Earlier this year, we told you about a proposal for a new apartment building at 759 Park Avenue. It is currently a parcel of land near the intersection of Park & Brunswick (near Culver Road) that is occupied by a parking lot. It is nestled between the Talmudic Institute at 759 Park and Somerton Plaza at 745 Park.
The original plan was for 48 units. And after the developers — John Baker, Steve Gullace and Chris Gullace — held their first meeting with neighbors to discuss the design, the big issues most had with the initial proposal was that it was too big (too dense/too many apartments), would create more parking issues and would disrupt traffic patterns (see our post from February for more details.) The positive feedback was that it would contribute to a more walkable neighborhood, bring more people to the local businesses there and that the developers did a good job on the initial design concept to pay attention to other materials used in the neighborhood.
Those opposed to the project in its original proposed form met with the developers in April and May to discuss compromises. According to the secretary of the Park Avenue Neighborhood Coalition, the developers “were very receptive and we had good two-way discussion with regard to density, lack of green space, parking, traffic congestion, and overall ‘fit’ in the neighborhood.” In response to that feedback, the developers have recently proposed a new plan — one that reduces the number of units from 48 to 36 (a 25% reduction). There would be an 18′ setback from the sidewalk (the original proposal was 9′). There would still be a parking garage under the building, which would have 36 spots. The exterior parking lot would have 55 spots.
The secretary of the Park Avenue Neighborhood Coalition is currently seeking neighborhood feedback regarding the latest proposal (no drawings are available, yet). And a popular discussion that has been revived in this feedback is the question about first floor retail — something we mentioned in our initial post, as did Matthew Denker in his RochesterSubway FillingIn series post about the proposal.
In their feedback, many in the neighborhood are pushing for first floor retail to be incorporated in the proposed development to round out the current stretch of storefronts and offer those in the neighborhood more restaurant, retail and amenity options (you know I’d love to see a corner store in the neighborhood, but I’ll let that one go for now).
When asked about first floor retail there in his post about the development, Matthew Denker was on the fence and came up with an interesting way to mix in it:
“Should things on Park Ave have retail frontage? Probably. But where does that end? It’s clear that the retail feel does not exist east of Culver. But I’d argue that it really doesn’t need to extend past the plaza at the corner or Park and Somerton. An alternate idea that I just spent a little time thinking about might be the addition of retail space fronting what is currently the parking lot for this plaza. With some reprogramming to the lot and the two retail spaces facing it, this could actually be a really happening mid-block spot. A little enclave off the Avenue. I think it would require too much coordination in the present state, but parts of the garage would be easily convertible to this rather novel purpose in the future.”
Supporters of first floor retail there are getting their facts together and polling neighbors and those who frequent the neighborhood about whether they think retail there is a good idea or not. And why. Those who support it say it would contribute to the walkability of the neighborhood, allow residents to rely on their cars less, provide more social opportunities for the community, increase property values and support the businesses in the neighborhood. Those who are opposed have concerns about parking and more traffic to the neighborhood.
In the meantime, I’m going to try to reach out to some people who know way more about urban planning than I do and find out what the pros and cons are.
What do you think about the proposed development at 759 Park Ave? And should it have first floor retail?
[Drawing of proposed development at 759 Park Ave courtesy of RochesterSubway. Please note that this was the initial proposal and does not reflect the current proposed reduction in density and setback.]
Written by: Renee
Tags: 759 park avenue, city of rochester, city of rochester apartments, urban development rochester, walkable neighborhoods rochester, walkability rochester, walkability rochester ny,
12 Comments
-
I totally agree. I think many in the neighborhood have been overly focused on the parking issue. While that is a valid concern, it is hardly the biggest issue facing our city. As you pointed out Mike, we have more parking lots in Rochester than we can shake a stick at… What we need is thoughtful, planned, smart development. Mixed-use seems to me the be the answer – according to most studies.
I vote for Retail on the first floor for 759 Park Ave.
-
Thanks for your thoughts, Mike! I am a big fan of mixed use (and I understand it isn’t appropriate in all circumstances), simply because it promotes walkability and a sense of community. And I don’t like getting into my car if I don’t have to. Hopefully we’ll get some thoughts from others who aren’t so keen on the idea; I’d like to understand why it isn’t in the general thinking with new development. My hunch is parking is a big part of the concern.
-
I’m not a developer but my guess would be financing. Banks are used to financing one type of development and they stick with what they know thinking it’s a safer bet. Unfortunately, what’s good for the banks isn’t always good for the ‘hood.
-
Wow. Color me amazed. I did not expect to be the voice of dissent on this one. Well, sort of anyway.
I am really opposed to the setback on this. Setting the building 18 feet from the street instead of 9 is an invite for the exact sort of misbehavior the residents don’t want to happen here (if you have to ask…). It’s unfortunate that they don’t get that. In any event, because of the setback, retail here becomes inappropriate at best, and a recipe for a vacant storefront at worst. Something tells me the locals would not be smitten with using that setback they just fought for as a restaurant patio, either.
I’d like to revisit the earlier idea I proposed, though. Now, maybe more than before when Park Ave. frontage would have been appropriate, the idea of tearing down this wall (http://goo.gl/maps/AizhQ) and building an interior public plaza seems even more appealing. Think about something like the courtyard areas at Corn Hill Landing. The businesses in Somerton Plaza already have rear exits to this area. All of a sudden you have, even with the parking lot, a very intimate interior space away from Park Ave. This also plays well to the multi-use nature of parking that Mike is getting at too. Just a thought.
-
I agree with everyone here. We live on Brunswick, and we very much support first-floor retail and storefronts that match the rest on the street. (I don’t know exact distances, but I’m guessing that Boulder Coffee and the Somerset building are closer to 9 feet than 18 feet.) Cities work best when there is LOTS of foot traffic. That’s when small businesses thrive, and that’s what draws so many of us to the neighborhood.
An 18-foot setback seems like a big mistake to me. The Wilson Farms plaza (near Berkeley) doesn’t work well on Park Avenue–precisely because it is set back farther from the sidewalk than the other businesses on the street. It doesn’t matter what fills the extra setback space–whether it’s a parking strip, a strip of lawn or bushes, or a fountain–any kind of setback deadens the space. What makes most of Park Avenue work so well are storefronts that come right to the sidewalk, forming “walls,” with the sidewalk and streets as urban “hallways.” The best urban districts invite people and traffic and business and, yes, noise.
I am concerned that the initial neighborhood response, as the blog states above, was driven largely by a group of people “opposed to the project.” It’s important that the rest of us speak up. Frankly, I’d support more units in the building and a 9-foot setback, as long as there’s sufficient parking behind (or under) the building for the tenants, and retail spaces lining the first-floor frontage.
-
I just want to go on record and say I also am not in favor of large setbacks, especially when grass or parking is between the street and the building. If there were a space filled with cafe tables that would be one thing. But otherwise, Gerald is right, it breaks the flow.
Gerald is also correct in saying it’s time for those in favor of good urbanism to stand up and be heard. So I want to make everyone aware of a forum coming up on this very issue. Development in Preservation Districts.
“The Landmark Society is partnering with the Park-Meigs Neighborhood Association to hold a public forum on the evening of Tuesday, May 21. Up for discussion: the timely and controversial topic of new development in preservation districts. A panel of speakers, representing developers, homeowners, business owners, urban planners, and The Landmark Society, will offer their perspective, followed by an open question and answer session. These are just some of the questions we’ll try to address: Can new development benefit preservation districts? How can the new co-exist with the old? What is ‘good’ development?”
May 21 | 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. | The Lutheran Church of the Incarnate Word, 597 East Ave. | Free and open to the public… http://landmarksociety.org/event/public-forum-development-in-preservation-districts/
-
Mike! Thank you for the excellent plug. I think this forum is going to be excellent (and not just because I might have a statement in it!). Getting a dialog going would be a solid first step, and I am hoping enough pro-development types show up and are able to have a good conversation with many of the less-pro-development types. I’m already sorry I can’t be there.
-
Yes, Mike! Thanks for the reminder. We were planning on posting about the forum next week (we linked to in a previous post) so it would go out in our recap. Let’s get some people there! We will circulate to the neighbors involved around Park Ave and the East Ave Historic District. Lots of projects to talk about to serve as real-world examples!
-
Hi All. This is not my neighborhood so I’m a little reluctant to put in my opinion. It’s just that you can’t have both green space and short setbacks. A large setback can be dedicated to trees, shrubs, flowers, pond, orchard, gardens, etc. The density of the past is not necessarily the best approach for the future. Also, walkability is improved by beauty. In Manhattan people people walk to browse storefronts but I think that has limited appeal in Rochester- especially the Park/East area. Think BEAUTY. You can never go wrong! Also, a mild caution- it was “convenience” that created the shopping mall. Consider foregoing more retail, especially if it is just based on a perception of making your individual life “easier.” Maybe walk that extra block or two and support the existing businesses. Remember, once a business space is created, you have a tiger by the tail. You’ll never be able to control its evolutions. Today’s coffee shop is tomorrows stinky hot dog diner.
-
Thanks for your input, Pete! I know how much you love this city, so your opinion matters. You are correct (and others have commented similarly) — you can’t have a setback and street storefronts. And I think that’s what the neighborhood is talking about right now: what’s more appropriate and will enhance the neighborhood — greenspace or more retail space. Matthew brought up an interesting idea that could be a compromise (the interior plaza idea). And I don’t think anyone was thinking a shopping mall. Just a few more spots for restaurants, etc (stinky hot dog diners included).
Keep the comments coming!
-
new here… but am wondering if any plans for HUGE CLEAN-UP of the Institute and surrounding grounds? The building and grounds are an eyesore….
-
Thanks for your comment, Marianne. Many of the neighbors have talked about past efforts to encourage the clean-up of that lot. The grounds are definitely unkempt. In fact, we taught one of our kids to ride a bike in that parking lot and there was lots of glass, trash and even an old mattress just hanging out. I don’t know of any recent efforts or how successful they have been.
Mixed use. That is what we should want for our neighborhoods. Whether that be residential with retail at street level, or residential with some office space. The key is that you have people there at night AND during the day. The parking spaces can then be shared between those occupants who are there at different times.
Ultimately the developer would be wise to ask the neighborhood what they would like to go in that space, and understand what the neighborhood might be able to support. Another hair and nail salon would not be my vote personally 😉
But mixed use all the way. It will pay off for the neighborhood in the long run.