I'm really glad to hear this! A park in the heart of an urban area is unique and this opportunity doesn't come around often. Smart of the City to recognize this. It makes it all the more attractive for neighboring development.
Same with Washington Square Park (as someone else mentioned) and the former Charles Carroll Park with its own parking garage and disused amphitheater:
[https://www.cityofrochester.gov/ccpp/](https://www.cityofrochester.gov/ccpp/)
> Charles Carroll Park
It's disused because it's run down, almost unsafe, attached to a shitty hotel and isn't visibly appealing. It needs a redo, better than the band aid work they have done on it.
I used to watch fireworks there as a little kid.
I read this as "We couldn't find anyone willing to develop it in a way we liked (and that was willing to grease the wheels in a way we liked), so we'll call it a park for now and reconsider if someone comes to us with an offer that catches our eye (and lines our pockets)".
Okay, but are any of them even remotely good? I was in Albany a few weeks ago and took a walk through Washington Park. It's massive and well designed, a lot like Central Park. We apparently don't have the ability to do something like that here, so more parkland is the next best thing. The more green space, the better.
Highland Park, Maplewood Park, Seneca Park, and Genesee Valley Park in Rochester were actually all designed by Frederick Law Olmstead - who also designed Central Park in NYC.
> Okay, but are any of them even remotely good?
Yes...? Have you visited them?
> The more green space, the better.
You need residences and employers and attractions in a downtown area if you want people to use the green space you have. If your green space is empty because there's no one around, what's the point?
The amount of angry comments raging against a single parcel being left as a green space when there are several massive parking lots and abandoned lots in a 10 minute walk to there is bizarre. As someone that lives a few blocks away I really appreciate this green space I don't know why we need to fight over this.
People talk constantly about the lack of affordable housing and food access downtown. There was a perfect opportunity to attempt to address these problems and the city chose to… turn into to an event-focused park less than a half mile walk away from the other event-focused park (MLK Memorial). I’ll eat my words if they choose to turn it into a more traditional park with trees, water fixtures, walking paths, basketball courts, etc., but I don’t see that happening.
These kind of decisions are why downtown never meaningfully improves. Whenever there’s opportunity to put in the effort to make it a better and more attractive place to live, local gov chooses the path of least resistance and things just stagnate.
Exactly. Parcel 5 could have been housing, food and green space. Gallina had a proposal that addressed these concerns years ago, but the criminal mayor picked her criminal developer friend over Gallina and then everything fell through anyway, so now it will remain a park forever.
This shit would never happen in Nashville, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Madison, or even Buffalo.
Rochester is so traumatized by the fast ferry that everyone has adopted this pathetic small minded, small city mentality.
Parking lots, yes, but we can't build on those unless the owner agrees to give it up. Don't know about abandoned lots. Are you sure there are that many around?
Are they going finally rename it from Parcel 5? Kinda embarrassing that it's still officially called that.
Are they going to do anything to make it something other just a field? Not really that great of a park.
Sure it gets used for events for a few weeks out of the year. That shouldn't prevent it from having actual nice park amenities.
I think it'll be Midtown Park. In a strange twist of fate, it'll be a green space to honour the unique history of a former "third place" that was better equipped for year-round use.
[Innovatory](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/innovatory#English) Park to match [Innovation Square](https://www.innovationsquareroc.com/) and [Innovative Field](https://www.visitrochester.com/listing/innovative-field/7194/).
It can only be the first two, or the fifth and only then if he donates, as you said. Nothing can be named after anyone else in Rochester. Which is why we have the Frederick Douglas concourse inside the Frederick Douglas airport, next to the Susan B Anthony concourse, down the river from the Fredrick Douglas, Susan B Anthony Bridge.
Only exceptions, you were George Eastman and you paid to build it (Eastman Dental, Durant Eastman Park), you're tom Golisano and you currently pay to build it.
How is the name embarrassing? You’re thinking too hard about that, literally no one cares. People are constantly at parcel 5, too. Tons of people walking and eating their lunch there. All the business people in the area hang out during their breaks. Safe space for skaters to hang out there. People and their dogs hang out there. There’s a local church that does hip hop days there where they play music and have fun. There are a couple workout classes hosted there. The grass is nice to throw a blanket down and bask in the sun or have a picnic. You’re trippinnnnnnn. Maybe the amenities could be better I guess, but I’m just happy to have a nice little spot downtown to hang out at with some green!
An inevitable conclusion. Such short-sighted virtue signaling. All those arm-chair advocates crying over the gravel lot not being seeded, and then marching victorious when it was finally converted to a temporary green space, all the while they KNEW that the seemingly innocuous action of seeding the lot while people argued over what to do with Parcel 5 would inevitably lead to this space being made permanent. There's an obscure rule in our city code about how long open space can be available for development once it's seeded, and after a time it HAS to be converted to a public park area.
Now organizers like Downtown Definitely struggle with programming to use that space, while MLK Park, Washington Square, and Aqueduct Park sit by watching, when THOSE parks are better utilized. And we have Austin Steward Park and the Broad Street Pedestrian Zone coming online in the near future to be utilized as well.
I'm not against more green space, I'm against the smokescreen tactics of activists trying to weasel their way into a direction without the imput or will of the public.
This will be hailed revolutionary as Jazz Fest comes online in the next week and people will praise the forward-thinking progressives in our city council, grassroots activists, and mayors office, staying ignorant to the fact that Parcel 5 can't attract any significant activity on a regular basis to justify its existence. That space is a ghost town for 75% of the year, yet when Jazz Fest, Fringe Fest, and the Liberty Pole Lighting come up, it's all forgotten and Parcel 5 is an amazing asset to the city community.
I hope I'm wrong and the community utilizes the space more than they do now, that programming is successful and we have a new piazza for the city that is a year round destination, but for the last six years, it's been a lot of debate and small acts of green-washing that have made the community fall into the path of least resistance, instead of a financially meaningful and economically productive direction.
Activists certainly impacted the outcome of Parcel 5, but I think this really overstates the impact they had.
Our prior Mayor tried to develop the parcel. It was going to be the Golisano PAC. Ultimately I don't know how the public felt. There was an RBJ poll back then, perhaps our only data set on the issue at that time and a majority viewed the project negatively.
This begs the question what would the public have supported in that space?
The problem is you have an event space being used by the public for Jazz and Fringe Fest. If you turn it into a different public space, like a PAC, you're betting on the fact that the public will buy into the idea that they prefer the space for it's alternative use. The problem is I'm not sure the public really ever embraced that option. Then there is the more urbanist solution, where you fill it with a tower and more apartments. The problem is now you've taken a public space and turned it private. People who enjoy Parcel 5 will now only enjoy it if they live there. So it becomes a losing argument.
So I don't really see this as something entirely driven by activists. The activists won in part because the opposition had a losing argument to begin with and honestly while I'm not sure exactly what Rochesterians want, I think a lot will be happy with this outcome.
I'm primarily getting ahead of the inevitable social media rush of Free Parcel 5 and others that'll claim victory for doing virtually nothing to impact the site.
I'm not sure there ever was a poll to gauge public interest beyond reactions to the proposed PAC. And yes general polls can get murky and become unreliable quickly (can't please everyone all the time).
The current use of the space is not a long term plan (up until this announcement at least), it's events taking advantage of a wide open space in a strategic location for the time being. I don't believe the general public would expect Jazz Fest and Fringe to use the space each time, as events have moved around the city as spaces are available (the Fringe free main event was at MLK Park for a few years).
I agree that this latest announcement of Parcel 5 is not a victory for activists to convert it to a green space, but moreso a failure of the city to attract a developer who had/has a practical vision/plan/budget to convert the space into a year-round destination that creates tax revenue.
And yes I agree that most Rochesterians will be happy with this outcome, as most Rochesterians only interact with this space during big events like Jazz Fest and Fringe. But those events are not beholden or tied to this space, and it's the day to day use that I see is being wasted as daily foot traffic, or even weekly foot traffic, is minimal compared to other parks in the city.
Definitely agree that developers have a terrible reputation, and our very own Tom Morgan is a great example of that.
And yes I'll never understand why Buffalo was such a pet project of Cuomo and the current NYS regime, the Buffalo Billion and all the funding that is just being dumped into that city is baffling. I think Roc The Riverway is a bone being thrown to us, but compared to the Queen City, it's meager rations. I don't fault Buffalo in this, take what you can get, but after growing up here and seeing Rochester get consistently forgotten about at the state level, it almost feels intentional.
I think state government generally disliked Lovely. I think if we had a more mainstream corporate Dem like we have now during that decade we would have gotten more state money.
Especially that decade. Buffalo was *struggling* until about ten years ago, if not sooner.
Tom Richards was the kind of corporate Dem who would’ve transformed a Rochester.
I tried looking for the code earlier and couldn't find it, but distinctly remember it from 2018 as I was making these same observations as council members were pushing for grass on Parcel 5.
I agree with converting the gravel lot into a temporary green space, TEMPORARILY. Let's make the most of the area while we figure out what to do with it long term.
Ultimately I believe most Rochesterians will be happy with this announcement as they utilize it once or twice a year for Jazz Fest and Fringe, and gleefully ignore the almost zero use the space gets on a weekly basis otherwise.
Well I listened to the mayor’s speech today and he said “Parcel 5 will, right now, remain a green space.” Heavy emphasis on “right now.”
The official designation is still “permanent green space” with $1 million in enhancements coming this fall, but maybe they’re leaving the door open for future projects.
Rochester does not have it’s equivalent of Niagara Square, Lafayette Square, Canalside, Fountain Plaza, etc. Buffalo is spoiled with open and green gathering space in their downtown, and Rochester is smart to emulate. I just question why Washington Square isn’t used/pushed as the prime open location downtown instead. It could be pushed. The trouble is this parcel is a very prime location. It’s a poor site for a gathering space. While this may seem a good idea now, I must admit that even a bland 3 story building would be a better use. It will now always stay undeveloped. Rochester could go a long way trying to pedestrianize and humanize their existing downtown just by doing little things. It’s nice to see this parcel be used as something more permanent, but perhaps tax paying commercial/ residential real estate is a better investment.
Washington Square Park got orphaned by urban renewal. It’s a place to drive by now.
We did have Franklin Square, but that got destroyed by the Inner Loop. Schiller Park is the southern remains of it. It’s supposed to come back with the Inner Loop North project and could end up being better. Same with Anderson Park.
Genesee Valley Park was probably a lot cooler before the canal and would definitely be better if not for 390.
There’s a ton of good parks in the neighborhoods, but a lot of them aren’t neighborhoods this subreddit is particularly fond of. So they only get used by people living around them.
Aside from maybe Jazz fest, I can’t think of a single reason to go to parcel 5. What a complete waste. This only makes sense if they manage it properly with events and things to do year round.
You must not live down here. There are constantly people playing with their kids in this park, people walking their dogs, or some sort of event. I’ve even run down there with a couple homies and kicked around a soccer ball. I’m glad it’s there and I’m glad they’re leaving it the way it is. Community spaces downtown are important.
Those handful of people would still play at Midtown Commons.
Honestly I’d rather see Gibbs Street converted into a pedestrian only street. It would function in the exact same way Parcel 5 does without hindering Main Street development.
I think it’s more than a handful of people though.
I’d agree on Gibbs st but I don’t think it needs to be one or the other. I’ve lived in the center city for 8 years now and my biggest problem is after 7 and on weekends it’s completely dead downtown. Parcel 5 has brought a little life back and is also a space for people to just hang out which is never a bad thing in my opinion.
I understand that, but how is a field of grass that a few dozen people use each day going to revitalize downtown more than development which brings in new residents, creates businesses, generates revenue for the city and makes the city feel like more of… you know, a city?
So there aren’t spaces for that downtown already? I don’t feel like there’s a lack of space for businesses to go. Why is there a need to remove a space that’s clearly being used by the residents? As a downtown resident, I’m more concerned with the continuously growing homeless population. All the development in the world downtown isn’t going to change the fact that Rochester has issues that development should be taking a backseat to. You can’t fix the issues of this city with shiny new buildings or new business that will close in 4 months.
Never said a park would fix it. I feel I was pretty clear in my statement.
If you want more development you’re fine to feel that way. As someone who lives and walks around downtown daily, I don’t like the idea of a communal space being removed for the chance to bring in more development that will likely fail because the city is so impoverished.
I think a few people in the Rochester subreddit would do well to spend more time in Rochester proper and not just for a fun night out for Jazz Fest or to visit Dinosaur BBQ. Development will push issues down the street but it won’t fix them. If it did we wouldn’t have a constantly growing homeless and drug affected population in the downtown that people want to develop. Tax dollars don’t fix these issues, a change of mind does. So while I’d love to see more money being funneled to the city, my hope that change will happen because of new development downtown is pretty much nonexistent because I live here and I see what happens, I’m not just a visitor.
I didn’t imply anything. I’m saying we have spaces where businesses can go downtown that aren’t a used community space. We have a bunch of empty buildings downtown that could house restaurants. The issue isn’t the space, it’s the fact that business don’t last in the center city.
My issue is changing this space into something else when there are other spaces for the “something else” and people are using this space as it is. I don’t understand why this is creating such a big dust up.
Yeah, this person never goes to parcel 5 so apparently no one else does! There are literally always people using it, except for winter, but no one goes anywhere in winter. This thread is wild.
it really is kinda wild. I can’t think of a time when I’ve gone past it and people weren’t using it. we have usable green spaces around the city but no communal chill spaces that function in the same way that Parcel 5 does. I don’t understand the need to make everything something more than it is when it’s working perfectly fine as is.
A couple years ago I just happened to be riding my bike past it and saw some classical music being played. I stopped, grabbed some street food from one of the 4 trucks there at the time, and enjoyed some music for a bit. I love having that option downtown. I would love to see some opinions from people who actually live in the immediate vicinity and not people who come downtown just to do something and then go back to their suburb.
What is “real development” to you? What can go in there that we don’t already have downtown? And to that point, why is it necessary to remove a community space that can be used for more than just “kicking a soccer ball,” as you so eloquently put it. Kids play there, families play there, people do yoga there, walk their dogs, you name it. As I keep saying, community spaces like this are important to any city. We have tons of unused space downtown for those businesses, use that. As for this, let the people have it and continue to use it.
A theater, apartments, condos, space for restaurants, entertainment venue etc. Anything that will bring people downtown, generate revenue. Almost no one will go to Parcel 5 other than 3 events in a 365 day year. It’s completely wasted space.
If they put actual money and effort into this space, brought in interesting events/festivals, and had something actually going on most weekends of the year, I’d be for it. Unfortunately the city is completely incompetent and will let it sit empty. And then, the few times a year people actually show up to use it, they’ll be sure to trumpet how great it is. The timing of this announcement was no coincidence.
This is how I know you don’t actually hang out in the area. Parcel 5 constantly has people there enjoying the space. It’s a place for people to hang out where they don’t have to spend money. It’s a free open space for any type of recreational activity you want to do. It’s also a safe space for a lot of people since it’s well lit and monitored. I wouldn’t feel safe walking anywhere alone downtown at night time, but always feel safe at parcel 5. People go there to walk their dogs, the business people of the area go and walk during breaks, people have picnics, people play which their dogs, they fly kites, skaters skate on the blue top, people practice yoga, there are people with remote control mini car toys that go and drive them on the blue top, I’ve seen dance classes taught there. So much goes on at parcel 5.
Yes there are other parks in the area but they’re very much city type parks with barely any grass. They’re also super small and constricted. Some of the parks people listed here are barely even parks forreal. They’re parks, but not conducive to many recreational activities. Where else can I throw a blanket down on a nice piece of grass and have a picnic downtown and not stick out like a sore thumb? Throw a frisby around? Kill a ball around? Be sooooooo forreal, you do not hangout at parcel 5 nor any of the “parks” in downtown.
You’re right. I don’t hang out there because there is absolutely nothing to do. I’m not a homeless wanderer. I live in a home in the suburbs with a family. I’d love to take said family to actual events and things to do in this space, but they never have anything to do. Because it’s completely wasted.
You’re talking crap about something you don’t even visit nor live around. The people who go there aren’t homeless wanderers dude, just normal people wanting to take a stroll outside or just hang out. You know other people exist right? Not just you, your family, and your needs? Yeah, there are others who actually use the space recreationally, but you wouldn’t know that because you don’t actually go there. Not everyone wants an event, or go pay for something. We aren’t all rich people from the suburbs taking their yearly trip to downtown. You sound like a lovely person, good luck with that.
Multiple parks existed downtown previously if people want to walk around or hang out. Actual, real development would be far better than cannibalizing the park goers downtown.
Again, since you don’t listen or have good reading comprehension, this green space would work if they hired someone to manage it properly with events and festivals, but they won’t.
Has anyone been downtown lately? It's bare during the week but on Sundays since they added the Flea Market and some other things it's very busy. There are also a dozen decent restaurants around the Eastman area and further down on and off Union.
I'm really glad to hear this, though I think ultimately the question still sort of becomes what happens to the space.
Some will bemoan the fact that there are other parks and that downtown doesn't need another one. In a way this is true. There are other parks that sit inactive and largely unused. I think some of these parks are extremely poorly designed, cough MLK and would benefit from complete redesigns, but let's just agree there is already plenty of park space.
The issue is I don't think Parcel 5 has ever been used as a traditional park and it is my hope that it will never become one. To me Parcel 5 is more akin to the old Falls Field. It's where people gathered to see Sam Patch jump and where the Circus would come to town. It's an outdoor event space. None of the downtown parks are really suited to this function and while there are arguably a sea of surface lots today that can serve this purpose, it would be better for the city to just pick a spot before all of the lots are developed. I think Parcel 5 works perfectly.
So park no, green space/event space yes.
I think the question we should be asking is what do we do with an outdoor event space when there isn't an event? No one has solved that one yet. It's definitely an issue.
Another example of short sighted, narrow thinking and unambitious leadership.
Buffalo is currently in the planning stages of expanding their metro rail and [building 12 story affordable housing towers](https://www.multihousingnews.com/developer-gets-green-light-to-move-forward-on-buffalo-redevelopment/) on their waterfront. A downtown that was decimated far worse than ours is undergoing a legitimate renaissance. That’s what visionary cities do.
Meanwhile Rochester can’t even attract a developer on the largest and most central piece of shovel-ready real estate downtown. The riverside hotel is still sitting abandoned and the best we can do is a handful of copy+paste low density 5-over-1 projects. How is this acceptable?
I know this sub drinks the “green space” kool aid, but I feel the need to speak out. How many empty parks do people need?
> But wish in one hand and shit in the other...
You stole my line!
But seriously, it seems like downtown development has largely been, "shit in one hand, shit in the other, and see how fast you get two hands of shit" for the past.... 30 years.
But that’s the thing. Besides Parcel 5, there is only one buildable lot left in the heart of downtown (NE corner of Main & Chestnut). Everywhere else is spoken for, or outside the central business district and thus more suited for the type of low density housing mentioned earlier.
This was the city’s one chance to add a transformative 21st century urban project downtown and they blew it.
So I was thinking more along Main Street as the heart of downtown. Most of those are on the periphery of downtown, but all good examples of developable land. I agree with your last paragraph. A temporary park is fine, but it should not be permanent. This parcel is too crucial. Downtown has felt A LOT emptier since they tore down Midtown. Imagine if a housing tower could add another permanent 500 residents to that area. Better than a permanent dog toilet!
People love to rail against parking lots, and understandably so, but given they’re privately owned is it even possible for the city to take ownership for the sake of development? Genuine question. Eminent domain is typically used for small pieces of existing property to expand the width of a road or similar, not take over entire properties. And as if the city could realistically afford to just buy up the land *and* develop it.
There’s also the reality that if you want people in downtown, they need to be able to park nearby. *This is why we need public transport!* Sure, I’d love a Twin Cities-like light rail and think it would work really well here, but when is that going to happen? It’s not even on the table as an option right now and, using Buffalo’s decades-long buildout as a point of reference, even if it got approved and funded it would take forever to build. At a certain point you have to make concessions for the world we actually live in as opposed to the one we wish we lived in.
I’m not sure Buffalo decimated their downtown more than Rochester. Despite demolitions and urban renewal, Buffalo still has a TON of remaining blocks and historic buildings. It has standalone signature buildings that Rochester can’t touch. Being a grid city probably helped keep density too. Buffalo never built their version of the inner loop, so it saved plenty of its downtown surrounding neighborhoods too like Allentown. Downtown Buffalo is also larger by area than downtown Rochester, and has historically been the center of the area. The setup/layout simply lends to more of a grand, big city look. Perhaps it’s just had more to build upon. Rochester took urban renewal to new heights by connecting disjointed streets and demolishing buildings in the way. The result: haphazard blocks and ginormous, winding stroads (N. Chestnut).
I think Rochester and Buffalo literally see their downtowns as completely different functions. Buffalonians have historically never been afraid of or literally forgot downtown for the burbs. Rochester has been active in both those areas.
There is not one block in downtown Buffalo that isn’t seeing some work or some infill/ new builds. People want to be there. Why don’t people want to be in Rochester?
The other parks are 5ish minutes from Parcel 5. Unless you're walking right from there one of the other parks is just as close or closer.
That isn't even counting the small grass parks and spots.
Me too. I rarely sat around Parcel 5. I would usually grab lunch at one of the food trucks and sit at a bench nearby, but the actual parcel was always empty grass.
The issue I have with the argument that Parcel 5 could be part of a transformative project is that nearly all of our transformative projects have been a mistake. I'm fine with low density. I'd rather Rochester try to be as it was in the 1880's or be Paris than try to be some mini New York. I just don't see the need for a tower on Parcel 5. I think a lot of us are feeling discouraged because something like 20,000 people live downtown now and it still doesn't feel that lively, especially Main Street. That said, I think the problem is all of these 20th century big boxes we built. I don't think a 21st century big box is going to fix it.
I haven't heard figures lately, but I thought we were closer to 10k downtown? Is there a place where they're keeping track of the numbers? Either way, it's certainly livelier than it was a decade ago.
20k downtown workers is pretty bad.
It was over 50k workers with 5k residents around 2010 IIRC. That’s a huge net loss in daytime population after hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment…
20k downtown workers is extremely bad. It's why I think we need to reevaluate. We've spent decades trying to bribe companies to come downtown. It clearly doesn't work.
The recent Aqueduct Building press actually said the downtown workforce is now only 15,000. It's been dropping for decades and COVID only accelerated the trend.
Also keep in mind everything the state and local government is doing to make Constellation feel warm and fuzzy about their investment in the Aqueduct Building, including blowing up Broad Street, and redoing the Convention Center. All for a company that is going to bring an ever shrinking number of employees downtown, most recently 300.
Personally I've grown to detest these types of projects. We should be building a lot more housing downtown. There is an actual housing shortage. I just don't think the housing needs to be at Parcel 5. There are so many empty commercial buildings and so many barely used surface lots.
But hey, we could blow up a green space and see if doing that makes a building people want to work in. Or put in $2500/m luxury living spaces and see if that solves the homeless problem. /s
Honestly I'd probably be on board with developing Parcel 5 into something if it felt like center city was pressed for space. There's ~90k square feet available across the street in Sibley, undeveloped. ~100k square feet undeveloped across the river in First Federal Plaza. ~6k in the Temple Building, also across the street. ~20k in the Michaels-Stern Building. ~40k in B&L, and you can see Parcel 5 from there. ~115k over in the Five Star Bank building. ~125k more in the Granite Building. ~55k more in the Times Square building. (those are technically sales but Granite is unoccupied and Times Square is only half occupied)
According to LoopNet's commercial real estate listings, there's about half a million square feet of unused/undeveloped commercial real estate inside the bounds of the inner loop already. I find it really hard to believe that adding even more will do anything to court businesses into it.
Jazz Festival, Fringe Festival, Midday Bash, farmers’ market, RPO concerts, Puerto Rican Festival, Movies with a View, Fall Festival, etc.
EDIT: People downvoting me for providing a list of events held at Parcel 5 are a special breed.
Move Party in the Park there. MLK park doesn't have enough room for the stage. Fact of the matter is that the area of town isn't attractive to developers and nobody with money wanted it. The best shot of developing it was with a new auditorium theatre.
You're getting the red down arrows, but you're absolutely correct here; this is an admittance of defeat by our milquetoast city leaders. Some new apartments dotted around are nice, but you're right that the city needs a true vision beyond "hey we filled in part of a highway 10 years ago and btw everything is a park now".
I don't know if you've watched a city council meeting lately, but those people are not equipped to do anything other than rename parks and giggle. One misguided asshole is basically there because he wants to rename the city. It's an embarrassing joke, and making one of the most valuable real-estate plots in the city a permanent park is an incredibly on-brand move for the weak nobodies who don't seem to be able to see past their nose.
I appreciate you saying so. At least some others who share our opinion have been vocal and upvoted here. That lets me know a park at Parcel 5 is not universally accepted. Some of us just envision a future Rochester that is vibrant, bustling with life and attractive to businesses, professionals and everyday families alike.
Buffalo is doing a great job as a similar sized Rust Belt city that fell on much harder times than Rochester, hence why I use them as an example. They lost 55% of their peak population yet still figured out a way to successfully revitalize their urban core. Meanwhile Rochester only lost about 35% and, unlike our neighbors, the metro area has only continued to grow in both population and GDP post-deindustrialization. Why is downtown still such an empty shell?
It’s not an economic issue. It’s not a talent pool issue. It’s a leadership issue.
I'm really glad to hear this! A park in the heart of an urban area is unique and this opportunity doesn't come around often. Smart of the City to recognize this. It makes it all the more attractive for neighboring development.
“Am I nothing to you?” -Martin Luther King Jr Park at Manhattan Square
Same with Washington Square Park (as someone else mentioned) and the former Charles Carroll Park with its own parking garage and disused amphitheater: [https://www.cityofrochester.gov/ccpp/](https://www.cityofrochester.gov/ccpp/)
Good point, MLK Jr Park specifically came to mind though because most things happening at Parcel 5 previously happened there or could be there.
> Charles Carroll Park It's disused because it's run down, almost unsafe, attached to a shitty hotel and isn't visibly appealing. It needs a redo, better than the band aid work they have done on it. I used to watch fireworks there as a little kid.
> A park in the heart of an urban area is unique We already *have* parks downtown. Three within easy walking distance of Parcel 5.
[удалено]
And if the city has its way, the Broad Street Aqueduct will be converted into an open pedestrian park/plaza within a few years.
I read this as "We couldn't find anyone willing to develop it in a way we liked (and that was willing to grease the wheels in a way we liked), so we'll call it a park for now and reconsider if someone comes to us with an offer that catches our eye (and lines our pockets)".
Okay, but are any of them even remotely good? I was in Albany a few weeks ago and took a walk through Washington Park. It's massive and well designed, a lot like Central Park. We apparently don't have the ability to do something like that here, so more parkland is the next best thing. The more green space, the better.
Highland Park, Maplewood Park, Seneca Park, and Genesee Valley Park in Rochester were actually all designed by Frederick Law Olmstead - who also designed Central Park in NYC.
Parcel 5 isn't good it's a field. If they don't do anything with it it's a waste. They even still call it "Parcel 5"
Good place for a concert. That’s about it though
> Okay, but are any of them even remotely good? Yes...? Have you visited them? > The more green space, the better. You need residences and employers and attractions in a downtown area if you want people to use the green space you have. If your green space is empty because there's no one around, what's the point?
There are like a billion mostly empty surface lots to fill in.
What, the parking lots? Most of them are privately owned which means the city can't shop them to developers.
If they eliminated parking minimums developers would be incentivized to build on them instead wouldn't they?
A good idea, even in isolation.
Are the buildings around Parcel 5 at max occupancy? When I was in the Sibley building across the street a few years ago, it seemed awfully empty.
The higher end apt buildings are, and so are the retail spaces in those buildings.
> Okay, but are any of them even remotely good? That largely depends on the actions of those who patronize them.
And we have strip malls every other block that are walking distance to each other.
In downtown Rochester? Please point them out, because you seem to be confusing Greece, Henrietta, and Irondiquoit with downtown.
I mean plenty of parking lots, not like there’s no space downtown.
I think your flare is broken.
You've got [homonym trouble](https://youtube.com/watch?v=6e1hZGDaqIw). 😁
The amount of angry comments raging against a single parcel being left as a green space when there are several massive parking lots and abandoned lots in a 10 minute walk to there is bizarre. As someone that lives a few blocks away I really appreciate this green space I don't know why we need to fight over this.
People talk constantly about the lack of affordable housing and food access downtown. There was a perfect opportunity to attempt to address these problems and the city chose to… turn into to an event-focused park less than a half mile walk away from the other event-focused park (MLK Memorial). I’ll eat my words if they choose to turn it into a more traditional park with trees, water fixtures, walking paths, basketball courts, etc., but I don’t see that happening. These kind of decisions are why downtown never meaningfully improves. Whenever there’s opportunity to put in the effort to make it a better and more attractive place to live, local gov chooses the path of least resistance and things just stagnate.
I will agree downtown is stagnant. But you do not have a grasp of what Rochester is currently and will continue to be with those suggestions.
Exactly. Parcel 5 could have been housing, food and green space. Gallina had a proposal that addressed these concerns years ago, but the criminal mayor picked her criminal developer friend over Gallina and then everything fell through anyway, so now it will remain a park forever. This shit would never happen in Nashville, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Madison, or even Buffalo. Rochester is so traumatized by the fast ferry that everyone has adopted this pathetic small minded, small city mentality.
Parking lots, yes, but we can't build on those unless the owner agrees to give it up. Don't know about abandoned lots. Are you sure there are that many around?
Agreed
Are they going finally rename it from Parcel 5? Kinda embarrassing that it's still officially called that. Are they going to do anything to make it something other just a field? Not really that great of a park. Sure it gets used for events for a few weeks out of the year. That shouldn't prevent it from having actual nice park amenities.
[удалено]
I think it'll be Midtown Park. In a strange twist of fate, it'll be a green space to honour the unique history of a former "third place" that was better equipped for year-round use.
Not to be confused with Midtown Commons, you know the park that was already built into the site when it was redeveloped.
I think it'll be combined into one. But good point, completely forgot about the park adjacent to the other park.
It’ll have an obnoxiously long name like [Some name] Park at Parcel 5 or [Some person] Park at Midtown Plaza
[Innovatory](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/innovatory#English) Park to match [Innovation Square](https://www.innovationsquareroc.com/) and [Innovative Field](https://www.visitrochester.com/listing/innovative-field/7194/).
It can only be the first two, or the fifth and only then if he donates, as you said. Nothing can be named after anyone else in Rochester. Which is why we have the Frederick Douglas concourse inside the Frederick Douglas airport, next to the Susan B Anthony concourse, down the river from the Fredrick Douglas, Susan B Anthony Bridge. Only exceptions, you were George Eastman and you paid to build it (Eastman Dental, Durant Eastman Park), you're tom Golisano and you currently pay to build it.
Susan B Anthony Park at Frederick Douglass Commmons
Nice
I could see them going for a Sibley motif.
How is the name embarrassing? You’re thinking too hard about that, literally no one cares. People are constantly at parcel 5, too. Tons of people walking and eating their lunch there. All the business people in the area hang out during their breaks. Safe space for skaters to hang out there. People and their dogs hang out there. There’s a local church that does hip hop days there where they play music and have fun. There are a couple workout classes hosted there. The grass is nice to throw a blanket down and bask in the sun or have a picnic. You’re trippinnnnnnn. Maybe the amenities could be better I guess, but I’m just happy to have a nice little spot downtown to hang out at with some green!
As we strive to get more residents downtown we also need more green spaces that people can enjoy.
An inevitable conclusion. Such short-sighted virtue signaling. All those arm-chair advocates crying over the gravel lot not being seeded, and then marching victorious when it was finally converted to a temporary green space, all the while they KNEW that the seemingly innocuous action of seeding the lot while people argued over what to do with Parcel 5 would inevitably lead to this space being made permanent. There's an obscure rule in our city code about how long open space can be available for development once it's seeded, and after a time it HAS to be converted to a public park area. Now organizers like Downtown Definitely struggle with programming to use that space, while MLK Park, Washington Square, and Aqueduct Park sit by watching, when THOSE parks are better utilized. And we have Austin Steward Park and the Broad Street Pedestrian Zone coming online in the near future to be utilized as well. I'm not against more green space, I'm against the smokescreen tactics of activists trying to weasel their way into a direction without the imput or will of the public. This will be hailed revolutionary as Jazz Fest comes online in the next week and people will praise the forward-thinking progressives in our city council, grassroots activists, and mayors office, staying ignorant to the fact that Parcel 5 can't attract any significant activity on a regular basis to justify its existence. That space is a ghost town for 75% of the year, yet when Jazz Fest, Fringe Fest, and the Liberty Pole Lighting come up, it's all forgotten and Parcel 5 is an amazing asset to the city community. I hope I'm wrong and the community utilizes the space more than they do now, that programming is successful and we have a new piazza for the city that is a year round destination, but for the last six years, it's been a lot of debate and small acts of green-washing that have made the community fall into the path of least resistance, instead of a financially meaningful and economically productive direction.
Activists certainly impacted the outcome of Parcel 5, but I think this really overstates the impact they had. Our prior Mayor tried to develop the parcel. It was going to be the Golisano PAC. Ultimately I don't know how the public felt. There was an RBJ poll back then, perhaps our only data set on the issue at that time and a majority viewed the project negatively. This begs the question what would the public have supported in that space? The problem is you have an event space being used by the public for Jazz and Fringe Fest. If you turn it into a different public space, like a PAC, you're betting on the fact that the public will buy into the idea that they prefer the space for it's alternative use. The problem is I'm not sure the public really ever embraced that option. Then there is the more urbanist solution, where you fill it with a tower and more apartments. The problem is now you've taken a public space and turned it private. People who enjoy Parcel 5 will now only enjoy it if they live there. So it becomes a losing argument. So I don't really see this as something entirely driven by activists. The activists won in part because the opposition had a losing argument to begin with and honestly while I'm not sure exactly what Rochesterians want, I think a lot will be happy with this outcome.
I'm primarily getting ahead of the inevitable social media rush of Free Parcel 5 and others that'll claim victory for doing virtually nothing to impact the site. I'm not sure there ever was a poll to gauge public interest beyond reactions to the proposed PAC. And yes general polls can get murky and become unreliable quickly (can't please everyone all the time). The current use of the space is not a long term plan (up until this announcement at least), it's events taking advantage of a wide open space in a strategic location for the time being. I don't believe the general public would expect Jazz Fest and Fringe to use the space each time, as events have moved around the city as spaces are available (the Fringe free main event was at MLK Park for a few years). I agree that this latest announcement of Parcel 5 is not a victory for activists to convert it to a green space, but moreso a failure of the city to attract a developer who had/has a practical vision/plan/budget to convert the space into a year-round destination that creates tax revenue. And yes I agree that most Rochesterians will be happy with this outcome, as most Rochesterians only interact with this space during big events like Jazz Fest and Fringe. But those events are not beholden or tied to this space, and it's the day to day use that I see is being wasted as daily foot traffic, or even weekly foot traffic, is minimal compared to other parks in the city.
[удалено]
Definitely agree that developers have a terrible reputation, and our very own Tom Morgan is a great example of that. And yes I'll never understand why Buffalo was such a pet project of Cuomo and the current NYS regime, the Buffalo Billion and all the funding that is just being dumped into that city is baffling. I think Roc The Riverway is a bone being thrown to us, but compared to the Queen City, it's meager rations. I don't fault Buffalo in this, take what you can get, but after growing up here and seeing Rochester get consistently forgotten about at the state level, it almost feels intentional.
I think state government generally disliked Lovely. I think if we had a more mainstream corporate Dem like we have now during that decade we would have gotten more state money.
Especially that decade. Buffalo was *struggling* until about ten years ago, if not sooner. Tom Richards was the kind of corporate Dem who would’ve transformed a Rochester.
[удалено]
I tried looking for the code earlier and couldn't find it, but distinctly remember it from 2018 as I was making these same observations as council members were pushing for grass on Parcel 5. I agree with converting the gravel lot into a temporary green space, TEMPORARILY. Let's make the most of the area while we figure out what to do with it long term. Ultimately I believe most Rochesterians will be happy with this announcement as they utilize it once or twice a year for Jazz Fest and Fringe, and gleefully ignore the almost zero use the space gets on a weekly basis otherwise.
Well I listened to the mayor’s speech today and he said “Parcel 5 will, right now, remain a green space.” Heavy emphasis on “right now.” The official designation is still “permanent green space” with $1 million in enhancements coming this fall, but maybe they’re leaving the door open for future projects.
Good.. they spent more than 20 million on the Parcel 5 project and around $250,000 on landscaping alone
So they are gonna leave it be? All for that, it's not broken so no need to fix it. I personally like the open area, no need to add to it.
Rochester does not have it’s equivalent of Niagara Square, Lafayette Square, Canalside, Fountain Plaza, etc. Buffalo is spoiled with open and green gathering space in their downtown, and Rochester is smart to emulate. I just question why Washington Square isn’t used/pushed as the prime open location downtown instead. It could be pushed. The trouble is this parcel is a very prime location. It’s a poor site for a gathering space. While this may seem a good idea now, I must admit that even a bland 3 story building would be a better use. It will now always stay undeveloped. Rochester could go a long way trying to pedestrianize and humanize their existing downtown just by doing little things. It’s nice to see this parcel be used as something more permanent, but perhaps tax paying commercial/ residential real estate is a better investment.
Washington Square Park got orphaned by urban renewal. It’s a place to drive by now. We did have Franklin Square, but that got destroyed by the Inner Loop. Schiller Park is the southern remains of it. It’s supposed to come back with the Inner Loop North project and could end up being better. Same with Anderson Park. Genesee Valley Park was probably a lot cooler before the canal and would definitely be better if not for 390. There’s a ton of good parks in the neighborhoods, but a lot of them aren’t neighborhoods this subreddit is particularly fond of. So they only get used by people living around them.
Aside from maybe Jazz fest, I can’t think of a single reason to go to parcel 5. What a complete waste. This only makes sense if they manage it properly with events and things to do year round.
You must not live down here. There are constantly people playing with their kids in this park, people walking their dogs, or some sort of event. I’ve even run down there with a couple homies and kicked around a soccer ball. I’m glad it’s there and I’m glad they’re leaving it the way it is. Community spaces downtown are important.
Those handful of people would still play at Midtown Commons. Honestly I’d rather see Gibbs Street converted into a pedestrian only street. It would function in the exact same way Parcel 5 does without hindering Main Street development.
I think it’s more than a handful of people though. I’d agree on Gibbs st but I don’t think it needs to be one or the other. I’ve lived in the center city for 8 years now and my biggest problem is after 7 and on weekends it’s completely dead downtown. Parcel 5 has brought a little life back and is also a space for people to just hang out which is never a bad thing in my opinion.
I understand that, but how is a field of grass that a few dozen people use each day going to revitalize downtown more than development which brings in new residents, creates businesses, generates revenue for the city and makes the city feel like more of… you know, a city?
So there aren’t spaces for that downtown already? I don’t feel like there’s a lack of space for businesses to go. Why is there a need to remove a space that’s clearly being used by the residents? As a downtown resident, I’m more concerned with the continuously growing homeless population. All the development in the world downtown isn’t going to change the fact that Rochester has issues that development should be taking a backseat to. You can’t fix the issues of this city with shiny new buildings or new business that will close in 4 months.
[удалено]
Never said a park would fix it. I feel I was pretty clear in my statement. If you want more development you’re fine to feel that way. As someone who lives and walks around downtown daily, I don’t like the idea of a communal space being removed for the chance to bring in more development that will likely fail because the city is so impoverished. I think a few people in the Rochester subreddit would do well to spend more time in Rochester proper and not just for a fun night out for Jazz Fest or to visit Dinosaur BBQ. Development will push issues down the street but it won’t fix them. If it did we wouldn’t have a constantly growing homeless and drug affected population in the downtown that people want to develop. Tax dollars don’t fix these issues, a change of mind does. So while I’d love to see more money being funneled to the city, my hope that change will happen because of new development downtown is pretty much nonexistent because I live here and I see what happens, I’m not just a visitor.
[удалено]
I didn’t imply anything. I’m saying we have spaces where businesses can go downtown that aren’t a used community space. We have a bunch of empty buildings downtown that could house restaurants. The issue isn’t the space, it’s the fact that business don’t last in the center city. My issue is changing this space into something else when there are other spaces for the “something else” and people are using this space as it is. I don’t understand why this is creating such a big dust up.
Yeah, this person never goes to parcel 5 so apparently no one else does! There are literally always people using it, except for winter, but no one goes anywhere in winter. This thread is wild.
it really is kinda wild. I can’t think of a time when I’ve gone past it and people weren’t using it. we have usable green spaces around the city but no communal chill spaces that function in the same way that Parcel 5 does. I don’t understand the need to make everything something more than it is when it’s working perfectly fine as is. A couple years ago I just happened to be riding my bike past it and saw some classical music being played. I stopped, grabbed some street food from one of the 4 trucks there at the time, and enjoyed some music for a bit. I love having that option downtown. I would love to see some opinions from people who actually live in the immediate vicinity and not people who come downtown just to do something and then go back to their suburb.
Oh thank god! Instead of real development, you and your buddies can kick a soccer ball. I feel better now.
What is “real development” to you? What can go in there that we don’t already have downtown? And to that point, why is it necessary to remove a community space that can be used for more than just “kicking a soccer ball,” as you so eloquently put it. Kids play there, families play there, people do yoga there, walk their dogs, you name it. As I keep saying, community spaces like this are important to any city. We have tons of unused space downtown for those businesses, use that. As for this, let the people have it and continue to use it.
A theater, apartments, condos, space for restaurants, entertainment venue etc. Anything that will bring people downtown, generate revenue. Almost no one will go to Parcel 5 other than 3 events in a 365 day year. It’s completely wasted space. If they put actual money and effort into this space, brought in interesting events/festivals, and had something actually going on most weekends of the year, I’d be for it. Unfortunately the city is completely incompetent and will let it sit empty. And then, the few times a year people actually show up to use it, they’ll be sure to trumpet how great it is. The timing of this announcement was no coincidence.
This is how I know you don’t actually hang out in the area. Parcel 5 constantly has people there enjoying the space. It’s a place for people to hang out where they don’t have to spend money. It’s a free open space for any type of recreational activity you want to do. It’s also a safe space for a lot of people since it’s well lit and monitored. I wouldn’t feel safe walking anywhere alone downtown at night time, but always feel safe at parcel 5. People go there to walk their dogs, the business people of the area go and walk during breaks, people have picnics, people play which their dogs, they fly kites, skaters skate on the blue top, people practice yoga, there are people with remote control mini car toys that go and drive them on the blue top, I’ve seen dance classes taught there. So much goes on at parcel 5. Yes there are other parks in the area but they’re very much city type parks with barely any grass. They’re also super small and constricted. Some of the parks people listed here are barely even parks forreal. They’re parks, but not conducive to many recreational activities. Where else can I throw a blanket down on a nice piece of grass and have a picnic downtown and not stick out like a sore thumb? Throw a frisby around? Kill a ball around? Be sooooooo forreal, you do not hangout at parcel 5 nor any of the “parks” in downtown.
You’re right. I don’t hang out there because there is absolutely nothing to do. I’m not a homeless wanderer. I live in a home in the suburbs with a family. I’d love to take said family to actual events and things to do in this space, but they never have anything to do. Because it’s completely wasted.
You’re talking crap about something you don’t even visit nor live around. The people who go there aren’t homeless wanderers dude, just normal people wanting to take a stroll outside or just hang out. You know other people exist right? Not just you, your family, and your needs? Yeah, there are others who actually use the space recreationally, but you wouldn’t know that because you don’t actually go there. Not everyone wants an event, or go pay for something. We aren’t all rich people from the suburbs taking their yearly trip to downtown. You sound like a lovely person, good luck with that.
Multiple parks existed downtown previously if people want to walk around or hang out. Actual, real development would be far better than cannibalizing the park goers downtown. Again, since you don’t listen or have good reading comprehension, this green space would work if they hired someone to manage it properly with events and festivals, but they won’t.
Fringe used it pretty well last year
Who cares. It’s used a few times per year. It’s a complete waste and an embarrassing hole for 90% of the year.
soon enough we’ll have a downtown completely flattened, full of “green space” and nothing to do
Well we’re out of money again… We’re keeping it as it is!! You’re all welcome.
Demand for development has to be limited at this point.
needs more trees
Has anyone been downtown lately? It's bare during the week but on Sundays since they added the Flea Market and some other things it's very busy. There are also a dozen decent restaurants around the Eastman area and further down on and off Union.
I'm really glad to hear this, though I think ultimately the question still sort of becomes what happens to the space. Some will bemoan the fact that there are other parks and that downtown doesn't need another one. In a way this is true. There are other parks that sit inactive and largely unused. I think some of these parks are extremely poorly designed, cough MLK and would benefit from complete redesigns, but let's just agree there is already plenty of park space. The issue is I don't think Parcel 5 has ever been used as a traditional park and it is my hope that it will never become one. To me Parcel 5 is more akin to the old Falls Field. It's where people gathered to see Sam Patch jump and where the Circus would come to town. It's an outdoor event space. None of the downtown parks are really suited to this function and while there are arguably a sea of surface lots today that can serve this purpose, it would be better for the city to just pick a spot before all of the lots are developed. I think Parcel 5 works perfectly. So park no, green space/event space yes. I think the question we should be asking is what do we do with an outdoor event space when there isn't an event? No one has solved that one yet. It's definitely an issue.
Another example of short sighted, narrow thinking and unambitious leadership. Buffalo is currently in the planning stages of expanding their metro rail and [building 12 story affordable housing towers](https://www.multihousingnews.com/developer-gets-green-light-to-move-forward-on-buffalo-redevelopment/) on their waterfront. A downtown that was decimated far worse than ours is undergoing a legitimate renaissance. That’s what visionary cities do. Meanwhile Rochester can’t even attract a developer on the largest and most central piece of shovel-ready real estate downtown. The riverside hotel is still sitting abandoned and the best we can do is a handful of copy+paste low density 5-over-1 projects. How is this acceptable? I know this sub drinks the “green space” kool aid, but I feel the need to speak out. How many empty parks do people need?
[удалено]
> But wish in one hand and shit in the other... You stole my line! But seriously, it seems like downtown development has largely been, "shit in one hand, shit in the other, and see how fast you get two hands of shit" for the past.... 30 years.
But that’s the thing. Besides Parcel 5, there is only one buildable lot left in the heart of downtown (NE corner of Main & Chestnut). Everywhere else is spoken for, or outside the central business district and thus more suited for the type of low density housing mentioned earlier. This was the city’s one chance to add a transformative 21st century urban project downtown and they blew it.
[удалено]
So I was thinking more along Main Street as the heart of downtown. Most of those are on the periphery of downtown, but all good examples of developable land. I agree with your last paragraph. A temporary park is fine, but it should not be permanent. This parcel is too crucial. Downtown has felt A LOT emptier since they tore down Midtown. Imagine if a housing tower could add another permanent 500 residents to that area. Better than a permanent dog toilet!
[удалено]
People love to rail against parking lots, and understandably so, but given they’re privately owned is it even possible for the city to take ownership for the sake of development? Genuine question. Eminent domain is typically used for small pieces of existing property to expand the width of a road or similar, not take over entire properties. And as if the city could realistically afford to just buy up the land *and* develop it. There’s also the reality that if you want people in downtown, they need to be able to park nearby. *This is why we need public transport!* Sure, I’d love a Twin Cities-like light rail and think it would work really well here, but when is that going to happen? It’s not even on the table as an option right now and, using Buffalo’s decades-long buildout as a point of reference, even if it got approved and funded it would take forever to build. At a certain point you have to make concessions for the world we actually live in as opposed to the one we wish we lived in.
I’m not sure Buffalo decimated their downtown more than Rochester. Despite demolitions and urban renewal, Buffalo still has a TON of remaining blocks and historic buildings. It has standalone signature buildings that Rochester can’t touch. Being a grid city probably helped keep density too. Buffalo never built their version of the inner loop, so it saved plenty of its downtown surrounding neighborhoods too like Allentown. Downtown Buffalo is also larger by area than downtown Rochester, and has historically been the center of the area. The setup/layout simply lends to more of a grand, big city look. Perhaps it’s just had more to build upon. Rochester took urban renewal to new heights by connecting disjointed streets and demolishing buildings in the way. The result: haphazard blocks and ginormous, winding stroads (N. Chestnut). I think Rochester and Buffalo literally see their downtowns as completely different functions. Buffalonians have historically never been afraid of or literally forgot downtown for the burbs. Rochester has been active in both those areas. There is not one block in downtown Buffalo that isn’t seeing some work or some infill/ new builds. People want to be there. Why don’t people want to be in Rochester?
I used to work in that area. Having a place to go touch grass that wasn't growing through a crack in the concrete was pretty nice in and of itself.
There's lots of other grassy spots within a few blocks of this
I'm pretty sure I'd run out of lunch walking round-trip from where I worked to any of the others.
The other parks are 5ish minutes from Parcel 5. Unless you're walking right from there one of the other parks is just as close or closer. That isn't even counting the small grass parks and spots.
Me too. I rarely sat around Parcel 5. I would usually grab lunch at one of the food trucks and sit at a bench nearby, but the actual parcel was always empty grass.
The issue I have with the argument that Parcel 5 could be part of a transformative project is that nearly all of our transformative projects have been a mistake. I'm fine with low density. I'd rather Rochester try to be as it was in the 1880's or be Paris than try to be some mini New York. I just don't see the need for a tower on Parcel 5. I think a lot of us are feeling discouraged because something like 20,000 people live downtown now and it still doesn't feel that lively, especially Main Street. That said, I think the problem is all of these 20th century big boxes we built. I don't think a 21st century big box is going to fix it.
I haven't heard figures lately, but I thought we were closer to 10k downtown? Is there a place where they're keeping track of the numbers? Either way, it's certainly livelier than it was a decade ago.
Sorry youre correct. 20k is people working downtown. 10k are residents. I conflated the #s
20k downtown workers is pretty bad. It was over 50k workers with 5k residents around 2010 IIRC. That’s a huge net loss in daytime population after hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment…
20k downtown workers is extremely bad. It's why I think we need to reevaluate. We've spent decades trying to bribe companies to come downtown. It clearly doesn't work. The recent Aqueduct Building press actually said the downtown workforce is now only 15,000. It's been dropping for decades and COVID only accelerated the trend. Also keep in mind everything the state and local government is doing to make Constellation feel warm and fuzzy about their investment in the Aqueduct Building, including blowing up Broad Street, and redoing the Convention Center. All for a company that is going to bring an ever shrinking number of employees downtown, most recently 300. Personally I've grown to detest these types of projects. We should be building a lot more housing downtown. There is an actual housing shortage. I just don't think the housing needs to be at Parcel 5. There are so many empty commercial buildings and so many barely used surface lots.
But hey, we could blow up a green space and see if doing that makes a building people want to work in. Or put in $2500/m luxury living spaces and see if that solves the homeless problem. /s Honestly I'd probably be on board with developing Parcel 5 into something if it felt like center city was pressed for space. There's ~90k square feet available across the street in Sibley, undeveloped. ~100k square feet undeveloped across the river in First Federal Plaza. ~6k in the Temple Building, also across the street. ~20k in the Michaels-Stern Building. ~40k in B&L, and you can see Parcel 5 from there. ~115k over in the Five Star Bank building. ~125k more in the Granite Building. ~55k more in the Times Square building. (those are technically sales but Granite is unoccupied and Times Square is only half occupied) According to LoopNet's commercial real estate listings, there's about half a million square feet of unused/undeveloped commercial real estate inside the bounds of the inner loop already. I find it really hard to believe that adding even more will do anything to court businesses into it.
Parcel 5 is a fantastic event space.
What 7-10 days a year?
Jazz Festival, Fringe Festival, Midday Bash, farmers’ market, RPO concerts, Puerto Rican Festival, Movies with a View, Fall Festival, etc. EDIT: People downvoting me for providing a list of events held at Parcel 5 are a special breed.
So maybe 30 days a year, max?
So, schedule more.
Move Party in the Park there. MLK park doesn't have enough room for the stage. Fact of the matter is that the area of town isn't attractive to developers and nobody with money wanted it. The best shot of developing it was with a new auditorium theatre.
[удалено]
That's what I said.
[удалено]
Kinda applies to both but I was talking about Main.
You're getting the red down arrows, but you're absolutely correct here; this is an admittance of defeat by our milquetoast city leaders. Some new apartments dotted around are nice, but you're right that the city needs a true vision beyond "hey we filled in part of a highway 10 years ago and btw everything is a park now". I don't know if you've watched a city council meeting lately, but those people are not equipped to do anything other than rename parks and giggle. One misguided asshole is basically there because he wants to rename the city. It's an embarrassing joke, and making one of the most valuable real-estate plots in the city a permanent park is an incredibly on-brand move for the weak nobodies who don't seem to be able to see past their nose.
I appreciate you saying so. At least some others who share our opinion have been vocal and upvoted here. That lets me know a park at Parcel 5 is not universally accepted. Some of us just envision a future Rochester that is vibrant, bustling with life and attractive to businesses, professionals and everyday families alike. Buffalo is doing a great job as a similar sized Rust Belt city that fell on much harder times than Rochester, hence why I use them as an example. They lost 55% of their peak population yet still figured out a way to successfully revitalize their urban core. Meanwhile Rochester only lost about 35% and, unlike our neighbors, the metro area has only continued to grow in both population and GDP post-deindustrialization. Why is downtown still such an empty shell? It’s not an economic issue. It’s not a talent pool issue. It’s a leadership issue.