Port of Rochester
Instead of the vast parking lot now dominating important riverfront land in Charlotte, city officials hope for housing, maybe restaurants and offices, and a marina on the river. PHOTO BY MATT DETURCK
Some Rochesterians see the port area, particularly the terminal, as little more than a monument to the failed ferry. To others it's Abbott's, a walk on the pier, and maybe a ride on the historic carousel - a quiet and scenic respite.
City officials see potential. Loads of it.
Right now that potential is stuffed and shoved into Mark Gregor's undersized office at City Hall. He has reports, studies, and designs tucked into every nook and cranny, and he also has a few softball-size dark lumps that look like moon rocks. It's slag, he says - waste from the steel mill that used to operate in the port area. It will be mined, he says, and possibly repurposed for fill on the massive port redevelopment project.
Gregor is the city's point person on a $30 million plan to transform the Port of Rochester from "the beach with the parking lot" - as some say the port area is known in the boating community - to a thriving mix of high-end housing, a marina, a new public promenade, and possibly some stores, offices, and restaurants.
"This should be an interesting place to be," Gregor says.
The project site is at the Port of Rochester where the Genesee River meets Lake Ontario, adjacent to Ontario Beach Park. It encompasses the former ferry terminal, parking lots, the public boat launch, and the Charlotte Genesee Lighthouse.
But the project has both challenges and critics. There's the longstanding problem of the rotting algae that stinks up the lake and beach, and also contributes to swimming bans. A permanent solution to that problem has flummoxed officials so far.
Another issue: the buildup of sediment in the harbor reduces water depth and makes passage tricky for larger boats. There is no money to dredge the harbor right now, although US Senator Chuck Schumer is working on a solution.
The biggest knock against the project, though, is the perception that the city would essentially be privatizing a public space. Gregor estimates that the housing units could start at around $225,000 to $250,000 to buy - essentially pricing out average Rochesterians.
"I get that," Gregor says. "The calculus for the city is, ‘Are we really removing all that much public access to the park, to the pier, to the beach, to the waterfront by doing this? And would this be a higher and better use in terms of promoting the area, but also in terms of the obvious stuff like generating property taxes and promoting economic and commercial activity?'"
The project would encompass approximately 30 acres, Gregor says, with six or seven acres in total set aside for private use. The majority of the rest of the space would be taken up by new roads, sidewalks, a public promenade and trail, and a marina. An earlier plan shifted approximately 75 percent of the 30-acre site to private use, he says. The city changed gears, Gregor says, based on feedback from the public.
Aside from the Winter Celebration, Rochesterians don't generally spend a lot of time at the port in the winter. But Gregor says potential developers are less interested in the weather and more interested in the availability of the marina. Twenty to 25 percent of the people who would live in the new development would want a marina slip, the city's research shows.
The marina would be done in stages and eventually have about 157 slips. Temporary slips for visitors are a possibility, Gregor says. And seasonal and long-term slips would be available.
There could also be a condo hotel on the site. People would live there, but there would be units for seasonal or periodic rental. A boutique hotel is another possibility: a small facility tailored to seasonal or transient visitors.
Once fully developed, there would be between 280 to 430 housing units spread out over three areas on the site, Gregor says. Market research has shown that the project would pull in empty nesters who are attracted to city living, he says, but want a more resort, smaller-town setting.
Gregor says local developers have expressed interest in the project, as long as the marina is constructed by the city. There are no plans to use city money to build the housing units, he says. Initial construction of the project - primarily the first phase of the marina -would cost about $19 million.
Some critics have expressed concern about gentrification. Gregor says the city has heard that concern, but that Charlotte already has high-end lakefront properties near the project site."We are not attempting to bring in thousands of new high-end units, and the development that does occur will take place over many years," he says. "One of the criticisms of the city's housing supply is that there is very little new housing available, and we are trying to address this concern."
Gregor says that the impact on nearby property values "should be positive, but not dramatic."
The height of the housing units has been another sore spot. Part of the plan, Gregor says, is to amend the city's zoning code to create a Marina District which would regulate the height of the buildings and other features. Projects within the district would still have to go through the normal permitting process, Gregor says, but they would be spared a separate environmental review. The overall port project is in the middle of its environmental review right now.
Gregor says the city knows building height is a concern, and that officials have worked to mitigate that. Still, under the proposed Marina District, the maximum height allowed would be 12 to 14 stories, Gregor says.
"There are going to be some locations where we could go quite high," he says. "We know that's been an issue that people have had, so we've tried to shrink the footprints of these buildings so that if it's tall, it's a smaller footprint on the site."
"The reason that we're permitting height in some locations is that there are really some spectacular views down there," Gregor adds.
The people living on the higher floors would pay more for those views.
Commercial development planned for Lake Avenue would be designed so that after the first two stories, the exterior walls facing Lake would be set in farther from the street. That way pedestrians on Lake wouldn't be overwhelmed by the size of the buildings, Gregor says.
Comments for "DEVELOPMENT: City official: Port won’t be a playground for the rich" (22)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
CitizenCandyKane said on Feb. 22, 2012 at 1:16pm
"Port won’t be a playground for the rich"
Or for anyone else for that matter.
If this dry land version of Bill Johnson's ferry fiasco is ever built people of all economic c;asses will be staying away from Charlotte in droves.
Seth Green said on Feb. 22, 2012 at 4:31pm
Citizen Kane...how can you justify this statement, given the stellar demand for loft-style and townhouse development in downtown Rochester? The city's market research shows that the demand is there.
Do you have evidence that states otherwise, or you just another self-loathing Rochester contrarian? The latter would be my guess...
CitizenCandyKane said on Feb. 22, 2012 at 6:23pm
Seth Green -
Read the plans for this development and tell me if the demand for loft-style housing in downtown is transferable to Charlotte?
Tell me if cluttering up the open space around Charlotte Beach with a clusted of high rises will entice people to frequent Charlotte beach?
As to the city's "market research" I seem to recall that we also were told that "market research" predicted that there would be demand, not for just ONE ferry but for TWO such barges. And how's that working out for you?
We were also told by the city that developers willing to invest millions in the Midtown site were lining up around the block to plunk down their cash. All we hear now are crickets chirping.
So I'll stay a "contraian" . You can play the patsy.
Max Fenster said on Feb. 22, 2012 at 8:41pm
It's a really bad idea to use slag as fill material.
Seth Green said on Feb. 23, 2012 at 9:25am
Your examples are extemporaneous and irrelevant. If the demand is not there, do you really think any private developer is going to invest their money in this project?
So you consider a huge empty parking lot to be "open space"? Is that's what's been attracting people to the beach over the past several decades few years? Lots and lots and lots of free parking? Really?
It's called critical mass, Miss Cane...a mix of commercial and residential establishments will help create even more demand for the beach and other existing businesses in the area. Provide a mix of things for people to do and it will attract a diverse array of visitors YEAR ROUND. This is a FACT that has been proven time after time, place after place.
Mr Fenster...the slag is already there...it's inert and has been sitting there as fill material for the past 100 years...it washes up on Charlotte beach occasionally...this project would help to re-stabilize it further, as I understand it...
MrRochester said on Feb. 23, 2012 at 9:38am
Charlotte is in need of major change and this is just the catalyst that could lead the change. I dont know why anyone would be against successful people setting up residence nearby. Change is good, VERY good, almost always.
Ozman said on Feb. 23, 2012 at 10:10am
Aside from the 4 DAYS a year that something is going on at the beach, the entire area is, as of right now, a complete waste of space. Rochester has been blessed with a natural waterway, providing access to one of the largest lakes in the world. What have we done with it so far? Almost nothing. Drive up there some time. The number of residencies with ACTUAL views of the water are very few. The ones that do are mostly nice homes. Adding a marina, waterview/waterfront residences, and the attractions and businesses that go along with those things would be a great stimulus for a poorly utilized area.
Alex White said on Feb. 23, 2012 at 11:45am
So let me get this straight in order to convince builders to develop this area the city needs to sink at least 30 million into a marina, dredge the river every other year, remove the building height requirements, solve the algae problem, and dig up a large industrial iron slag dump site. Though it is not stated we will give the builders a few million in 1% loans, the property for free, perhaps some up front money, and at least a 50% tax break on the property for at least 10 years. For a project the neighbors hate which turns public park land over to private use and will increase the taxes on the properties already down there. Have I summed this up correctly? And is this really what the city planners think good development looks like?
Seth Green said on Feb. 23, 2012 at 12:28pm
The chat room eagerly awaits your alternative proposal, Mr. White...and please, don't spare us the details...
CitizenCandyKane said on Feb. 23, 2012 at 10:38pm
Seth Green - Your original reason for supporting this housing project was that, "The city's market research shows that the demand is there." I pointed out that the city's track record on accurate market research is , shall we say, less-than'stellar. Having been slapped down on that point you now reverse course and claim that market research is "irrlevant".
Now you tweak your claims and try to argue that , "If the demand is not there, do you really think any private developer is going to invest their money in this project?". To that point I suggest that you talk to the folks at CATS who plunked down several million private investor dollars to fund the Less-Than-Fast Ferry based on their belief that there was sufficient demand to make the barge viable. Want to guess how that worked out?
As to free parking, that's your red herring. I never mentioned it. Nor do I see what it has to do with anything.
So to the issue of your support for this project, to paraphrase a previous post, "Do you have any evidence that confirms the viability of the project, or are you just another out-of-touch- with-reality Rochester cheerleader? The latter would be my guess.".
Keep swinging Sparky. You may hit something yet.
smackdaddy585 said on Feb. 24, 2012 at 11:50am
These projects are about bringing Rochester up to par with other cities... to attract companies here... water and water front property is huge anywhere in the world! Yet Rochester has underdeveloped its water front. Rochester needs to attract companies... we need infrastructure that will support buisness travel and buisness leisure... its the buisness leisure citizens fail to acknowledge! George eastman had a private zoo... park ave set as a raceway for him... George did alot to bring buisness people in to check out an event and to use that to talk buisness!!! He brought companies in to invest but since he has been gone there has been little rochester has done to attract people! Buisness men and women who are CEO's varry... some are single, married, divorsed, and other diversity factors! A developed port shows companies the growing potential we have... a canal expanded into downtown that ends by the stadiums also shows potential... doing a casino or aquarium with an indoor water park where the sibly building is would show the potential we have... doing a highspeed rail or a metro light rail from downtown to the suburbs would show innovation! Rochester Needs Jobs and we need companies to come and create jobs here! Kodak sparked alot of small buisness's to tend to the company and its employee's and this can happen again if the locals here will realize the fact that we put the city in ruin by escapeing to the sprawling suburbs and milking kodak till it went belly up! Rochester became too dependant on Kodak and failed to diversify in the current market and innovate just as kodak did. Kodak held back and hesitated and due to that it's bankrupt... yet it was us rochester employees that supported Kodaks hesitation... who I asked took the initiative to tell kodak no we need to jump on the digital bandwagon we need to be ahead of the curve? I herd so many people here frown on digital saying it would be a phase n that they will allways use film and never go digital back in the 90's. I also herd some of those same people say they would never support the Fast Ferry! Why is Rochester being held back by such people who are afraid of change? Yes Kodak would have to have had spent alot of money back in the day to advance in the digital market to retrain employees to know digital process... a huge amount would have to had been spent but Kodak didn't spend the money which would have made them money and would have saved jobs! You have to spend money to make money! Also we need to verbally support rochester! Man the ferry we have is awesome... that positive saying creates interest and would have drawn more people to use it... but no it was oh that ferry is a waste of taxpayer money and that negativity didn't create what was expected! WE KILLED THE FAST FERRY with our negative word of moulth! WE KILLED KODAK with our lack of support for change and innovation to be ahead of the curve! This is why people have moved out of Rochester and this is why companies don't do buisness here... there are too many kill joys around here! I really think those who are against this used to have a boat in the 80's or 90's that they got from their Kodak bonus check and are so butthurt that they don't work for Kodak and don't get bonus checks anymore that they are miserable... misery loves company and hurt people hurt people! So to those who are butthurt get therapy and get over it! Rochester needs a facelift and that is a fact!
EmJayEn said on Feb. 24, 2012 at 1:20pm
smackdaddy - Thanks for tne revisionist history. Nobody "KILLED " the Less-Than-Fast Ferry. It died stillborn and was never economically alive.
As to Kodak, again, nobody "KILLED" it. The company committed suicide with the assistance of a string of Kevokian CEOs.
Alex white said on Feb. 24, 2012 at 3:26pm
There are a few problems with the port of Rochester. First there is the algae problem which no one seems to have a solution for and will be a constant source of problems for any development there. Second is the weather which can be awful in the winter so we are looking at many seasonal tenets for any development. Third there is traffic which make the beach hard to reach and if there is anything going on there creates a traffic nightmare. Finally there is the channel which is silting up and the federal government is not inclined to dredge it enough to attract big boats. Of these problems only the traffic can be solved. Now under these constraints what would make sense? It seems that if the traffic could be solved with either widening the road, creating a one way loop, or putting in light rail then this area would develop as a season recreation spot. With light commercial renting city owned shelters with a recreation program designed for the summer with both Irondequoit and Greece participating. Perhaps even some season hotel. This would cost much less and probably yield more revenues for the city.
smackdaddy585 said on Feb. 24, 2012 at 3:57pm
yes algae has been common in the area but it has a usual time in the season in which it shows... yet it is the dumping point of the river so what flows out has a chance of going back to shore. the peir is straight yet what of a curved peir to help shelter the beach? also the river just needs to maintain a depth deep enough for sailboaters... the last ferry we had was too large and too dependant on commerical freight to make up some of the costs... a smaller ferry is all we needed to take day trippers across the pond! also yes a light rail would be ideal... there are solutions... focus on the solution not the problem... Also I say let greece and irondiquoit be they have drained the city enough with them encourageing suburban sprawl. The truth is Charlotte is a seasonal spot so the city plans a port to try and make the most of the season it does have there! Stop thinking year round embrace that this city is seasonal! The city isnt planning a port along with snowmobile trails and icefishing hut rentals!
Adam said on Feb. 25, 2012 at 6:06pm
We got a lotta parking folks. That's not gonna draw people to live and play there. How about we solve the algae problem and turn some parking lots into livable / usable structures.. This all sounds like a smart move to me. Didn't every other city in the country do waterfront re-capture / re-use in the 90's?
jeffrey rhodes said on Feb. 26, 2012 at 10:40am
In my opinion the original problem with the city of rochester not being more thriving is that originally this city was not built at the mouth of the genesee on lake ontario ... i had a suggestion to bring more commerce to the port is have the ( not so free 2$ donation ) Concerts on thursdays there. The reasoning i was given was it was to keep people downtown after work. Oh well
J said on Feb. 26, 2012 at 9:20pm
CitizenCandyKane- I don't see what this has to do with the ferry or why you keep bringing it up.
Alex White- You're against this development but believe that putting in a light rail line, or widening Lake/Beach Ave, or turning it into a one way loop would somehow make Charlotte a summer destination??? I'm sorry but quite frankly, that makes absolutely no sense.
CitizenCandyKane said on Feb. 27, 2012 at 10:45am
J - Mr. Green stated that he was in favor of building condos in Charlotte because, "The city's market research shows that the demand is there.". I simply pointed out that the validity of any market "research" being touted by the city would be at best questionable given that their "research" also predicted a huge success for the ferry and a groundswell of private developer demand for building on the Midtown site.
X-ROCH-N-NYC said on Feb. 28, 2012 at 2:35pm
Will the trauma of the failed ferry ever pass? It was a great idea, it just didn't work. Big deal, get over it.
rochester66 said on Feb. 29, 2012 at 10:25am
The Port plan was devised during the housing "bubble"...unlimited financing and massive hype. That era has ENDED. Tell me what sane banker would lend the project developer or the potential buyer for the proposed high end housing at the port. This is just pure fiscal insanity. if any housing is built ...it will turn out to be rentals subsidized by local/state/federal government! Can anyone believe that 300-400 high end condo could be built at Charlotte? Has Rochester EVER sold that many condos at one site....and at Charlotte with the constant scent of rotting algae?
The parking lot is a major asset for this valuable regional asset...it doesn't need to be sold off for the benefit of a few...at the expense of the masses that may want to access the beach.
Why is the public sector building/heavily subsidizing a semi-private yacht basin? Again...this makes no economic or financial sense! We desperately need public investment at the Pier/beach/port...but it must be economically and fiscally prudent for the whole region...not just a developer and a few yacht owners!
CitizenCandyKane said on Feb. 29, 2012 at 3:55pm
X-ROCH-N-NYC:
The ferry and the terminal cost the taxpayers something like $80,000,000 + (the city refuses to publish the actual costs and losses of local, state and federal funding). We got back maybe $10,000,000 when Bill's Barge was finally sold. So what we have left is a massive debt and an under-utilized waterfront barn still being operated at the public's expense.
Maybe a $70,000,000 hit isn't much in the "Big Apple". But here in the "Little Lemon" it's a major fiscal fiasco which we need to continually remind our "leaders" and the public of in hopes of avoiding future boondoogles, such as a condo/marina complex in Charlotte.
thomas t. said on Apr. 03, 2012 at 11:12pm
that this project is strictly property tax revenue based. the city has finally found the solution for keeping people and their money downtown. lake avenue was reduced ( intentionally by the city engineer's design) to 2 lanes to slow down the traffic entering into charlotte. the proposed marina and it's {substantial) ongoing expense is going to be paid by the taxpayers- and the boat slips can only be used for 1/2 of the year. is this considered the highest and best use.
if you talk to the local business owners in the area "off the record" they are all opposed, but wary of speaking up and facing the political wrath of the city. so lets look at who is going to benefit the most and who is going to pay the price. first add up the total $$$$$ "public" investment - you know the part that we all pay for with our tax dollars. next divide the number by the # of housing units being built.(don't forget the marina maintenance) and finally factor in the loss of the quality of life for the rest of the rochestarians (and out of town visitors) who will no longer come to charlotte because they aren't interested in looking at a 12 story highrise. the only people who will have the great views of the harbor are the ones that can afford the top floors of the concrete jungle that is to become charlotte. - you know now that i think about it,i am going to call the city tomorrow and suggest they get started on the development plans for the durand beach area. -think of the number of condos that could be built there! get ready rochester. cornhill is comming to charlotte!
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.