feeds often don’t update for me, and very rarely include the meeting agendas. Meeting agendas are often posted less than 24 hours before the meeting and always as a PDF which makes it very difficult to stay on top of what’s going on. Let alone plan to attend and speak.

So I think you’re spot on with your comment. It is crucial for those in support of a project to come out and voice that support.

But we need a better alert & information system. Am I looking in the wrong places? Is there anything being done to address this?
Jason Haremza says:

February 15, 2013 at 12:16 pm

Good question.

88 Elm is owned by the city.

75-83 North Clinton is owned by Catholic Charities.

Ask the owners why they are vacant.
Jason Haremza says:

February 15, 2013 at 12:34 pm

@RochesterSubway.com

I don’t disagree with you on the city’s notification procedures. It’s a struggle to drag a lumbering 20th century bureaucracy into the 21st century. Also, if the city relies too much on the internet for public notice, the city can be criticized that people without internet access are marginalized.

Agendas for public hearings are always posted at least 2 weeks prior to the hearing. I’d be curious to learn more about your 24 hour experience.
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/zoningboard/
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/planningcommission/
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589936533

Before projects go to any of the boards (Planning, Zoning, or Preservation) it often (but not always) starts as a Site Plan Review. These are done administratively, but the agenda for new projects undergoing Site Plan Review is posted weekly, usually Friday or Monday.
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589936657 There is no hearing for these, but anyone can submit written/email comments regarding site plan reviews.

Finally, as a very low tech, old fashioned, back up, the city requires that physical signs be posted on the property undergoing review, so anyone walking or driving by is made aware of it.
Matthew Denker says:

February 15, 2013 at 12:41 pm

@Jason – Yeah, I know who owns them. 79 Clinton has actually been on the market for years. No one is buying (not even me! But that’s not for a lack of desire). 88 Elm was asbestos-abated by the city to the tune of $1.5m of your tax payer dollars. No developer has wanted it. The city would probably give it to you if you had proof you could make a development happen there. At the risk of sounding sentimental, I can only say, someday.

As I have said before, a lack of vision/ability by local developers is part of the issue.
RochesterSubway.com says:

February 15, 2013 at 12:43 pm

@Jason, I apologize. I’m thinking about it now and you’re right. There have been times when the agenda had been published… but items (which were of interest to me) were added or removed at the last minute. So in those cases specifically, the current online system falls short because of its clunkiness… ie: having to download and scan through PDF documents.

There’s got to be a more elegant way.
Matthew Denker says:

February 15, 2013 at 1:08 pm

May I recommend having an intern do the downloading and scanning for you? Sounds incredibly elegant to me.
RochesterSubway.com says:

February 15, 2013 at 1:12 pm

You’re hired.
Rich Rolwing says:

February 15, 2013 at 3:50 pm

Just for the record I have always rather liked the architecture and general visual impact of the Excellus building (it rises rather impressively above the cityscape as one drives on 490 into the city). Granted at ground level it has the same unfriendly relationship to passersby I suppose of any corporate monolith downtown (just how many entrances is a building supposed to have?) but I find it a much more striking and aesthetically substantial (help me, thesaurus!) building than for example the kitschy and cheap-looking Frontier box “gracing” Washington Square Park on Clinton. (But then in today’s wasteland of concrete slabs I’m a sucker for any rounded element-the roof in this case- intoduced on a piece of architecture).
Charles says:

February 16, 2013 at 6:16 pm

I agree these buildings are not perfect but tell the students and teachers at school 12 their school sucks, tell the owners of echo tone music and Danny their local businesses aren’t good enough.
This like many subjects is about money. As Rochester constructs a convention center or Mcd’s decides to renovate costs are real concerns. At the same time these and other “objectionables” are a reflection of supply and demand and their is just not much demand. Buildings can grow out vs. up, each can have it’s own parking lot, and most are single use structures.
On the other hand if we vote at local cash registers vs. a target or national brand we are supporting these trying businesses and showing a demand. Developers and and their level of investment is based on market conditions. We all want the same thing and the only way to get it is through actions not words.
Jim says:

February 17, 2013 at 12:47 am

Lets be honest, Wegmans doesn’t care about the city at all. They want to build their cookie cutter designs just like every other chain and if they don’t get their way they’ll go somewhere else. Sure they made a couple design changes to the East Ave Wegmans, but its still a hulking monster better fit for the ‘burbs. I really hope Top’s builds a good downtown grocery store because then I can have a new place to shop.

I’m almost to the point that if enough of us could get the cash and had the desire to intelligently rehab a building, we should just form some sort of co-op and buy it and do it.
Joel Helfrich says:

February 19, 2013 at 2:42 am

@Jim: I have had my eye on several buildings for years. In one case, I planned to buy a building in 2010-2011. I spent approximately 12 or so months creating a business plan, establishing cost estimates, getting real numbers from contractors, architects, et cetera. I completed my homework. In the end, I could not get financing, despite having several well-known developers in town state that I had a good idea for adaptive reuse.
Jason Haremza says:

February 19, 2013 at 2:52 pm

@Joel: I identify with your plight since I often think about trying something similar. This is what I struggle to understand since I’m not a financial guy. Rochester has the ideas, has the expertise, has the buildings, has the motivated developers, and apparently has the market. What is the obstacle with financing? Are we different in this regard from other cities and, if so, why?
Matthew Denker says:

February 19, 2013 at 3:53 pm

Well, Rochester has the ideas and the buildings, anyway. The level of expertise and demand is questionable. If there were proven demand there would be financing. The issue is partially how banks perceive of demand vs. how we perceive of it. Is there demand to produce a product profitably? Rochester generally cannot support mezzanine loans at the current cost of construction vs. value of the finished product. Because of this, capital demands are much higher on the budding developer. Another issue is just the banking picture in Rochester. There is not a major bank anchored here to invest in the region, and any that are are suburban oriented. Rochester is, unfortunately, not Pittsburgh, with PNC, or Charlotte with BoA. Both of these cities have a major institution tied strongly to them (as do a number of other not-quite-large cities). Rochester will be a slow grind for a while, especially considering it will be challenging to gain traction against other cities that have realized that amenities are just as attractive as jobs.
Jim Fraser says:

February 20, 2013 at 8:05 am

@Matthew
“…amenities are just as attractive as jobs.”

Nicely put. I think Richard Florida would approve.
Jeff Freeland says:

February 21, 2013 at 5:13 pm

Like building bigger and bigger highways to suburbia just increases the traffic and requires even wider roads, so it will be at the new Wegman’s. Getting around the store was not difficult, requiring only a very occasional “excuse me” to navigate, usually to clueless people who were acting like no one else in world, or that aisle, mattered.

Now EVERY WEEK, I’ll have to walk twice as far to get to the front door and that far again to get to the milk. That, for the questionable privilege of having Wegman’s try to sell me patio furniture and other assorted non-grocery junk, which I will almost never need, not even once a decade. Wegman’s has an unyielding business model, and the old East Ave. store didn’t measure up, even though it was perfectly suited to many people’s needs.

The new structure is ugly beyond measure, with some 14 different materials gee-gawing up the outside, and an equal number of different kinds of (mostly fake) windows splattered like zombie lesions on top of that. It’s not even good Pseudo-Victorian/Ye Olde English/Carriage House MacMansion architecture. It’s illiterate, ill-proportioned, confused, and so cheaply constructed, it’ll look worn and dumpy in five years time. Adding insult to injury, seems Wegman’s is now quietly blaming the neighborhood association for the looks of the building, as well. At least two of the employees repeated that line to me, when I commented how ugly the building is.

Aesthetics aside, the building’s urbanistic badness was only mitigated by the hard work of neighborhood residents, who Wegman’s fought at every step. The neighbors got precious little of what they asked for. And what was lost was a small but very active street front: a real estate business, antique store, interior designer, florist, hair salon, gymnasium, bank, bridal dress shop, rug store, security company and numerous apartments, all with plenty of parking. It was not Pittsford/Victor pretty, but it was authentic, historic, and well kept. At least before Wegman’s started forcing people out and then didn’t even wash the windows of the stores they had purchased.

All that life, replaced with a few windows in a warehouse wall. I was finding the area along Winton the best part of the building, but now that they have topped out the two and half story wall, all I can think is Attica. The landscaping will not help; lipstick on a warthog. Ivy can’t hide this horror.

As a pedestrian experience, as neighborhood, the building fails. It will not increase real estate values, or neighborhood values, or people values, just traffic.

There was a time Rochesterians demanded and got really good architecture. And Rochester businesses and individuals took pride in offering and achieving it, as a gift to the community’s spirit and our hope for a greater city.

Oh well,…
Jason Haremza says:

February 21, 2013 at 7:36 pm

@Jeff: parallel park on East Avenue. That’s what I always used to do (and hope to do with the new store). Rochesterians seem too afraid to park on the street there, so spaces were almost always available. Virtually at the front door.

Wegmans has a very specific design aesthetic. Whether you like it or hate it, it comes from Wegmans. For them to blame the neighborhood for how the building looks is pretty poor form.
Rich Rolwing says:

February 21, 2013 at 10:07 pm

@Jeff: They’ll probably have some milk available for quick pickup at the front of the store–the Pittsford store does.
Jeff Freeland says:

February 22, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Yes, thanks. I do the East Avenue parking, when coming to the store form the east (which is not often) but usually my normal route brings me from the west. Generally, I don’t mind a modest walk. I’d rather park quickly and walk that spend time searching circling round, and round, for the optimal spot.

And yes, or course, there will be a case for milk. I was using “milk” as a stand in for all the normal things I buy, which are at the perimeter of the store. There is a dead area (as far as my normal shopping is concerned) in the middle of the current East Avenue store. But it is only a few aisles big. Most of store is devoted to things I want/need. So much so that I can get nearly all the foodie things I like at East Ave. My trips to the Pittsford Wegman’s for the truly esoteric were only necessary a couple of time a year.

The perimeter is going to be very much longer at the new store, and there will be tons of stuff in the center that I don’t want. Each department I do want to be in will be larger and take more time. That and wider aisles necessitated by bigger shopping carts pushed by people who don’t seem to want to recognize that they must have some small interactions with other shoppers will lengthen my journey. I am a quick in an out type of shopper, discerning and price conscious, yet willing to pay for quality. I would guess my purchases, except for the occasional pre-made item, are the up-scale recipe ingredients Wegman’s would like to sell.

The only think that keeps me from decamping to Tops is Wegman’s excellent check out, and the better prices on the items I buy often. But maybe I’ll finally get used to these Top’s downsides while Wegman’s is closed. And, become more regular at Price Rite for reasonably priced “milk”.

Wegman’s does not have a specific design. The Princeton, NJ store, much better landscaped than any Rochester store, looks like Pittsford or MarketPlace; basic, simple, solid, brick and arches. The East Avenue everything-including-the-kitchen-sink monstrosity was forced on us by a company who ran roughshod over the neighbors, and their desires. Wegman’s refused to imagine anything different. Their vaunted business model has become ossified and unchanging. We see how well that worked for Kodak.

Maybe this Smugtown attitude is just in the DNA of our established business leaders.
Matthew Denker says:

February 22, 2013 at 1:20 pm

I don’t think a company doing and getting what it wants is Rochester monopoly. It seems that this is the case for large companies based just about anywhere. I guess it comes down to what we as a society value, and whether large corporations are the ones to provide that forever.
Jason Haremza says:

February 22, 2013 at 9:19 pm

@Jeff

The simple, solid brick arches, much preferable in my view, are Wegmans old look. They aren’t doing those anymore. Their new look (Mt. Read, Calkins Rd., anything in Virginia, etc.) is this pseudo-Victorian-meets-Tuscan-stable at EPCOT center look.

@Matthew

Perhaps it’s a general societal issue, present in any community. But as a non-native Rochesterian, my own theory is that this region has transferred the deferential, don’t-question-what-they-want-to-do attitude once reserved for Uncle George and Kodak to Wegmans and U of R.
Meghan says:

February 23, 2013 at 7:37 am

Wegman’s “new look” was inspired by the Cheesecake Factory.
BS says:

March 12, 2013 at 11:38 pm

I moved to Rochester in August 2012 and immediately fell in love with Wegmans. The well kept stores, incredible selection, and fair prices were far superior to any grocery chain I had seen in the midwest. That said, the old East Ave Wegmans was absolutely hideous. They were lacking about half the stock of the Pittsford Wegmans, the aisles were too small for two carts to go through, and the general look was very drab and unclean. Because of the closeness to my residence about 2 min away, I occasionally went to that Wegmans. However, I regularly went to Pittsford, a 15 minute drive, to have better selection and a less compact store. The new East ave store will bring a great deal more business and tax dollars into the city than the old store. To spew such hatred at a store that hasn’t even opened is simply presumptuous and unfair.
Wegmans is about as good of a company as any of its size. It is nationally reputed for treating its employees well (especially compared to similar-sized companies) and contributes as much to its community as any large business. We are fortunate to have this company based out of Rochester, and as the home city, we should have a nicer looking store. I cannot wait for it to open.
Matthew Denker says:

March 13, 2013 at 10:17 am

I guess it all depends on what we’re looking for from a grocery store, no? I have become accustomed to small, cramped, and overwhelmingly crowded stores here in NYC, and I don’t expect anything different. The fact that I’m never buying more than I can reasonably carry generally makes a shopping cart a recipe for disaster.

This is sort of how the car culture gets you, isn’t it? I mean, one has a car, so it’s easier to go somewhere that it’s easy to put the car. Then you’d never notice that you’re buying too much food at the store since you never have to carry it and it’s all so easy. Next thing you know, 2/3rds of Americans are obese and we’re all sitting here posting comments on a blog. How did this all happen, we’ll ask.

Anyway, enough of that dystopian alternate reality. Much like Erie Harbor, Wegmans will be good, but not great. The limitations are more from their corporate structure and lack of imagination than a sewer trunk and pre-built concrete pads, though.
Jim says:

April 8, 2013 at 12:30 pm

I moved away from the Culver/Main area 8 years ago, and wow….how depressing that area looks now. That McDonald’s seems bunker-like.

Although don’t bad mouth Wegman’s. Where I live in the Midwest now, there is NOTHING that compares for the quality and price of Wegman’s. It, and Mamasan’s on Monroe, are two things I miss dearly about Rochester.
Rich Rolwing says:

April 8, 2013 at 6:46 pm

Jim–8 years ago it was an uplifting urban idyll?Don’t mean to be snarky but I can’t work up much indignation at the “decline” of this intersection which is getting so much attention. There are just some areas where you have to drive through and turn the radio up louder or something. (Of course I don’t recommend closing your eyes, unless you’re walking maybe–).
zrc says:

April 10, 2013 at 12:00 pm

Has everyone noticed that the east ave Wegmans fortress wall now extends around the corner and even further west along University ave? Awesome!
David says:

April 10, 2013 at 12:41 pm

Jeebus, enough hating on the East Ave Wegmans.

1) How many of you trashing it will ever shop there, anyway?

2) That’s my Wegmans. I walk everywhere I can and let me tell you, there is nowhere – NOWHERE – to walk to or from that is impeded by that block of Winton Ave becoming marginally less friendly.

3) Would you rather all my neighbors and I had to pile into cars and drive to Irondequoit and Pittsford? From the p!ssing and moaning here about brick facades, it would seem so.

The utility and appeal of any supermarket is not on its exterior, unless you have your head so far up your butt that you think, oh, I don’t know, Trader Joe’s is a perfect place to shop.
Lucas says:

April 10, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Maybe we can get the Wall Therapy (or some other similar group) folks to do something about those “fortress walls.” I doubt Wegmans would be game.
David says:

April 10, 2013 at 1:05 pm

now THAT is an appealing idea.
Brian Burkhart says:

March 27, 2016 at 9:36 am

What has happened to our fine architecture in Rochester? If you take a drive down old East Avenue or the Third Ward, you will see what it used to look like. Now spend about 20 minutes and browse the old house parts store on South Avenue and you will see where it is now. So sad.

Topics

Fortified Rochester

About Joel Helfrich:

68 Responses to “Fortified Rochester”

Post a Comment...