|
|
Post by realist13413 on May 19, 2011 6:31:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on May 19, 2011 6:55:58 GMT -5
Tearing down that downtown landmark IS a sad prospect. I hate to see it become a political football in an election year.
While I support Randy's position on most issues, including the W Utica proposed projects, I would hate to think that he might suggest tearing the building down, simply as a quick solution to the downtown parking situation, in order for Roefaro to be able to claim the credit for solving the problem of where to put the parking lot or garage as he leaves office.
These sort of decisions are touchy. Looking back, one has to rethink the Hotel Utica project. The CITY would have been better off demolishing the place, although it is a beautiful old building and a landmark. It has become a millstone around the taxpayer's necks, as you folks pay the bill for the developers lack of respect for the taxpayers.
Don't be offended, but these ARE issues and questions that are going to come up and they will have to be addressed.
I myself would rather see the out of town owner of the building step up and fix it, but we all know that the chances of that happening are pretty slim.
Jim Zecca is one of the city's better councilman, and he simply proposed legislation to prevent the city barging ahead and making a mistake. The legislation will not preclude tearing the building down. It will simply make sure that the issue is properly addressed before that takes place. I have a lot of respect for Zecca, as well as for Randy. Hope that any solution is in the best interest of the taxpayers, period.
|
|
|
|
Post by realist13413 on May 19, 2011 7:17:33 GMT -5
That's the thing - he didn't propose tearing it down to create a parking lot. The discussion started when it became clear there were issues with the building. It has not heating system. Thieves stole most of the copper out of the building - including the interior piping from the roof drains and then stopped up the holes. What water didn't just sit on the roof drained into the interior, causing damage and massive mold growth throughout. The fact is, with commercial buildings, there does reach a point where the cost to repair them outweighs any potential profit.
It irks me that Randy is referred to (usually by Bobby Sullivan) as a "suburban shopping mall" developer. On the contrary, Randy's speciality is taking run down buildings (office, industrial, and yes, shopping centers) and revitalizing them. He's been very successful in both suburban and urban areas.
I'm not offended - I just can't fathom how someone proposes a law to specifically prevent something without getting any of the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on May 19, 2011 7:45:01 GMT -5
I would hate to see the city take on that demolition project. There will be some serious asbestos removal and remediation to be done in a building that old. I am sure that as close as you are to the issue, that you are hurt that anyone would question Randy's motives or qualifications. Nobody should question his qualifications, and as for motive, that is up for debate WHENEVER a person is in a politically appointed job in today's partisan society.
Such legislation may not change the fate of this particular building, but it very well may save other downtown landmark buildings from simply be torn down arbitrarily or for political motives.
I also have to note that after the Hotel Utica debacle, I am sure that many Utican's are overly suspicious of ANYONE that has "Developer" associated with their name. I hope it all works out in the best interest of the city's taxpayers and citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on May 19, 2011 8:28:03 GMT -5
If the building is that far gone (which I had not seen published before) it may be beyond the point of economic salvage. The building has an attractive exterior but if it has reached the point where it would cost more to repair than for new construction on an unencumbered site who would want it?
|
|
|
|
Post by realist13413 on May 19, 2011 8:49:02 GMT -5
If the building is that far gone (which I had not seen published before) it may be beyond the point of economic salvage. The building has an attractive exterior but if it has reached the point where it would cost more to repair than for new construction on an unencumbered site who would want it? That's my point, exactly.  |
|
larry
French Fry
Posts: 169
|
Post by larry on May 19, 2011 10:55:27 GMT -5
Not just trying to defend Jim, but I know we both had discussions with the Landmark's Society and others, and they are against it. At the point of the original reporting, I believe the city said they have not been inside. If something has changed, then they should convey that. Beth, you know I have defended Randy and will continue to, but department heads are supposed to keep the council abreast of these issues. They have that opportunity at every committee meeting and council meeting. When the news broke that it could possibly be a "parking lot", I can tell you that the community was outraged. I attend most community meetings and haven't heard one person that was happy hearing that. Zecca's proposal was simply a moratorium, which would ensure that nothing is done until more is learned. Even if it absolutely has to come down (which I would HATE to see), it is not acceptable to make it a parking lot. That is a prime spot for development in downtown. If that spot was open back when Zogby and Utica National were vying for the spot Utica National eventually built on, we may have seen Zobgy build on the HSBC lot. So, it can be done. A gapping hole in our downtown skyline would be horrible. Not to mention that the main need for parking is on the east side of Genny. Which is where I've been hearing for 6 years that we're bulding everything from a garage to surface lots. Now this?
|
|
larry
French Fry
Posts: 169
|
Post by larry on May 19, 2011 11:44:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on May 19, 2011 11:58:53 GMT -5
I think the last two sentences & the last comment he makes are a very good summary of the situation.
"They need to answer the question why prime office space having ample parking has not attracted tenants. Only then will they have a clue on what to do with Downtown Utica. "
"While the Utica Master Plan offers virtually NO real plan for city development, it DOES summarize data (pages 38-40) strongly suggesting that there are certain types of activities where there would be a market for developing downtown.
The problem is that the Master Plan does not go further. It fails to determine what is preventing the demand from being fulfilled downtown. It fails to look at existing ordinances and policies, or public infrastructure or municipal services issues, that may be preventing downtown development. It fails to identify on a map where these potential activities would be best located.
Without a plan that organizes future development in a coordinated fashion, potential developers are better off meeting market demands on suburban greenfields where they have better control over surrounding environmental conditions.
That is unfortunate for everyone because development that logically should be located closer to the population center is pushed to the edge."
|
|
|
|
Post by realist13413 on May 19, 2011 13:34:10 GMT -5
Larry - Zecca's proposal was aimed at the HSBC building. In the original story, Randy says parking is one of the possibilities IF the building has to come down. He does not say "take down this perfectly intact building and put up a parking lot."
I'm sure Mr. Zecca has the best interest of the city at heart, but this is not the way to do it.
Strikeslip is correct - the master plan does not talk about specific plans, and does not address downtown parking.
Frankly, if the building does have to come down, a parking lot is a viable option. It would increase parking quickly and relatively inexpensively but could easily be converted back to a building lot should the demand ever exist again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on May 19, 2011 18:24:25 GMT -5
The only problem with putting a parking lot there Beth is as Larry said, the need for parking is on the East side of Genessee St, and I for one would not want to walk from there to the county building in bad weather. It WOULD be a hole in the downtown skyline, but if downtown doesn't pick up in the near future, there will be lots of holes in the skyline and less and less need for parking downtown. Prime real estate needs to be marketed, not paved over for parking.
|
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on May 20, 2011 6:03:44 GMT -5
I don't get the Master Plan, they are trying to fix the place with a new coat of paint when the structure is so compromised it won't even stick. It deals with very few aspects of the cities main issues. The old Utica is no longer a relevant entity. The Foundation is gone, all that is left is remnants of its glory days. Revitalizing properties that dont come close to being inhabitable only waste the precious and few funds left to try to re-invent Utica, the Hotel Utica is a perfect example of this.
This building will become a dangerous landmark if something isn't done quickly, no roof drains means a giant water tank is in the making and it wont hold water, Ice or itself together if given any time to crumble. The Asbestos threat alone must be huge consideration to repair or blind eying the structure. The thieves that stole all that Copper have probably doomed themselves and the neighborhood via a catastrophic release of this garbage. Freezing and thawing will literally rip the structure apart and infiltration means this thing is leaking fibrous toxins 24/7.
Sad but true, you can polish a turd, its still a turd even if it started out Lobster! The cities of the 21st century that are seeing any revitalization and rebirth are those where the blight is eliminated and Giant Maintenance Nightmares like Parking Garages are replaced by street level parking, greenscapes and NRG efficient structures. Nobody but nobody is going to build a new 50 Million dollar Building anywhere near empty dilapidated landmarks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on May 20, 2011 10:48:03 GMT -5
I guess eventually JR, those of us who love the old city and have so many fond memories to reminisce about, will have to give it up, and realize that the inner city we knew is gone forever.
The sad thing is that maybe the inner city is GONE PERIOD. What do we do at that point? Keep pouring funds into trying to do CPR on a horse that has been dead for years?
How do we deterimine that projects will actually benefit the taxpayers who are financing all these fantasies, master plans, stadiums, parks, etc?
One has to wonder if the proper route would be to let the old buildings go, demolish them in numbers large enough to free up large parcels of land that could host something the size of a distribution center or some such activity. Rezone parts of the inner city to support an industrial park type setting where business and jobs MIGHT be drawn. We obviously aren't creating many jobs with the present plans. Take a few blocks of the most decayed of neighborhoods by eminent domaine, relocate those unfortunate enough to be living there, and demolish the buildings. Make a LARGE parcel available for industrial or warehousing operations and bring an employer to the inner city that will make a significant contribution to the employment market and tax base.
Maybe we are looking at it backwards. In the old days, business was in the center of a city, surrounded by residential neighborhoods, and on the fringes, near rail lines and transportation resources, was the industrial districts.
Now viable residential neighborhoods seem to be in the outer suburbs and fringes, commercial business has moved to the outside districts, so maybe it is time to plan for the inner city to be re-purposed for industrial or warehousing and such endeavors.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on May 20, 2011 11:13:29 GMT -5
The old Bossert site has been cleared & remediated. It has rail & highway service and is city owned. It's been vacant for how long, 25 years maybe?
The PJ Green building sits between 2 city owned & cleared parcels. They are on the rail lines and about 1/2 mile from the Thruway.
There are a lot of under utilized or vacant buildings along the corridor from the intersection of Broad St & 5S to Charlestown. Good access to 5S all along the route.
The site of the old Lucas plant on French Rd sits cleared and vacant. Close to the arterial exit.
Pavia runs a full page ad every 2 weeks of commercial/industrial properties for sale.
|
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on May 20, 2011 16:18:02 GMT -5
Other than short term deals or fat contracts for friends and family members in empire zones or empowerment Zones or some other Government inspired Stimulator, what does Utica or NY for that matter offer a new, relocating or expanding business that they can't get elsewhere with less taxation, regulation and much cheaper Utilities?
Empty lots will stay empty until competition, free enterprise, right to prosper and fair and reasonable taxation are re-instituted in our State and Nations philosophy. What took only a few generations of Do Gooders, Bureaucrats and Kingpins to destroy may take a century or more to undo if ever.
China is about to become The World Power, Dominator of the Wold Financial and Military Power. They have and will sell anything they can to make a buck to anyone that will pay for it terrorist or not.
They have givien away the promise of The American Dream to a billion Communists! Powerless to protect our own currency, were borrowing trillions from the Chi-Coms to feed our nation! That's like buying Groceries with a credit card and not paying it off at the end of the Month!
Back on track, Its not just Utica. Our State and Nation are like those crumbling Landmarks we failed to protect and nurture. I guess I dont really believe our faltering economy is a local issue even though it strikes close to home, Utica.
|
|
