ABSTRACT 
 
 
 
 
Title of Thesis: RECLAIMING IDENTITY: UTILIZING 
HISTORIC FABRIC TO REVITALIZE 
DOWNTOWN ROCHESTER  
  
 Kelly Marie Haley, Master’s of Architecture 
and Master’s of Historic Preservation, Spring 
2019 
  
Thesis Directed By: Professor Matthew Bell, FAIA, School of 
Architecture, Planning & Preservation 
Dean and Professor Donald W. Linebaugh, 
PhD, RPA, School of Architecture, Planning & 
Preservation 
 
 
America’s first boomtown, Rochester, New York, rapidly decentralized after 
World War II. Like other mid-sized industrial cities, Rochester struggled to retain 
residents and businesses as suburbia flourished. Recently, the city is witnessing a 
resurgence as national trends favor urban living. This growth coupled with initiatives 
to develop downtown, leads to Rochester’s obligation to reclaim its identity on the 
Genesee River by adaptively reusing its historic structures, establishing public spaces, 
and developing vacant lots to benefit current and future residents and businesses. The 
development of downtown by respectfully utilizing historic fabric will address the 
unused skeletons of past endeavors by reclaiming these spaces. 
 The opportunity to reclaim the abandoned Erie Canal aqueduct and Broad 
Street Bridge, through programming will fit the needs of the downtown. The 
  
development of the structure as a centerpiece will assist in the city’s revitalization 
effort and breathe life into the central business district.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
RECLAIMING IDENTITY: UTILIZING HISTORIC FABRIC TO REVITALIZE 
DOWNTOWN ROCHESTER 
 
 
 
by 
 
 
Kelly Marie Haley 
 
 
 
 
 
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the  
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of 
Master’s of Architecture and 
Master’s of Historic 
Preservation 
2019 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisory Committee: 
Professor Matthew Bell, FAIA, Chair 
Dr. Donald Linebaugh, PhD, RPA, Chair 
Professor Emeritus Karl F.G. Du Puy, AIA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Copyright by 
Kelly Marie Haley 
2019 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Disclaimer 
This thesis or dissertation document that follows has had referenced material removed 
in respect for the owner’s copyright. 
  
 
Dedication 
For Maizey. 
 
 
ii 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements 
I would like to thank my thesis committee for their time and dedication 
throughout the production of this thesis project. In addition, I would like to thank my 
thesis mentor, Christian Calleri, for offering to critique this project throughout its 
design stages.  
 In preparing an existing wall section of the aqueduct and bridge structure, as 
well as understanding the infill possibilities, I would like to thank Christine S Cho, 
AIA, LEED AP, and Amanda R. Lewkowicz, AIA, LEED AP.  
 I would additionally like to thank the Rochester Public Library and the City of 
Rochester for its vast collection in regard to Rochester’s history and specific 
structures, including the Broad Street Bridge and the Erie Canal aqueduct. I would 
specifically like to thank Librarian Brandon Fess for his knowledge on this subject 
and guidance towards finding research materials, and city employee Cheryl Lovall for 
allowing me to access original drawings of the aqueduct and its changes over the 
course of the 1900s. In understanding the potentials for this project, I would like to 
thank former city planner, Thomas P. Riley, for his wisdom and passion for urban 
design and its transformative qualities and how these can be applied to Rochester.  
 Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family for their support, including 
my parents, my brothers and my fiancé. Thank you all for believing in my project and 
pushing me to do my best every day.  
 
 
 
 
 
iii 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Disclaimer ...................................................................................................................... 5 
Dedication ..................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... iii 
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... iv 
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... vi 
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 
Chapter 2: A Brief Overview of Rochester, NY ........................................................... 4 
The Young Lion of the West ..................................................................................... 4 
The Flour City ......................................................................................................... 10 
The Flower City ....................................................................................................... 13 
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 15 
Chapter 3: The Second Genesee Aqueduct ................................................................. 17 
The First (and Second) Aqueduct ............................................................................ 17 
Broad Street Bridge and the Rochester Subway ...................................................... 22 
Void in the Heart of Downtown .............................................................................. 33 
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 38 
Chapter 4: The Fate of the Broad Street Bridge and Aqueduct ................................... 39 
1990s and Early 2000s City Planning Efforts ......................................................... 39 
2018: ROC the Riverway ........................................................................................ 43 
Broad Street Bridge and Aqueduct Proposals ......................................................... 48 
William Rawn & the Winter Garden ....................................................................... 49 
Broad Street Underground ....................................................................................... 52 
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 53 
Chapter 5:  Preservation and Adaptive Reuse ............................................................. 55 
Definitions ............................................................................................................... 56 
Federal, State and Local Governments and Preservation ........................................ 59 
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 63 
Chapter 6:  Urban Revitalization and Historic Preservation ....................................... 65 
Historic Preservation as a Revitalization Tool ........................................................ 66 
Why Preservation is Important ............................................................................ 66 
How Urban Preservation Can be Achieved ......................................................... 74 
ReUrbanism and Rochester ..................................................................................... 78 
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 81 
Chapter 7:  Architectural Intervention ......................................................................... 83 
Site Analysis ............................................................................................................ 83 
Program and Precedents .......................................................................................... 87 
Design Strategies ..................................................................................................... 91 
Final Design ............................................................................................................. 92 
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 94 
Chapter 8:  Conclusion ................................................................................................ 96 
Appendices .................................................................................................................. 97 
Appendix A ............................................................................................................. 97 
Downtown Decentralization: Constraining the City ........................................... 98 
iv 
 
 
 
Civic Pride ......................................................................................................... 101 
Urban Renewal Efforts ...................................................................................... 105 
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 112 
Appendix B ............................................................................................................ 114 
Zoning ................................................................................................................ 114 
Population and Demographics ........................................................................... 115 
Transportation .................................................................................................... 117 
Tourism and Program ........................................................................................ 120 
Climate .............................................................................................................. 125 
Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 128 
 
 
 
 
 
v 
 
 
 
List of Figures 
Figure 1 Map of Phelps and Gorham Purchase 1790, second survey, Monroe County 
Library System, Rochester Municipal Archives, accessed December 14, 2018, .......... 5 
Figure 2 Diagram by Author. ........................................................................................ 5 
Figure 3 Site of Allan’s Mills on the One Hundred Acre Tract, from: Blake 
McKelvey and Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck, Rochester: A Panoramic History (Sun 
Valley, CA: American Historical Press, 2001). Page 19. .............................................. 6 
Figure 4 Rochester Map, 1817, A Town Square: Conversations About Where We 
Live, accessed November 13, 2018, 
https://heckeranddecker.wordpress.com/tag/blocks-and-streets/. ................................. 6 
Figure 5 Map of Village of Frankfort, New York, Monroe County Library System, 
Rochester Municipal Archives, accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resourceid=1115904430&curre
ntIndex=0&view=fullDetailsDetailsTab. ...................................................................... 7 
Figure 6 From: Marjorie Wickes and Tim O’Connell. “The Legacy of Frederick Law 
Olmsted.” Rochester History 50, no. 2 (April 1988). 
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v50_1988/v50i2.pdf. .................................... 7 
Figure 7 Rochester Map, 1820, A Town Square: Conversations About Where We 
Live, accessed November 13, 2018, 
https://heckeranddecker.wordpress.com/tag/blocks-and-streets/. ................................. 8 
Figure 8 New York : [with] Profile of the Champlain Canal from Lake Champlain to 
the Hudson River [and] Profile of levels of the Grand [i.e. Erie] Canal. (pub. by New 
York State, Albany, 1825), The Erie Canal, accessed December 14, 2018, 
http://www.eriecanal.org ............................................................................................... 9 
Figure 9 Valentine Gill, Jonathon Child, and John F. Morin. Map of Rochester from a 
correct survey. Library of Congress, accessed December 14, 2018,  
https://www.loc.gov/item/2003623826/. ..................................................................... 11 
Figure 10 Current City of Rochester Logo. Illustration by Author. ............................ 15 
Figure 11 Everard Peck. Plan of the first aqueduct carrying the Erie Canal over the 
Genesee River at Rochester, New York. Monroe County Library System, Rochester 
Municipal Archives, accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resourceid=111 ..................... 18 
Figure 12 Erie Canal Aqueduct, Rochester, N.Y. Monroe County Library System, 
Rochester Municipal Archives, accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resourceid=1116790146&curre
ntIndex=2&view=fullDetailsDetailsTab. .................................................................... 19 
Figure 13 Erie Canal Aqueduct, Rochester, N.Y. Monroe County Library System, 
Rochester Municipal Archives, accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resourceid=1115909858&curre
ntIndex=4&view=fullDetailsDetailsTab. .................................................................... 20 
Figure 14 Albert R. Stone. Canal Bed. Monroe County Library System, Albert R. 
Stone Negative Collection, Rochester Museum & Science Center, accessed December 
14, 2018, 
vi 
 
 
 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resourceid=1115930011&curre
ntIndex=5&view=fullDetailsDetailsTab. .................................................................... 21 
Figure 15 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 21 
Figure 16 Albert R. Stone. Aqueduct with subway tracks. Monroe County Library 
System, Albert R. Stone Negative Collection, Rochester Museum & Science Center, 
accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resourceid=1116174395&curre
ntIndex=3&view=fullDetailsDetailsTab. .................................................................... 23 
Figure 17 Albert R. Stone. Aqueduct’s arches look like medieval cloister. Monroe 
County Library System, Albert R. Stone Negative Collection, Rochester Museum & 
Science Center, accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resourceid=1116184200&curre
ntIndex=2&view=fullDetailsDetailsTab. .................................................................... 23 
Figure 18 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 25 
Figure 19 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 34 
Figure 20 The Grasso-Zimmer Plan, from: “A Revitalization Report: Written for the 
Grasso-Zimmer Plan.”pg.6. ......................................................................................... 40 
Figure 21 Preferred Master Plan, from: “Historic Erie Canal Aqueduct & Broad Street 
Corridor: Master Plan,” May 2009. Pg. 76 .................................................................. 41 
Figure 22 View Looking East to Aqueduct Commons & Rewatered Historic Erie 
Canal Aqueduct, from: “Historic Erie Canal Aqueduct & Broad Street Corridor: 
Master Plan,” May 2009. Pg 83. .................................................................................. 42 
Figure 23 RTR Overview Map, City of Rochester, accessed December 14, 2018, 
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/roctheriverway/. ....................................................... 43 
Figure 24 No title, from: ROC the Riverway Advisory Board “ROC the Riverway: A 
Vision Plan for the Future of Rochester’s Genesee Riverfront, Phase 1 – May 2018,” 
May 2018. http://www.cityofrochester.gov/roctheriverway/, pg. 27. ......................... 45 
Figure 25 Phase I Recommended Projects, from: ROC the Riverway Advisory Board 
“ROC the Riverway: A Vision Plan for the Future of Rochester’s Genesee Riverfront, 
Phase 1 – May 2018,” May 2018. http://www.cityofrochester.gov/roctheriverway/, 
pg. III-52. ..................................................................................................................... 46 
Figure 26 No title, from: Rochester Economic Development Corporation, Reuse 
Feasibility Study for the Broad Street Aqueduct, prepared by William Rawn 
Associates, Architects, Inc., LaBella Associates, PC, and Real Estate Enterprises, Inc. 
(September 1994), pg. 5. ............................................................................................. 50 
Figure 27 No title, from: Mike Governale, “Broad St. Underground: ANOTHER 
Proposal for the Abandoned Subway!,” Rochester Subway, September 23rd, 2013, 
accessed October 6, 2018, http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2013/09/broad-
street-underground-proposal-for-abandoned-rochester-subway/ ................................ 52 
Figure 28 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 83 
Figure 29 Illustration by Author.                            Figure 30 Illustration by Author. 83 
Figure 31 Google Earth Underlay, Illsutration by Author. ......................................... 84 
Figure 32 Google Earth Underlay, Illustration by Author. ......................................... 84 
Figure 33 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ........................................ 84 
Figure 34 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 85 
Figure 35 Google Image Underlay, Diagram by Author. ............................................ 85 
vii 
 
 
 
Figure 36 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 85 
Figure 37 Google Image Underlay, Diagram by Author. ............................................ 86 
Figure 38 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 86 
Figure 39 Google Image Underlay, Diagram by Author. ............................................ 86 
Figure 40 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 87 
Figure 41 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 87 
Figure 42 Illustrations by Author. ............................................................................... 88 
Figure 43 Layout, Images and Illustrations by Author. ............................................... 88 
Figure 44 Illustrations by Author. ............................................................................... 88 
Figure 45 Layout, Images and Illustrations by Author. ............................................... 89 
Figure 46 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 89 
Figure 47 Illustration by Author .................................................................................. 89 
Figure 48 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 90 
Figure 49 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 90 
Figure 50 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 91 
Figure 51 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 91 
Figure 52 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 91 
Figure 53 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 92 
Figure 54 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 92 
Figure 55 Illustration by Author .................................................................................. 92 
Figure 56 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 92 
Figure 57 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 92 
Figure 58 Illustration by Author. ................................................................................. 94 
Figure 59 Boards, Images, and Illustrations by Author. .............................................. 95 
Figure 60 Map showing Inner Loop Proposal, Rochester, N.Y., Monroe County 
Library System, Rochester Municipal Archives, accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resourceid=1116102511&curre
ntIndex=0&view=fullDetailsDetailsTab. .................................................................... 99 
Figure 61 Albert R. Stone. Aerial view showing Rundel Building under construction. 
Monroe County Library System, Albert R. Stone Negative Collection, Rochester 
Museum & Science Center, accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resourceid=1116891499&curre
ntIndex=0&view=fullDetailsDetailsTab. .................................................................. 102 
Figure 62 War Memorial, Rochester N.Y. Monroe County Library System, Rochester 
Municipal Archives, accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resourceid=1117023429&curre
ntIndex=3&view=fullDetailsDetailsTab. .................................................................. 103 
Figure 63 Civic Center Plan, from: “Civic Center: Rochester, New York,” 1956, 
http://mcnygenealogy.com/book/civic-center-1956.pdf pg 3. ................................... 104 
Figure 64 Cover Page from “Midtown Plaza: The New Business Center of Downtown 
Rochester, New York.” .............................................................................................. 106 
Figure 65 No title, from: Daniel J. Palmer, Rochester’s Downtown Architecture: 
1950-1975 (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2010). Pg. 46. .............................. 109 
Figure 66 No title, from: “Unloading Day,” Democrat & Chronicle, May 22, 1977.
 ................................................................................................................................... 111 
viii 
 
 
 
Figure 67 Zoning Diagram, Google Earth Imagery with diagram drawn by Author.
 ................................................................................................................................... 114 
Figure 68 Illustration by Author. ............................................................................... 115 
Figure 69 Illustration by Author. ............................................................................... 115 
Figure 70 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 116 
Figure 71 Illustration by Author. ............................................................................... 117 
Figure 72 Illustration by Author. ............................................................................... 117 
Figure 73 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 118 
Figure 74 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 118 
Figure 75 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 119 
Figure 76 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 119 
Figure 77 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 120 
Figure 78  Illustration by Author. .............................................................................. 120 
Figure 79 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 121 
Figure 80 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 122 
Figure 81 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 122 
Figure 82 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 123 
Figure 83 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 124 
Figure 84 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 124 
Figure 85 Illustration by Author. ............................................................................... 125 
Figure 86 Illustration by Author. ............................................................................... 125 
Figure 87 Illustration by Author. ............................................................................... 125 
Figure 89 Illustration by Author. ............................................................................... 126 
Figure 88 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. ...................................... 126 
Figure 90 Illustration by Author. ............................................................................... 127 
Figure 91  Illustration by Author. .............................................................................. 127 
 
 
ix 
 
 
 
Chapter 1: Introduction 
Eastman Kodak. Xerox. Bausch and Lomb. Wegmans. Each company made 
its start in the mid-size upstate New York city of Rochester. While these businesses 
may define Rochester’s economy, industrial ingenuity, and job market, the physical 
city better resembles its famed dish, the garbage plate. Invented in 1918, this unique 
mixture of home fries, macaroni salad, hamburgers or hotdogs, doused in ketchup, 
meat sauce, and hot sauce is visually un-appealing though made up of individually 
appetizing ingredients. Rochester, too, is composed of various ingredients: thriving 
technology industries, a world-class health care system, and a prestigious music and 
arts scene. However, like the garbage plate, the city’s unique qualities, history and 
architecture are not cohesively expressed and experienced. The lack of a defined and 
active city center has promoted a segmented city, which has further decentralized 
with the mid-20th century shift in population to the suburbs. As the city begins to see 
an increase in population back downtown, there is an opportunity to redefine the 
center city by focusing on an abandoned structure that has been a void in the heart of 
downtown since the mid-1950s: The Broad Street bridge. 
 Listed in the National Register of Historic Places as the Erie Canal: Second 
Genesee Aqueduct, the structure once carried the Erie Canal through the heart of the 
city before it was abandoned and reused for the city’s subway system. Since the 
closure of the subway in 1956, the multi-layered bridge and aqueduct now carries 
vehicular and pedestrian traffic along the top of the structure, while the old subway 
and Erie Canal bed remain vacant. Prominently located in the center of the city, 
1 
 
 
 
extending across the Genesee River to connect the bisected city, the abandoned Broad 
Street bridge and aqueduct is an architectural and engineering gem that should be 
adaptively reused and celebrated for its role in Rochester’s transportation history.  
 Rochester, once a thriving boomtown in the 19th century, has suffered the fate 
of many other mid-size cities due to the popularity of the automobile, rapid 
development of suburbia, and the notion of individualism and the “American Dream.” 
As Rochesterians vacated the city for individual homes and accompanying yards, they 
left behind a charming city with a wide variety of historic structures and architectural 
styles. Though a sizeable amount of the city’s architecture was demolished to make 
way for taller office buildings, superblock developments, and parking lots in the era 
of urban renewal, a healthy portion of historic 19th and 20th century architecture still 
exists in the city. As national trends in urban living have created a resurgence in 
downtown population, many historic structures are being adaptively reused for new 
residential living spaces. However, developers are filling in vacant buildings with 
residential units and therefore ignoring the need to create an active street presence 
downtown. While the increase in population is beneficial for the city, the lack of 
developing a retail environment and creating public park or plaza space will lead to a 
lifeless downtown.  
 The Broad Street bridge and aqueduct has transformed, shaped and attributed 
to life in downtown Rochester since the 1840s. By responding to the need to fill a 
void in the heart of downtown while also developing a mixed-use commercial and 
public space for Rochesterians, adaptively reusing the structure will spur the city’s 
2 
 
 
 
revitalization efforts. The transformation and programming of this historic structure 
will allow the bridge to continue to define Rochester’s identity in the 21st century.  
 This thesis will explore the history of the Broad Street bridge and aqueduct, 
looking at its uses throughout the course of Rochester’s history and a variety of 
proposals made to either reuse or demolish the structure since the closing of the Erie 
Canal. The history of the structure will be placed in context of the city’s history to 
explain the growth, expansion and decentralization of the city. Additionally, this 
thesis will explore and investigate the role of adaptive reuse in urban revitalization. 
Ultimately, this thesis will present a new opportunity for the Broad Street bridge and 
aqueduct as one system that can be plugged into the current city plans focusing on 
revitalizing and activating the Genesee River as a means to transform the character of 
Rochester. 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
 
 
Chapter 2: A Brief Overview of Rochester, NY  
 
The creation of the Genesee valley and gorge is a product of the Cenozoic Era 
in which a melting glacier and north-flowing river cut into the Lockport dolomite 
outcrop (limestone) and created the region in which the city of Rochester resides 
today. Named Genesee, or “pleasant valley” by the Native Americans, the Genesee 
River and its three cataracts sponsored the ideal site for a mill town.1 While early 
attempts to develop mills on the site were unsuccessful, by the 1810s the beginning of 
the city developed from small tracts of land sold to ambitious men. The fate of the 
mill town was sealed with the determined course of the Erie Canal running through 
the heart of the village in 1825. This chapter will briefly explain the history of the city 
in three categories corresponding to the three nicknames of Rochester. 
The Young Lion of the West 
In 1788, land speculator Oliver Phelps from New England negotiated with a 
Seneca tribe for 2.6 million acres of land in Buffalo Creek. The negotiations led to the 
                                               
1 Blake McKelvey, “Historic Origins,” in Rochester on the Genesee: The Growth of a City, Second 
Edition (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993); Thomas X. Grasso, “Geology and Industrial 
History of the Rochester Gorge Part One,” Rochester History 54, no. 4 (Fall 1992). 
 
4 
 
 
 
addition of 200,000 acres to be used to 
develop a mill site for the Senecas to use. The 
negotiations, translated by Ebenezer “Indian” 
Allan, a frontiersman, resulted in Allan being 
given the title of a 100-acre tract west of the 
Genesee River to build a gristmill and 
sawmill.2 
Mill construction began in 1789, with 
the mills being completed in late 1790 or early 
Figure 1 Map of Phelps and Gorham Purchase 
1790, second survey, Monroe County Library 
System, Rochester Municipal Archives, accessed 1791. Utilizing the natural raceway on the 
December 14, 2018, 
west side of the river, the mills were to be 
used by settlers in the area and the Senecas. 
However, the closest inhabitants, other than 
Allan’s family, were more than two hours 
traveling distance.3 Additionally, towns like 
Canandaigua, Bath, and Geneva were better 
Figure 2 Diagram by Author. 
promoted due to their connections to east and west trade routes, versus the Genesee 
                                               
2 Blake McKelvey and Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck, Rochester: A Panoramic History (Sun Valley, 
CA: American Historical Press, 2001).; Blake McKelvey, “Historic Origins,” in Rochester on the 
Genesee: The Growth of a City, Second Edition (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993); 
Blake McKelvey, “Indian Allan’s Mills,” Rochester History 1, no. 4 (October 1939).; Blake 
McKelvey, “A Sesquicentennial Review of Rochester’s History,” Rochester History 24, no. 3 (July 
1962).; Edmond M. Beame, “Rochester’s Flour-Milling Industry in Pre-Canal Days,” The Business 
History Review 31, no. 2 (Summer 1957): accessed October 24, 2018.; Blake McKelvey, “The 
Population of Rochester,” Rochester History 12, no. 4 (October 1950). 
3  Edmond M. Beame, “Rochester’s Flour-Milling Industry in Pre-Canal Days,” The Business History 
Review 31, no. 2 (Summer 1957): accessed October 24, 2018. 
5 
 
 
 
mill site’s northern trade route. By 
1791, Allan left his mills in the care of 
his brother-in-law, Christopher Dugan, 
in pursuit of travelling further west.4  
 Development of the 100-acre 
tract was minimal after the initial 
Figure 3 Site of Allan’s Mills on the One Hundred Acre 
Tract, from: Blake McKelvey and Ruth Rosenberg- building of the mills. The lack of 
Naparsteck, Rochester: A Panoramic History (Sun Valley, 
CA: American Historical Press, 2001). Page 19. inhabitants around the mill site and 
poor promotional efforts led to the sites’ 
abandonment. It was not until 1803 when three land 
speculators from Hagerstown, Maryland decided to 
purchase the 100-acre tract for $17.50 per acre.5 
Charles Carroll, William Fitzhugh and Colonel 
Nathaniel Rochester envisioned a developed mill site, 
but only Rochester returned to the site in 1810. 6  
Figure 4 Rochester Map, 1817, A Town  Beginning in 1811, Colonel Rochester laid out 
Square: Conversations About Where We 
Live, accessed November 13, 2018, the new town to be called Rochesterville in a 
https://heckeranddecker.wordpress.com/t
ag/blocks-and-streets/. 
gridiron layout similar to Baltimore and 
                                               
4 Blake McKelvey, “Historic Origins,” in Rochester on the Genesee: The Growth of a City, Second 
Edition (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993); Blake McKelvey, “Indian Allan’s Mills,” 
Rochester History 1, no. 4 (October 1939).; Blake McKelvey and Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck, 
Rochester: A Panoramic History (Sun Valley, CA: American Historical Press, 2001). 
5 Ibid.  
6 Ibid.; Blake McKelvey., “The Physical Growth of Rochester,” Rochester History 13, no. 4 (October 
1951); Blake McKelvey, “A Sesquicentennial Review of Rochester’s History,” Rochester History 24, 
no. 3 (July 1962).; Edmond M. Beame, “Rochester’s Flour-Milling Industry in Pre-Canal Days,” The 
Business History Review 31, no. 2 (Summer 1957): accessed October 24, 2018.; Blake McKelvey, 
“The Population of Rochester,” Rochester History 12, no. 4 (October 1950). 
6 
 
 
 
Philadelphia. A major east-west 
street, Buffalo Street, measured six 
rods wide. Extending towards 
Buffalo to the west and towards 
the town of Pittsford to the east, 
Buffalo Street became the major 
Figure 5 Map of Village of Frankfort, New York, Monroe 
County Library System, Rochester Municipal Archives, accessed commercial thoroughfare of the 
December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resource Genesee site. Once the street 
id=1115904430&currentIndex=0&view=fullDetailsDetailsTab. 
crossed the Genesee, the street name changed 
to Main Street. 7  
 Simultaneously developing alongside 
Colonel Rochester’s tract was the 200-acre 
tract known as Frankfort to the north, and the 
80-acre tract known as East Rochester on the 
east side of the Genesee River. 8 Both tracts 
were cognizant of Colonel Rochester’s plan, 
developing off of Buffalo and Main Streets 
Figure 6 From: Marjorie Wickes and Tim 
O’Connell. “The Legacy of Frederick Law with separate gridiron layouts. Frankfort, 
Olmsted.” Rochester History 50, no. 2 (April 
1988). which formerly incorporated with the 100-
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v50_198
8/v50i2.pdf. 
                                               
7 Blake McKelvey., “The Physical Growth of Rochester,” Rochester History 13, no. 4 (October 1951); 
Blake McKelvey, “Historic Origins,” in Rochester on the Genesee: The Growth of a City, Second 
Edition (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993); Blake McKelvey, “Rochester in Retrospect 
and Prospect,” Rochester History 23, no. 3 (July 1961).; Blake McKelvey, “Rochester’s 125th 
Birthday,” Rochester History 21, no. 2 (April 1959). 
8 Blake McKelvey, “Historic Origins,” in Rochester on the Genesee: The Growth of a City, Second 
Edition (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993). 
7 
 
 
 
acre tract in March of 1817 when the tracts became the village of Rochesterville, 
housed multiple mills and industrial factories, becoming the town’s industrial 
neighborhood. 9  East Rochester, purchased in 1816, would not be incorporated into 
Rochesterville until 1821, when Monroe County was created and encapsulated both 
sides of the Genesee River.10  
 A total of 655 acres and 700 inhabitants, while excluding approximately 400 
settlers in East Rochester, Rochesterville’s 
population flourished after incorporation. 
1817 was a pivotal year for the small 
village, as the decision for a major east-
west trade route was announced. Known 
Figure 7 Rochester Map, 1820, A Town Square: 
Conversations About Where We Live, accessed 
November 13, 2018, as the Erie Canal, this man-made artificial 
https://heckeranddecker.wordpress.com/tag/blocks-
and-streets/. river would enter Colonel Rochester’s 
100-acre tract and, over the course of ten years, expand the growth of the village’s 
population by 804%.11 
                                               
9Edmond M. Beame, “Rochester’s Flour-Milling Industry in Pre-Canal Days,” The Business History 
Review 31, no. 2 (Summer 1957): accessed October 24, 2018.; Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck, 
“Frankfort: Birthplace of Rochester’s Industry,” Rochester History 50, no. 3 (July 1988). 
10I Dexter Perkins and Blake McKelvey, “Touring Backwards: A Visit to Rochester in 1818, and 
Again in 1838,” Rochester History 2, no. 1 (January 1940).; Blake McKelvey, “‘Canaltown’, A Focus 
on Historical Traditions,” Rochester History 37, no. 2 (April 1975).; Blake McKelvey, “‘Canaltown’, 
A Focus on Historical Traditions,” Rochester History 37, no. 2 (April 1975). 
11 Blake McKelvey, “Rochester’s 125th Birthday,” Rochester History 21, no. 2 (April 1959).; Blake 
McKelvey, “Rochester in Retrospect and Prospect,” Rochester History 23, no. 3 (July 1961).; Blake 
McKelvey, “The Population of Rochester,” Rochester History 12, no. 4 (October 1950).; Blake 
McKelvey, “A Sesquicentennial Review of Rochester’s History,” Rochester History 24, no. 3 (July 
1962).; Blake McKelvey., “The Physical Growth of Rochester,” Rochester History 13, no. 4 (October 
1951); Blake McKelvey, “Sesquicentennial of Rochesterville,” Rochester History 29, no. 3 (June 
1967). 
8 
 
 
 
In 1808, surveyor James Geddes began charting the route of the Erie Canal to 
extend from the state capital of Albany to the western New York city of Buffalo.12 
However, the canal was not a method to connect two cities across the state, but the 
bodies of water the 
cities were built upon, 
therefore creating a 
faster form of 
transportation between 
Lake Erie and the 
Hudson River, and 
Figure 8 New York : [with] Profile of the Champlain Canal from Lake ultimately the Atlantic 
Champlain to the Hudson River [and] Profile of levels of the Grand [i.e. Erie] 
Canal. (pub. by New York State, Albany, 1825), The Erie Canal, accessed 
December 14, 2018, http://www.eriecanal.org Ocean.   
Once again, Geddes surveyed New York State, finding the best route for this 
new canal in 1816. Based on geological contours along and not the development of 
villages, the canal was brought directly through Rochesterville.13 By July 4th, 1817, 
the Erie Canal broke ground in Rome, New York with workers digging in both 
directions.14  
                                               
12 Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 3 & 4 (July & October 
1949). 
13 Blake McKelvey, “A Panoramic Review of Rochester’s History,” Rochester History 11, no. 2 (April 
1949).; Thomas X. Grasso, “Geology and Industrial History of the Rochester Gorge Part One,” 
Rochester History 54, no. 4 (Fall 1992). 
14 Deborah Williams, The Erie Canal: Exploring New York’s Great Canals, Includes Oswego, Cayuga-
Seneca & Champlain Canals, (Woodstock, VA: The Countryman Press, 2009).; Blake McKelvey, 
“Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 3 & 4 (July & October 1949).; Thomas X. 
Grasso, “The Erie Canal and Rochester: Past, Present, and Future,” Rochester History 72, no. 1 (Spring 
2010). 
9 
 
 
 
 As the canal crept closer to Rochester in the early 1820s, a structure would 
need to be built to carry the Erie over the Genesee. Explored further in the next 
chapter, the Erie Canal aqueduct was created, extending across the river, carrying the 
artificial waterway into the village. The canal now able to extend across the Genesee 
River, officially opened in 1825 with an extensive ceremony starting in Buffalo.15 On 
October 26th, Governor Clinton boarded a packet at 10:20 AM, reaching Rochester 
on October 27th where local Rochesterians waited and celebrated his arrival. Another 
packet boat filled with Rochesterville politicians, called the Young Lion of the West, 
the thriving mill town’s nickname at the time, continued with Governor Clinton on 
his journey to New York City. The Governor and the Young Lion of the West, which 
carried barrels of flour and other locally produced goods, reached New York on 
November 4th. 16  
The Flour City 
 The 363-mile-long canal placed Rochesterville on the map as an important 
commercial trade hub. 17 The success of the Erie Canal, decreasing transportation 
                                               
15 National Register of Historic Preservation Nomination: The Second Genesee Aqueduct, Monroe 
County, New York. 1976.; Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 
3 & 4 (July & October 1949).; Rochester Economic Development Corporation, Reuse Feasibility Study 
for the Broad Street Aqueduct, prepared by William Rawn Associates, Architects, Inc., LaBella 
Associates, PC, and Real Estate Enterprises, Inc. (September 1994). 
16 Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 3 & 4 (July & October 
1949).; Thomas X. Grasso, “The Erie Canal and Rochester: Past, Present, and Future,” Rochester 
History 72, no. 1 (Spring 2010). 
17 Thomas X. Grasso, “The Erie Canal and Rochester: Past, Present, and Future,” Rochester History 
72, no. 1 (Spring 2010).; Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 
3 & 4 (July & October 1949).  
10 
 
 
 
costs by 90%, opened up new markets to the thriving mill town. The small village 
became America’s first boom 
town, and experienced a 
buildup of various industries, 
most notably flour.18 The 
decrease in transportation costs 
combined with the three 
millraces harnessing the power 
of the Genesee, led to 
Figure 9 Valentine Gill, Jonathon Child, and John F. Morin. Map of 
Rochester from a correct survey. Library of Congress, accessed 
December 14, 2018,  https://www.loc.gov/item/2003623826/. Rochester’s success as an 
industrial city, known as the “Flour City.” Starting with one gristmill in 1789, 
Rochester grew to twenty mills by 1851, with the ability to produce 561,818 barrels 
of flour annually.19 The development of the Erie Canal in the 1800s completely 
transformed the economy of New York, spurring the development villages and cities 
along the canal and influencing the building of canals in other states.  
 Prior to the digging of the Erie Canal through Rochesterville in the 1820s, the 
only waterways that defined the village pattern was the Genesee River and the 
millraces built for industry. Once the canal was completed, a series of slips and basins 
developed along the canal as it entered Rochester, creating areas for packet boats to 
load and unload goods and for products to be traded. Boat, lumber, and mill yards 
                                               
18Thomas X. Grasso, “Geology and Industrial History of the Rochester Gorge Part One,” Rochester 
History 54, no. 4 (Fall 1992).; Edmond M. Beame, “Rochester’s Flour-Milling Industry in Pre-Canal 
Days,” The Business History Review 31, no. 2 (Summer 1957): accessed October 24, 2018. 
19 Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck, “Frankfort: Birthplace of Rochester’s Industry,” Rochester History 50, 
no. 3 (July 1988). 
11 
 
 
 
additionally utilized these basins. Child’s Basin, located north of the canal just after it 
crosses to the west via the aqueduct, became the most popular boating dock in 
Rochester. Due to Child's Basin’s popularity, a series of stores and exchange houses 
were erected between Mill Street (Exchange Street) and the basin, while mills 
bordered the east side. Bridges were additionally created to carry roads across the 
canal, while buildings built up to the edges of the towpath. Known as “Canaltown,” 
the southwest quadrant of the city became a bustling sector of the mill town. The 
canal sponsored growth and development of hotels, mills, warehouses, shops and 
residences, therefore densifying current blocks and expanding the village beyond its 
1810s borders.  
 In addition to the expansion and growth of the city and its population, the Erie 
Canal connected Rochester to new markets. The Flour City’s chief export had made 
its way to England, becoming Queen Victoria’s favorite flour used in cakes. In 1844, 
the Queen ordered 6,000 barrels of flour for her kitchens, which were sent to London 
by way of the Erie Canal.20 Although Rochester had other prosperous industries 
producing goods like edge tools, machinery, cloth, furniture, and boats, flour 
remained the city’s chief export, becoming a recognizable export of the city.   
The Erie Canal sparked growth and development, leading to the incorporation 
of Rochester as a city in 1834. Growing from a humble mill town, Rochester 
developed into a boom town with the digging of the Erie Canal through the heart of 
the city. The canal made Rochester, defining it as a unique village on the canal’s 
                                               
20 Thomas X. Grasso, “The Erie Canal and Rochester: Past, Present, and Future,” Rochester History 
72, no. 1 (Spring 2010).; Deborah Williams, The Erie Canal: Exploring New York’s Great Canals, 
Includes Oswego, Cayuga-Seneca & Champlain Canals, (Woodstock, VA: The Countryman Press, 
2009). 
12 
 
 
 
route filled with many industries and products. Rochester’s urban pattern that 
developed in the early 1800s as a result of independent entrepreneurs’ efforts to 
harness the power of the Genesee, is still evident today. However, the Erie Canal no 
longer defined the character of downtown by 1920 when the State of New York 
decided to create a larger barge canal, rerouting the Erie south of the city. 
The Flower City 
 Around 1888, Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. declared “some day persons will 
make it a point to stop off at Rochester to visit your parks.”21 At this point in time 
Rochester recently established its Park Commission, a twenty-person committee 
which tasked Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. to assist Rochester in developing a park 
system. This new park system, consisting of three major parks throughout the city: 
Highland, Genesee Valley and Seneca Parks (originally included Maplewood Park); 
fulfilled Olmsted’s prediction by the early 1900s as Rochester transitioned from the 
Flour City to the Flower City.22  
 Following the larger trend in beautifying cities, as well as the newly 
developed Niagara Falls tourist attraction, Rochester seized the opportunity to 
legitimize its landscape and emphasize its beauty. Prior to the acceptance of plans for 
the cities three newest parks, Rochesterians, like most other Americans, enjoyed 
picnicking and walking within the city’s cemetery. Known as Mt. Hope Cemetery, 
                                               
21 Marjorie Wickes and Tim O’Connell. “The Legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted.” Rochester History 
50, no. 2 (April 1988). http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v50_1988/v50i2.pdf. pg. 4 
22 Blake McKelvey, “Historic Origins,” in Rochester on the Genesee: The Growth of a City, Second 
Edition (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993); Marjorie Wickes and Tim O’Connell. “The 
Legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted.” Rochester History 50, no. 2 (April 1988). 
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v50_1988/v50i2.pdf. 
13 
 
 
 
the Mt. Hope Nurseries was located nearby, further providing citizens with a park-
like environment. The transition into the creation of parks for citizens to enjoy in the 
late 1880s, followed the creation of the Park Commission on April 27, 1888 as well 
as the commissions’ visit to Buffalo, New York to witness the design work of 
Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. and Calvert Vaux.23 
 After hiring the infamous landscape architecture duo, Rochester’s landscape 
slowly transformed into the Flower City. Olmsted Sr.’s three major parks, Highland. 
Genesee Valley and Seneca Parks, followed his design principles of incorporating 
trees and shrubs, water, and grass together to create a natural landscape. Adding to 
Olmsted’s design, multiple donors and commission members insisted on the creation 
of pavilions or other buildings bearing their names. In Highland Park, which holds the 
Mt. Hope reservoir, $20,000 was donated for the construction of a greenhouse to 
memorialize Alexander B. Lamberton, who was president of the Board of Park 
Commissioners between 1902 and 1918.24  
 Although the Lamberton Conservatory was not part of Olmsted’s design, the 
Genesee Valley Park mostly carries Olmsted’s vision of tranquil meadows on the east 
side of the river and recreational function on the west, despite the intrusion of the 
Barge Canal in the early 1910s and later Interstate 390. Seneca Park, located along 
the Genesee River north of the central city, additionally featured a natural landscape, 
                                               
23 Ibid. 
24 Marjorie Wickes and Tim O’Connell. “The Legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted.” Rochester History 
50, no. 2 (April 1988). http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v50_1988/v50i2.pdf. 
14 
 
 
 
utilizing the Genesee as an amenity and allowing for recreation, including the 
creation of the Seneca Park Zoo, within the park.25 
 Beyond Olmsted’s contributions to developing a park system and emphasizing 
the city’s natural beauty, Rochester’s transformation towards 
the Flower City was mostly due to the growing nursery trade 
within the city. Leaders in this industry included George 
Ellwanger and Patrick Barry, two key players in the donation 
Figure 10 Current City of 
Rochester Logo. Illustration of land to the Park Commission to develop parks for 
by Author. 
Rochesterians. For a time, Ellwanger, Barry, Joseph Harris, 
and James Vick adamantly advanced Rochester’s horticultural scene to become the 
leading nursery center in America.26 An 1859 brochure, written by Henry O’Reilly, 
entitled “The Greatest Nursery in the World,” first gifted Rochester the moniker of 
the Flower City.  
Conclusion 
 Still known as the Flower City today with its annual Lilac Festival hosted in 
Olmsted’s Highland Park, Rochester prides itself in its beauty, character, and history.  
Over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, Rochester rapidly transformed from a 
humble town with a few mills, to a booming city with a wide variety of innovative 
and technologically based industries. One piece of infrastructure, located in the heart 
                                               
25 Ibid.; Blake McKelvey, “Historic Origins,” in Rochester on the Genesee: The Growth of a City, 
Second Edition (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993) 
26 Blake McKelvey, “Historic Origins,” in Rochester on the Genesee: The Growth of a City, Second 
Edition (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993) pg. 68. 
15 
 
 
 
of downtown Rochester, best showcases Rochester’s transformation over these two 
centuries through its design evolution.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16 
 
 
 
Chapter 3: The Second Genesee Aqueduct 
 
 The Second Genesee Aqueduct, more popularly known as the Broad Street 
bridge, is a unique, historic structure in the heart of the central business district. The 
structure, built over the course of two centuries, displays two versions of Rochester’s 
transportation history. A multi-layered structure, the base of the bridge is a 1840s 
canal aqueduct, while the top portion is a 1920s vehicular bridge, capping four 
railroad tracks placed in the original canal bed. Showcasing both 19th and 20th 
century transportation methods in Rochester, the historic bridge and aqueduct has a 
complex future, which remains unsolved today. 
The First (and Second) Aqueduct 
 James Geddes’ survey of Rochesterville in 1816, called for the damming of 
the Genesee to allow for the Erie Canal to cross the river. However, a disastrous flood 
in November of 1817 as a result of a milldam failure, proved the need for a new type 
of structure to carry the canal.27 If Governor DeWitt Clinton’s ditch was going to 
continue westward, an aqueduct would be necessary to cross the mighty Genesee. The 
Canal Commission, which already oversaw the development of three aqueducts for 
the Erie Canal, approved the creation of a fourth and final aqueduct in 
Rochesterville.28 
 In June of 1821, the positioning of a stone aqueduct, 80 rods south of present-
day Main Street bridge, was determined, channeling the Erie Canal into the heart of 
                                               
27 Ibid. 
28 Ibid.; National Register of Historic Preservation Nomination: The Second Genesee Aqueduct, 
Monroe County, New York. 1976. 
17 
 
 
 
the village.29 This aqueduct, to be made of sandstone, was to be built by contractor 
William Britton. Britton, who had previously finished building the New York State 
prison in Auburn, brought 28 convicts with him to build the aqueduct. Beginning in 
fall of 1821, a series of delays and 
mishaps prolonged the aqueduct’s 
construction. First, the convicts had a 
habit of escaping from their housing, 
Figure 11 Everard Peck. Plan of the first aqueduct carrying 
the Erie Canal over the Genesee River at Rochester, New proving hard to recapture. Secondly, 
York. Monroe County Library System, Rochester Municipal 
Archives, accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&res one of the arches extending across the 
ourceid=111 
river that had been placed in the fall, was carried away by ice in the winter of 1821. 
Lastly, the sudden death of Britton halted the construction of the structure.30 By 1822, 
under a new builder the aqueduct’s construction rapidly continued as the Erie Canal 
reached the eastern edge of the Genesee.31 
 Completed in September 1823, the red sandstone aqueduct cost the State 
$83,000 to construct.32 Hailed as one of the “largest and finest examples of bridge 
masonry in the world,” the aqueduct slowly began to leak by the 1830s.33 The 802-
foot structure with nine roman arches and two smaller arches flanking the ends, was 
                                               
29 Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 3 & 4 (July & October 
1949). 
30 Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 3 & 4 (July & October 
1949).; Joseph W. Barnes, “Historic Broad Street Bridge and the Erie Canal Sesquicentennial, 1825-
1975,” Rochester History 37, no. 3 (July 1975). 
31 Ibid, 
32 Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 3 & 4 (July & October 
1949).; Judy Adams, “Old aqueduct plaque found under Broad St bridge: A Memento of Erie Canal,” 
Times Union, May 22, 1973. 
33 Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 3 & 4 (July & October 
1949).; Judy Adams, “Old aqueduct plaque found under Broad St bridge: A Memento of Erie Canal,” 
Times Union, May 22, 1973.; Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck, “Rochester’s History: A Sketchbook: 
Broad Street Bridge,” Times Union, May 23, 1989. 
18 
 
 
 
not as sturdy as it appeared.34 Additionally, the 17-foot wide trough, also known as a 
trunk or canal bed, only allowed for one-way traffic. The narrow channel, combined 
with the sharp right turn to cross the river, lead to traffic jams and disputes over the 
right of way of boats and packets.35 While the aqueduct was temporarily reinforced 
with wooden timbers, the Canal Commissioners decided to build a new aqueduct in 
1837.36  
 Proposals for the new aqueduct 
are seen as early as 1834, most notably 
by Holmes Hutchinson, an Erie Canal 
engineer. Hutchinson proposed six 
alternative plans, calling for various 
Figure 12 Erie Canal Aqueduct, Rochester, N.Y. Monroe 
County Library System, Rochester Municipal Archives, 
accessed December 14, 2018, stone or wooden aqueduct structures, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&res
ourceid=1116790146&currentIndex=2&view=fullDetails as well as a solution to create a 
DetailsTab. 
wooden trunk to fit within the existing structure.37 Ultimately, a completely new 
structure, built with limestone was chosen. The gray, Onondaga limestone for the new 
structure, sourced from the Split Rock quarry outside of Syracuse, was shipped via 
the canal.38 Designed by self-educated architect Nathan S. Roberts of Piles Grove, 
                                               
34 Judy Adams, “Old aqueduct plaque found under Broad St bridge: A Memento of Erie Canal,” Times 
Union, May 22, 1973.; Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 3 
& 4 (July & October 1949).; Joseph W. Barnes, “Historic Broad Street Bridge and the Erie Canal 
Sesquicentennial, 1825-1975,” Rochester History 37, no. 3 (July 1975). 
35 Thomas X. Grasso, “The Erie Canal and Rochester: Past, Present, and Future,” Rochester History 
72, no. 1 (Spring 2010).; Judy Adams, “Old aqueduct plaque found under Broad St bridge: A Memento 
of Erie Canal,” Times Union, May 22, 1973. 
36 Dexter Perkins and Blake McKelvey, “Early Rochester Illustrated,” Rochester History 5, no. 3 (July 
1943). 
37 Joseph W. Barnes, “Historic Broad Street Bridge and the Erie Canal Sesquicentennial, 1825-1975,” 
Rochester History 37, no. 3 (July 1975). 
38 Ibid.; National Register of Historic Preservation Nomination: The Second Genesee Aqueduct, 
Monroe County, New York. 1976.; Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester 
19 
 
 
 
NY, the new aqueduct extended 444 feet across the Genesee with seven roman 
arches. Including the abutments, the new aqueduct totaled 800 feet. Several 
improvements, beyond a leak-resistant aqueduct were designed into the new structure. 
The canal bed now measured 45 feet across, allowing for two-way traffic. 
Additionally, the east side of the aqueduct was located slightly south of the first 
aqueduct, eliminating the harsh ninety-
degree angle turn.39 
 Completed in 1842 the second 
aqueduct was officially opened on 
April 21st, just before the construction 
would be affected by the “Stop Law.” 
Figure 13 Erie Canal Aqueduct, Rochester, N.Y. Monroe This law, enacted by the State, ended 
County Library System, Rochester Municipal Archives, 
accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&res any canal construction at the end of 
ourceid=1115909858&currentIndex=4&view=fullDetails
DetailsTab. April. Since the opening of the Erie 
Canal in 1825, the village of Rochesterville dramatically expanded from a tiny 
milling village on the Genesee River, to a boomtown and popular trading post on the 
route of the Erie Canal. The Young Lion of the West, with a population of 700 in 
1817, grew to 5,000 people when the canal opened in 1825. Rochesterville became 
the City of Rochester in 1834, with a total population of 12,252.40 Between 1825 and 
                                               
History 11, no. 3 & 4 (July & October 1949).; William Murphy, “New Look for Old Lady of Broad 
St.: Plan to Widen Span, Street Calls for Repair of Bridge Superstructure,” Democrat & Chronicle, 
July 14, 1957. 
39 Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 3 & 4 (July & October 
1949).; Joseph W. Barnes, “Historic Broad Street Bridge and the Erie Canal Sesquicentennial, 1825-
1975,” Rochester History 37, no. 3 (July 1975).; Blake McKelvey, “‘Canaltown’, A Focus on 
Historical Traditions,” Rochester History 37, no. 2 (April 1975). 
40 Thomas X. Grasso, “The Erie Canal and Rochester: Past, Present, and Future,” Rochester History 
72, no. 1 (Spring 2010). 
20 
 
 
 
1860, the population continued to grow on 
average of 1,000 people per year, totaling at 
48,200 by 1860.41  
 Over the course of the 1850s and 1860s, the Erie 
Canal was widened to better compete with the 
railroads which offered the country a faster and 
Figure 15 Illustration by Author. 
more convenient way to ship goods. To combat the transition from canal to rail, 
Governor Theodore Roosevelt hoped to revitalize the usage of canals in New York 
State by constructing the Barge Canal. 
42 This new canal would improve not 
only the Erie Canal, but also the 
Oswego, Champlain, Seneca and 
Cayuga canals throughout the State. 
Completed in 1918, the Barge Canal 
Figure 14 Albert R. Stone. Canal Bed. Monroe County varied between 120 to 200 feet wide, 
Library System, Albert R. Stone Negative Collection, 
Rochester Museum & Science Center, accessed December 
14, 2018, therefore larger barges than the 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&res
ourceid=1115930011&currentIndex=5&view=fullDetails
DetailsTab. previous New York State canals.43 
The new canal, which mostly followed the original Erie Canal path, was unable to 
                                               
41 Ibid.; Joseph W. Barnes, “Historic Broad Street Bridge and the Erie Canal Sesquicentennial, 1825-
1975,” Rochester History 37, no. 3 (July 1975). 
42 Ibid.; Deborah Williams, The Erie Canal: Exploring New York’s Great Canals, Includes Oswego, 
Cayuga-Seneca & Champlain Canals, (Woodstock, VA: The Countryman Press, 2009). 
43 Ibid. 
21 
 
 
 
bypass the heart of Rochester. Instead, the canal was rerouted south of the city, going 
through Genesee Valley Park and crossing the Genesee River without an aqueduct.44 
 The re-routing of the canal south of the city, therefore left Rochester with a 
ditch in the heart of downtown. Officially abandoned by the 1920 canal season, the 
city formally purchased the right-of-way from the state for $1,500,000 in 1922.45 In 
less than 100 years, the Erie Canal transformed a small village of 1,000 people into a 
growing, industrial city that no longer needed the canal to dictate its future. The 
memory of the canal left its mark on downtown Rochester after its abandonment in 
the form of an empty ditch, but due to the city’s forward-thinking nature, the ditch 
was about to be transformed into a new form of transportation.  
Broad Street Bridge and the Rochester Subway 
 The abandonment of the Erie Canal in various towns and cities across New 
York State led to the conversion of empty ditches into streets. However, the City of 
Rochester believed the ditch running through the heart of downtown could be used 
for a much more ambitious and pragmatic purpose. Other prosperous American cities, 
like New York, Chicago, and Boston, were developing subterranean rapid transit 
systems to improve street congestion. Rochester, too, experienced severe traffic 
                                               
44 Thomas X. Grasso, “The Erie Canal and Rochester: Past, Present, and Future,” Rochester History 
72, no. 1 (Spring 2010). 
45 Judy Adams, “Old aqueduct plaque found under Broad St bridge: A Memento of Erie Canal,” Times 
Union, May 22, 1973.; National Register of Historic Preservation Nomination: The Second Genesee 
Aqueduct, Monroe County, New York. 1976.; Rochester Economic Development Corporation, Reuse 
Feasibility Study for the Broad Street Aqueduct, prepared by William Rawn Associates, Architects, 
Inc., LaBella Associates, PC, and Real Estate Enterprises, Inc. (September 1994).; Andrew Wolfe, 
“The Big Subway Puzzle: De Witt Clinton’s Big Ditch Made Rochester, Almost Bankrupted City a 
Century Later,” Times Union, August 7, 1950. 
22 
 
 
 
congestion on its major thoroughfare, 
Main Street, due to its ever-growing 
population, the rising popularity of the 
personal automobile, as well as the 
abundance of interurban streetcars. 
These clunky streetcars often derailed, 
causing severe traffic congestion and 
Figure 16 Albert R. Stone. Aqueduct with subway tracks. 
Monroe County Library System, Albert R. Stone Negative 
Collection, Rochester Museum & Science Center, accessed delays. The abandoned ditch in the heart 
December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&res of downtown was seen as a half-dug 
ourceid=1116174395&currentIndex=3&view=fullDetails
DetailsTab. 
subway system, ready for a new 
transportation purpose.  
Instead of converting the 
aqueduct into a flower-decked 
promenade, the alternative proposal of 
utilizing both the aqueduct and canal 
Figure 17 Albert R. Stone. Aqueduct’s arches look like bed for freight and passenger rail 
medieval cloister. Monroe County Library System, Albert 
R. Stone Negative Collection, Rochester Museum & 46
Science Center, accessed December 14, 2018, seemed a viable solution.  The 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&res
ourceid=1116184200&currentIndex=2&view=fullDetails abandoned Erie Canal comprised of 
DetailsTab. 
three miles within the city and included 
four locks; varying between 100 to 150 feet wide, the right-of-way could easily fit 
                                               
46 Blake McKelvey, “Rochester and the Erie Canal,” Rochester History 11, no. 3 & 4 (July & October 
1949).; “City’s Plan for Using Old Erie Canal,” Times Union, December 23, 1920.; “Parallel 
Thoroughfare to Main Street and Subway May Replace Canal Through Center of City: Tentative Plan 
for Scheme Announced by City Today,” Times Union, December 23, 1920. 
23 
 
 
 
four rail tracks.47 Two tracks would be used for freight, while the other two would be 
used by the interurban cars for passenger transportation. Costing close to $10 million 
to develop the thirteen miles of industrial track and 8.3 miles of passenger track, the 
City of Rochester hoped the subway would foster further industrial development 
within the city.48  
Unlike other subway systems, the Rochester subway would only be 
underground on the west side of the Genesee River, for about one mile.49 On top of 
the underground subway, a new street, named Broad Street developed. As the new 
street and subway approached the river, it extended over the aqueduct, effectively 
creating a multi-layered transportation viaduct.50 Designed by City Planning 
Superintendent Edwin A. Fisher and Assistant City Engineer LeGrand Brown, the 
new Broad Street bridge that capped the aqueduct emulated the roman arches of the 
aqueduct structure below.51 Gradually inclining between Exchange St on the west 
                                               
47 “Subway Ordinance Presented Before the Common Council,” Times Union, November 16, 1921 
48 Andrew Wolfe, “The Big Subway Puzzle: De Witt Clinton’s Big Ditch Made Rochester, Almost 
Bankrupted City a Century Later,” Times Union, August 7, 1950.; “Snyder Scores Mayor On Subway 
Development; Cost $9,151,000, He Says: VanZandt Severely Criticised for Launching Project Without 
Assurance of Adequate Return, Democratic Candidate Says in Address to Rochester Banking 
Chapter,” Times Union, October 16, 1925.; “Rochester Councilmen Vote to Hire Expert to Survey 
City’s Subway Line: Ask R.T.C. To Continue Operation,” Syracuse Herald-American, December 11, 
1949. 
49 “‘Digest’ Tells Story of Local Subway Project: National Magazine Describes How Rochester Has 
Met Its Traffic Problem by Using Abandoned Canal Bed as Artery,” Times Union, August 16, 1923 
50 “What the Subway Means to Rochester and Towns in Rapid Transit Zone; Article 2,” Post Express, 
November 18, 1922; “What the Subway Means to Rochester and Towns in Rapid Transit Zone; Article 
3,” Post Express, November 20, 1922; “What the Subway Means to Rochester and Towns in Rapid 
Transit Zone; Article 2,” Post Express, November 18, 1922; “Erie Canal Subway Plan Meets with 
Strong Support,” Times Union, November 18, 1921; “‘Digest’ Tells Story of Local Subway Project: 
National Magazine Describes How Rochester Has Met Its Traffic Problem by Using Abandoned Canal 
Bed as Artery,” Times Union, August 16, 1923; “Trolleys Whiz Where Canal Boats Used to Glide,” 
Democrat & Chronicle, July 3, 1929 
51 National Register of Historic Preservation Nomination: The Second Genesee Aqueduct, Monroe 
County, New York. 1976.; “Erie Canal Subway Plan Meets with Strong Support,” Times Union, 
November 18, 1921. 
24 
 
 
 
towards the level of South Avenue on the east side of the river, the $600,000 concrete 
superstructure gave the aqueduct a new transportation related purpose.52  
The new Broad Street bridge carried both Broad Street and the Rochester 
subway across the Genesee. The original canal bed, a total of 45 feet wide, would be 
further widened by cutting the stone walls of the 
canal’s trunk, to allow for the four new rail lines.53 
Shy of 80 feet wide, the new concrete structure 
built on top of the aqueduct, overhanging 5 feet on 
either side of the aqueduct to allow for a 52-foot-
wide right-of-way and 14-foot-wide sidewalks.54 
The bridge structure articulated the aqueduct’s 
seven bays, however instead of repeating the 52-
foot arches, a series of three roman arches per 
Figure 18 Illustration by Author. 
structural bay was designed.55 Faced with 
limestone to match the aqueduct, the new Broad Street bridge, a block south of Main 
Street, alleviated the city’s congestion issues on two levels.56 
                                               
52 “What the Subway Means to Rochester and Towns in Rapid Transit Zone; Article 1,” Post Express, 
November 17, 1922.; “Facts about Rochester’s Subway Street and Industrial Railway.” N.d. 
53 “Farsighted Vision Vindicated Today: Opening of Subway Street Marks Completion of Third 
Project Conceived by Public-Spirited Rochester Man Nearly Two Decades Ago -- Means Growth of 
City Comparable to That Canal Brought,” Times Union, August 19, 1924; “What the Subway Means to 
Rochester and Towns in Rapid Transit Zone; Article 2,” Post Express, November 18, 1922 
54 “Erie Canal Subway Plan Meets with Strong Support,” Times Union, November 18, 1921; “Parallel 
Thoroughfare to Main Street and Subway May Replace Canal Through Center of City: Tentative Plan 
for Scheme Announced by City Today,” Times Union, December 23, 1920. 
55 National Register of Historic Preservation Nomination: The Second Genesee Aqueduct, Monroe 
County, New York. 1976. 
56 Ibid.  
25 
 
 
 
Beyond a creative solution for the ditch left behind by the abandoned canal, 
there were two major objectives for the creation of the Rochester Subway. First, for 
industrial purposes to carry freight through the heart of downtown, thereby 
connecting the five rail lines in Rochester: New York Central, Baltimore and Ohio 
(previously the Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania, Erie, and Lehigh 
Valley.57 The connection of the Rochester subway to these railroads would offer 
industries a more efficient system to navigate products to desired markets, and also 
lead to the expansion of industrial uses along the new subway route. The second 
purpose was to get the interurban streetcars off the city streets in downtown. As the 
number of interurbans and automobiles increased on city streets, so did the number of 
accidents. The four interurban lines: Rochester and Syracuse; Rochester, Lockport 
and Buffalo; Rochester and Eastern; and Rochester and Sodus Bay; built between 
1900 and 1910, were a nuisance for the city streets. The severe street level congestion 
combined with a horrendous streetcar accident in which an interurban car jumped its 
track, injuring six and killing one, hastened the pressure on the city to fix the 
problem.58  
                                               
57 “Letters from Readers: Subway User Wants Local Trolley Service Retained,” Democrat & 
Chronicle, June 22, 1932.; Paul Benton, “Rochester,” Times Union, n.d.; “The Subway: Outmoded, 
Not Built for Local Passenger Service? -- Or a Priceless Asset the City is Throwing Away?” Times 
Union, June 21, 1956.; “Five Railroads Prepared to Co-Operate With City in Plans for Subway R.R.: 
Independent Corporation, the Rochester Terminal Railroad Corporation, To Control All Operations -- 
Subway Railroad Probably Completed Within Year and a Half,” Times Union, April 10, 1925; 
“Handling of Freight in Subway Constitutes Big Problem For City: Plan Suggested Whereby City 
Would Lease Subway in Its Entirety to Association of Five Steam Railroads, Providing for Passenger 
Service by N.Y.S. Railways Under Contract With Leasing Assn.,” Times Union, December 16, 1926.; 
“Rochester in Pictures,” Rochester Journal, August 17, 1928.; Andrew David Lipman, “The Rochester 
Subway: Experiment in Municipal Rapid Transit,” Rochester History 36, no. 2 (April 1974). 
58 Andrew David Lipman, “The Rochester Subway: Experiment in Municipal Rapid Transit,” 
Rochester History 36, no. 2 (April 1974).; Arch Merrill, “Great Experiment: High Hopes, Fanfare 
Marked Start in 1922 Of Subway Building,” Democrat & Chronicle, March 12, 1950. 
26 
 
 
 
Construction of the subway began on May 2nd, 1922 in the old Erie Canal 
ditch. The project, which received national attention in the August 18th, 1923 issue of 
The Literary Digest, was heralded as solution solving the issue of Clinton’s ditch and 
Main Street traffic.59 Throughout the early 1920s, multiple articles recalled the 
progress of the subway, often reiterating the ambition of the city to create such a 
project. One article, from the Rochester Herald in December of 1923, declared the 
project one of “Rochester’s most pretentious engineering project[s].”60 Furthermore, 
the article stated that 110 lineal feet of structure was being built per day by 400 
men.61 
While the subway gained national attention and was supported by many 
Rochesterians, the subway was also met with skepticism. Local journalist Livy S. 
Richard criticized the city’s hastily planned subway in 1825. Though the subway was 
already undergoing construction, Richard pointed out that the city should have never 
begun construction on the subway system before properly handling the subway’s 
operation. Continuously, by comparing the subway to the undergoing subway projects 
in New York City and Boston, Richard points out that these larger systems were both 
built because there was a demand. Rochester, due to its size and scale, as well as its 
distribution in population, according to Richard, does not warrant a subway system. 
Richard concludes that the subway “experience” strongly suggests the greater need 
for a comprehensive plan to guide the city’s development.62 
                                               
59 “‘Digest’ Tells Story of Local Subway Project: National Magazine Describes How Rochester Has 
Met Its Traffic Problem by Using Abandoned Canal Bed as Artery,” Times Union, August 16, 1923. 
60 “Not Least of Interest in Subway Are Men Who Built It,” Rochester Herald, December 2, 1923. 
61 Ibid.  
62 Livy S. Richard, “Looking Around,” Rochester Evening Journal, June 11, 1925.; Livy S. Richard, 
“Looking Around,” Rochester Evening Journal, May 24, 1925. 
27 
 
 
 
As referenced in Livy S. Richard’s criticism regarding the poor planning of 
the subway, the question of who would control the subway remained unanswered 
leading up the project’s completion in 1927. Additionally, one of the project’s major 
objectives, to rid the streets of the large and dangerous interurban cars, was no longer 
a reality. Beginning in 1929, the Rochester and Sodus Bay interurban line closed, and 
never entered the subway. By 1931, all four interurban lines were closed.63 While the 
interurban cars had limited use of the subway, the city finally agreed to an operating 
plan. Since the 1920s, the fight over who will operate the subway further prolonged 
the construction and opening of the system. Early promoters of the subway wished for 
city-control of the subway, allowing the city to have direct control and reap the 
benefits.64 In April of 1925, newspapers reported an independent corporation, called 
the Rochester Terminal Railroad Corporation, to run the subway.65 However, the New 
York Central Railroad refused to cooperate, arguing that the city does not know how 
to manage rail service while alternatively offering its service as the subway operator. 
It was decided in October of 1927 that the New York Central Railroad - later the 
Rochester Transit Corporation - would operate the subway with the city using a 
service-at-cost plan.66 
                                               
63 Arch Merrill, “Great Experiment: High Hopes, Fanfare Marked Start in 1922 Of Subway Building,” 
Democrat & Chronicle, March 12, 1950. 
64 “Municipal Operation of Subway,” Times Union, July 30, 1923.; “Blast Shakes Old Tomes From 
Dusty Retreat: Early History of City Records Dislodged at City Hall as Result of Subway Explosions,” 
Times Union, August 3, 1923. 
65 “Five Railroads Prepared to Co-Operate With City in Plans for Subway R.R.: Independent 
Corporation, the Rochester Terminal Railroad Corporation, To Control All Operations -- Subway 
Railroad Probably Completed Within Year and a Half,” Times Union, April 10, 1925. 
66 “Trolleys Plan to Control Subway,” Rochester Evening Journal, May 23, 1925.; “Argetsinger Not to 
Press Subway Idea: Motor Route Proposed Only as Alternative If Rail Deal Fails, He Says,” Democrat 
& Chronicle, June 26, 1925.; “Subway Cars Under Service At Cost Plan: Argetsinger Intimates 
Satisfactory Agreement for Operation of Road Will Be Reached Soon With N.Y.S. Railways,” Times 
Union, July 31, 1925.; “Three-Year Trial Period In Operating New Subway Wins Much 
28 
 
 
 
On December 1st, 1927, the first passenger train departed the Winton Road 
Station at 6:45 AM. Traveling east, the train arrived at City Hall by 7AM. John 
Legeer, the first passenger from Winton Station to City Hall, paid a total fare of nine 
cents.67 Going an average speed of 22 miles per hour by 1948, the subway was seen 
as a more efficient way to navigate downtown.68 However, since its opening, the 
subway became known as a white elephant, due to the city’s lack of planning efforts 
to extend the subway.69 Seen as a subway that “starts nowhere and ends nowhere,” 
calls for extensions dominated the city’s newspapers throughout the 1930s, ‘40s and 
‘50s.70 Multiple proposals existed with possible extensions to popular destinations 
like Kodak Park or Lake Ontario, and with the exception of ending the subway line at 
the General Motors Plant, the subway truly had no real destination.71 
                                               
Commendation: Will Give City Opportunity to See Advantageous Features of Plan, Declaration of 
Officials: Mayor O’Neil Will Send Report and Recommendations to Council,” Democrat & Chronicle, 
December 11, 1926.; “Council Refers Contract For Subway To Committees: Common Council Takes 
Action on Subway Contract: Contract Between City and N.Y. State Railways Is Referred to Law and 
Railroads Commit[t]ee -- Statements of Mayor and Com. Barnes,” Times Union, October 26, 1927. 
67 “Subway Will Open: City’s Development in Rapid Transit To Be Opened Officially With First Car 
Departing From Oak St. at 5:40,” Times Union, November 30, 1927.; “City and Interurban Service 
Launched In Rochester’s Subway: Submerged Tracks at Winton Road Station Delays Operation in 
Eastern Section -- Officials of Municipality Predict Taxpayers Will Benefit,” Times Union, December 
1, 1927. 
68 Bruce R. Holcomb, “Extend the Subway, Makes Buses Feed it Better, Young Reader Urges, Has 
Plan,” Democrat & Chronicle, February 6, 1948. 
69 Andrew David Lipman, “The Rochester Subway: Experiment in Municipal Rapid Transit,” 
Rochester History 36, no. 2 (April 1974).; “A White Elephant,” Rochester Journal-American, May 27, 
1932.; Paul Benton, “Rochester,” Times Union, n.d.; Henry A. Shafer, “Letters: Use Subway More,” 
Democrat & Chronicle, January 20, 1943.; “The Subway: Outmoded, Not Built for Local Passenger 
Service? -- Or a Priceless Asset the City is Throwing Away?” Times Union, June 21, 1956.; 
“‘Underground’ Had Its Palmy Days, But Almost Always Lost Money,” Times Union, June 21, 1956.; 
“Arch Merrill’s History: Subway’s Ill-Fated First Trip,” Democrat & Chronicle, November 30, 1969. 
70 Andrew Wolfe, “The Big Subway Puzzle: Subway Struggled Through 30s But Seldom Got Out of 
Red,” Times Union, August 8, 1950.; Calvin Mayne, “Lost Out to Highway: Old Rochester Subway 
Bears Lessons in Today’s Transit-vs.-Auto Argument,” Times Union, August 21, 1971.; “Arch 
Merrill’s History: Subway’s Ill-Fated First Trip,” Democrat & Chronicle, November 30, 1969. 
71 “Making the Subway Useful,” Democrat & Chronicle, July 21, 1937.; Andrew Wolfe, “The Big 
Subway Puzzle: $20,000 Report Leaves Future of Transit System Still Moot Question,” Times Union, 
August 10, 1950.; “What the Subway Means to Rochester and Towns in Rapid Transit Zone; Article 
1,” Post Express, November 17, 1922.; Frank Dostal, “By Using Old Railroad Tracks: Our Subway 
29 
 
 
 
In the first year of operation, a total number of 1,469,381 passengers used the 
subway. The next year, 1,815,546 passengers boarded, and a net operating income of 
$22,812 was reported. However, by 1933, only 593,749 Rochesterians used the 
subway.72 As early as 1932, four years after operation began, the subway was 
reported as “the most monumental example of LACK of foresight in local history.”73 
Even during its early days of conception, the subway was seen as a product of poor 
planning.74 Numerous newspapers pointed out the continuous failure of the city and 
the subway’s operator to extend service in order to reach more Rochesterians. While 
Harold S. W. MacFarlin, Railways and Commerce Commissioner for the city, made 
continuous marketing efforts aimed at telling Rochesterians how much more efficient 
the subway is than a bus, as long as they are willing to walk several blocks to reach a 
station apart from these efforts, MacFarlin only made ornamental changes to the 
stations, including purchasing new (used) cars and installing picket fences at the City 
Hall Station.75 Using the slogan “the Subway is the Fastway,” MacFarlin attempted to 
develop the subway into the major form of transportation for the city, a task no one 
achieved.76 
                                               
COULD Go Someplace!” Democrat & Chronicle, January 10, 1954.; Lloyd E. Klos, “A More 
Attractive Subway--5 Steps Suggested,” Times Union, March 16, 1954. 
72 Bruce Mann, “Subway Aids City Planning: Speed Accented in Comparison with Buses,” Times 
Union, June 15, 1943.; Andrew Wolfe, “The Big Subway Puzzle: War’s Outbreak Adds to Confusion 
Over Continued Use of Rail Line,” Times Union, August 11, 1950. 
73“A White Elephant,” Rochester Journal-American, May 27, 1932. 
74 “City Hall is Eager for Return of Mayor As Subway Pot Boils,” Times Union, June 6, 1926. 
75 “Beauty, Safety Combined In Subway Station Fence,” Democrat & Chronicle, August 1, 1940; 
Andrew David Lipman, “The Rochester Subway: Experiment in Municipal Rapid Transit,” Rochester 
History 36, no. 2 (April 1974).; Andrew Wolfe, “The Big Subway Puzzle: Subway Struggled Through 
30s But Seldom Got Out of Red,” Times Union, August 8, 1950.; “C.C. Part recalled in Shift From 
Horse Car to Trolley,” Times Union, January 11, 1938.; Bruce Mann, “Subway Aids City Planning: 
Speed Accented in Comparison with Buses,” Times Union, June 15, 1943. 
76Andrew Wolfe, “The Big Subway Puzzle: Subway Struggled Through 30s But Seldom Got Out of 
Red,” Times Union, August 8, 1950. 
30 
 
 
 
The dark green cars, formerly being used for the Geneva, Syracuse and Sodus 
Point interurban lines, briefly shuttled more passengers during World War II.77 
Between 1937 and 1949, ridership began to increase slightly. Drastically, in 1942, 
2,586,432 passengers rode the subway, many of which headed to work at the General 
Motors Plant. Throughout the duration of the war, and slightly afterward, ridership 
dramatically increased, hitting its ultimate high in 1947 with 5,112,596 passengers.78 
The success and usage of the subway during World War II, led to the belief that the 
subway was finally fulfilling its purpose as Rochester’s main form of transportation. 
However, in comparison to bus ridership, the subway was falling behind. The subway 
operator, Rochester Transit Corporation (RTC), began its complaints regarding the 
subway as hemorrhaging money out of the company. Threatening to end service as 
early as 1949, the city began to subsidize the company to allow for continued 
operation. With the beginning of the Korean War in 1950, the city believed it crucial 
to continue subway service, hoping that once again ridership would increase.79 The 
city continued subsidizing RTC until December 31st, 1955, paying RTC a total of 
$105,000 in the last 22 months of the subway’s operation.80 As of January 1st, 1956, 
the subway was just another memory. 
Tremendous public support for the subway, calling for improved cars and 
stations, as well as needed extensions, littered Rochester’s newspapers from the 
                                               
77 “C.C. Part recalled in Shift From Horse Car to Trolley,” Times Union, January 11, 1938. 
78 “City Could Operate Subway Itself, But Best Plan Would Be Cooperation With Intelligent Transit 
Operation,” Democrat & Chronicle, February 19, 1948. 
79 Andrew David Lipman, “The Rochester Subway: Experiment in Municipal Rapid Transit,” 
Rochester History 36, no. 2 (April 1974).; Calvin Mayne, “Passenger Service to End Dec. 31, 1955,” 
Times Union, September 11, 1954.; “The Subway: Outmoded, Not Built for Local Passenger Service? -
- Or a Priceless Asset the City is Throwing Away?” Times Union, June 21, 1956. 
80 Calvin Mayne, “Passenger Service to End Dec. 31, 1955,” Times Union, September 11, 1954. 
31 
 
 
 
opening of the subway in 1927, all the way to the end in 1956. One repeat writer, 
Lloyd E. Klos of Irondequoit, continuously responded to the city’s actions in handling 
the subway. Klos tackled the issue of improving the subway and its stations, arguing 
for better city cooperation with the Rochester Transit Corporation. Klos, as well as 
many other outraged Rochesterians, blamed the RTC for treating the subway as an 
“unwanted stepchild” by not updating the cars and stations, as well as not using the 
bus lines to feed and connect to the subway.81 Additionally, through better promotion, 
Klos believed the subway ridership could increase, leading him to team with 
Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) photography graduate student, Vitaly V. 
Uzoff, in filming the subway in color as a promotional effort. In 1954, two years prior 
to the ultimate closure of the subway, Klos continued stressing the importance of 
utilizing and bettering the subway. Klos warned that the city needed “a facility to 
move people” versus more automobiles on city streets that will lead to a more 
congested downtown.82 Offering five steps to improve the subway, Klos’ vision was 
to reverse “the beginning of a decentralizing trend” which would result in “a slowly 
dying downtown district unless something is done to halt it.”83 Despite Klos and other 
Rochesterians best efforts to save the subway, a new void emerged in the heart of 
downtown, but unlike its predecessor, it was hidden from view. 
                                               
81 Lloyd E. Klos, “Popularizing Subway,” Democrat & Chronicle, January 1, 1951. 
82 “Would ‘Benefit the Many’: Auto Expressway Called Answer,” Times Union, March 17, 1954. 
83 Lloyd E. Klos, “A More Attractive Subway--5 Steps Suggested,” Times Union, March 16, 1954.; 
Lloyd E. Klos, “Popularizing Subway,” Democrat & Chronicle, January 1, 1951.; Lloyd E. Klos, “As 
Readers See It: Subway’s Role in City’s Life to be Shown in Color Film,” Times Union, May 16, 
1950.; Lloyd Klos, “The Subway’s Emergency Role,” Times Union, April 1, 1954.; “‘Underground’ 
Had Its Palmy Days, But Almost Always Lost Money,” Times Union, June 21, 1956.; Lloyd E. Klos, 
“As Readers See It: New GM Plant, Memorial to Boost Subway Loads,” Times Union, March 20, 
1950. 
32 
 
 
 
Void in the Heart of Downtown 
 Once again, the Erie Canal bed was abandoned. This time, however, the 
abandoned ditch was tucked away from Rochesterians’ sight. The subway, overtime, 
was erased from local memory, the tunnels sealed off, and entrances and exits 
demolished. The only surviving reminder of Rochester’s past is the Broad Street 
bridge. This structure, placed in a prominent position in the heart of downtown is a 
silent void in the city, waiting for the opportunity to be filled and transformed for a 
new purpose. 
 The closing of the subway in 1955, led to the conversion of the eastern portion 
into an expressway, known as I-490. The conversion of the eastern portion into a 
highway connects to the arterial highway, known as the Inner Loop, was justified 
because it saved many homes that could have been torn down for this new highway 
system.84 Supporters of the conversion of the eastern leg of the canal into a highway, 
proclaimed how much farther advanced Rochester would become with a modernized 
transportation system.85 Meanwhile, the remaining mile of the underground subway 
on the west side of the city served no function. Over the years, even beginning in the 
1930s, ideas to transform the underground for a highway for automobiles or buses 
never caught on. By the 1970s, a plan to develop rapid transit in the form of a rail 
line, to be known as the Charlotte-Henrietta line, was proposed without being 
                                               
84 “Text of Reports By 2 Committees On Subway Future,” Times Union, December 5, 1949.; Andrew 
Wolfe, “The Big Subway Puzzle: War’s Outbreak Adds to Confusion Over Continued Use of Rail 
Line,” Times Union, August 11, 1950.; “Would ‘Benefit the Many’: Auto Expressway Called 
Answer,” Times Union, March 17, 1954. 
85 “Would ‘Benefit the Many’: Auto Expressway Called Answer,” Times Union, March 17, 1954. 
33 
 
 
 
conducted.86 The only purpose the subway served was to bring paper to the Gannett 
Building for its newspapers, a service that ended in 1997.87 
 Though vacant since 1956, multiple changes to the Broad Street bridge were 
implemented. Prior to the subway closing, the handrails and 125 concrete spindles 
were replaced.88 After the closing of the subway, 
however, the bridge was modernized and widened 
to fit the city’s need to accommodate for 
automobile traffic. The original balustrade was 
removed and replaced by aluminum railing, while 
the city began bidding for the repair work. Repairs 
included covering up the old subway ramp on the 
northside of Broad Street, adding 19 parking 
meters on the south side, new aluminum street 
Figure 19 Illustration by Author. 
lights, as well as widening and realigning the street 
where subway kiosks previously were located -- these kiosks were also being 
removed. The contract additionally called for new bridge decking and concrete for the 
sidewalks. Completed in 1958, concrete on the Broad Street bridge began to crumble, 
leading to an additional $10,000 of repair work during 1959 to the cracking 
sidewalks.89  
                                               
86 Marsha Stanley, “Subway Transfer to Save $3 Million for City,” Times Union, January 15, 1974. 
87 Thomas X. Grasso, “The Erie Canal and Rochester: Past, Present, and Future,” Rochester History 
72, no. 1 (Spring 2010).; Rochester Economic Development Corporation, Reuse Feasibility Study for 
the Broad Street Aqueduct, prepared by William Rawn Associates, Architects, Inc., LaBella 
Associates, PC, and Real Estate Enterprises, Inc. (September 1994). 
88 “Modern Railing Planned for Broad St. Bridge,” Times Union, December 7, 1955.; “Bridge Gets 
Beauty Treatment,” Times Union, August 28, 1950. 
89 “Bridge Bids Sought for Broad Street,” Times Union, June 21, 1957.; William Murphy, “New Look 
for Old Lady of Broad St.: Plan to Widen Span, Street Calls for Repair of Bridge Superstructure,” 
34 
 
 
 
 Further repairs and alterations to the bridge were done in the 1970s and early 
1990s. Beginning in February 1970, a 15-ton limit was placed on the bridge due to 
deterioration of the structure. The city then shortly began seeking bids for temporary 
repair work, including shoring up the bridge with steel between the old subway level 
and the street level.90 Due to the need to repair the structure of the bridge and the high 
costs of a temporary shoring project, the project shifted towards reconstructing the 
bridge by replacing the street decking, widening the bridge to four lanes of traffic and 
two lanes of parking, and reducing the sidewalk width from 12 feet to 9 feet. Being 
rebuilt one lane at a time, the project cost $3.2 million for widening and strengthening 
the structure. Opening in November 1974, the successful reinforcement of the bridge 
prepared the subway level for the Charlotte-Henrietta rail line that was never 
developed.91 
 The repairs and strengthening of the bridge were cited as necessary repairs 
needed due to heavy road salting. As these plans for rebuilding the bridge were being 
developed, a new design idea developed. In August 1972, New York City architect 
                                               
Democrat & Chronicle, July 14, 1957.; “Why Bridge Job Delays?: Broad Street Work Slowed by 
Several Factors,” Times Union, May 6, 1958.; Miles Cunningham, “Bridge Sidewalks Crumble: 
Surfaces on Broad Street Bridge Rebuilt in Last Two Years,” Times Union, August 21, 1959. 
90“To Fix Broad Street Bridge: County Asked to Foot Bill,” Times Union, August 4, 1970.; Kathy 
O’Toole, “Broad St. Bridge Plan Lags,” Democrat & Chronicle, August 10, 1970.; “Broad St. Bridge 
Repairs Planned,” Times Union, June 13, 1970.; Jack Garner, “Bridge Tieup Complicated,” Times 
Union, June 14, 1971. 
91 Gail Meadows, “138,863 Bridge Bid is Lowest,” Democrat & Chronicle, September 18, 1971.; 
“Walks ‘Unsqueezed’,” Democrat & Chronicle, July 26, 1972.; “Cars OK but Pedestrians Will Detour 
City Bridge,” Democrat & Chronicle, September 8, 1972.; “City Stamping Out Bridge Problems,” 
Democrat & Chronicle, September 12, 1972.; “Rebuilding of Bridge Beginning,” Democrat & 
Chronicle, October 31, 1972.; Jack Garner, “On Broad Street Bridge, Who’s Crowding Whom?,” 
Times Union, December 1, 1972.; “Bridge Work Shifts Lanes,” Democrat & Chronicle, September 6, 
1973.; Kevin Dilworth, “End Nearing on Latest Broad St. Bridge Facelift,” Democrat & Chronicle, 
September 10, 1973.; “North Lanes to Open on Broad St Bridge,” Times Union, September 17, 1973.; 
“Bridge Traffic Shift Delayed,” Times Union, September 18, 1973.; “Broad Street Bridge Reopened,” 
Times Union, November 19, 1974.; “After 2 Years of Rebuilding: Broad St. Bridge Open at Last,” 
Democrat & Chronicle, November 20, 1974. 
35 
 
 
 
Robert Rotner advocated for using a porthole design, instead of arches, on the north 
and south elevations of the bridge. According to Rotner, a consultant on the project, 
the “arched openings on the second level now compete with the arched openings on 
the lower level.”92 Rotner further stated that the bridge looks like “a camel carrying a 
horse” and continued advocating that a porthole design would be a better design and 
cost less than the arches.93 Ultimately, the Rochester Preservation Board stated that 
the arches should be retained in the strengthening repairs of the bridge, thereby 
preserving the original design intention.94 
 Although the repair work was done in 1974, by 1977 further work to the 
bridge resolved of sidewalk cracking. Earlier repairs done between 1972 to 1974 only 
placed 1½ inches of concrete on top of the sidewalks, rather than replacing the 
sidewalks entirely. Due to winter weather, water and improperly sealing the concrete, 
the cracking in the sidewalk worsened, leading towards the need to replace the 
sidewalks. Additionally, heavy salting on the roads seeped into the concrete decking 
and corroding the steel rebar. The entire roof of the subway tunnels underneath Broad 
Street were rebuilt and replaced as part of a $5 million, Federally funded project.95  
Less than twenty years later, the bridge underwent another round of 
rehabilitation work. The work, completed by the local architecture and engineering 
firm, Bergmann Associates, focused on the upper deck by further widening the street 
and sidewalk of Broad Street. The $1.75 million project, done in 1992, reconfigured 
                                               
92 Dan Lovely, “Porthole Plan for Bridge Collapses,” Democrat & Chronicle, August 10, 1972. 
93 Ibid. 
94 Ibid.; W.D. Conklin, “The Great Bridge Debate,” Democrat & Chronicle, August 18, 1972. 
95 Jay Gallagher, “Traffic to Flow by End of Month: Broad St. Bridge to Open,” Times Union, August 
16, 1977.; “Broad Street Detours Listed; Bridge to Reopen Wednesday,” Times Union, September 3, 
1977. 
36 
 
 
 
the east and west approaches to the bridge, repaved the bridge, placed new limestone 
cladding, and replaced bridge joints.96 Since the early 1990s, there have only been 
repairs to the old subway tunnels completed by the City of Rochester to further ensure 
stability for Broad Street. 
 While the Broad Street bridge is only used as a street today, its importance as 
a historic structure carrying two forms of transportation throughout the 1800s and 
1900s was recorded in 1976 when the structure was listed in the National Register. 
Prior to listing, the bridge was recognized by the Prestressed Concrete Institute in 
1974 and dedicated as a Rochester Historical Landmark by the local chapter of the 
American Society of Civil Engineers.97 Both recognitions highlighted the aqueduct, 
as well as the bridge, as being important to Rochester’s transportation history, 
connecting the city across the Genesee and serving the community.98 
 The 1976 National Register listing followed the history of both the aqueduct 
and bridge, claiming both structures as vitally important to the expansion and 
development of Rochester. The nomination form additionally named the three other 
aqueducts constructed during the initial building of the Erie Canal. These three 
aqueducts, built east of Rochester, are no longer standing or partially intact, therefore 
displaying the importance of the Broad Street aqueduct as the only surviving 
aqueduct of the Erie Canal. The listing concludes that the “Broad Street Aqueduct and 
                                               
96 “Broad, Court St., Bridges Become 2-way Again,” Times Union, December 2, 1992.; “Work Begins 
on Broad Street Bridge,” Democrat & Chronicle, May 8, 1992. 
97 “Rebuilt Broad Street Bridge Wins Concrete Institute Award,” Times Union, August 31, 1974. 
98 Ibid.; “Bridge Base is Landmark,” Times Union, October 24, 1975. 
37 
 
 
 
Bridge is an unusual combination of nineteenth and twentieth century building 
materials applied to the transportation demands of each century.”99  
Conclusion 
 Extending across the Genesee, the Broad Street bridge and corresponding 
tunnels remain a covered void in the heart of downtown. The preference of the 
personal automobile, coupled with vehicle-centric design and the rise of suburbia 
after World War II, terminated the need for a rapid transit system. Over the next 50 
years, Rochester continued to develop efficient highways, anticipating better access 
into the city, not out. In addition, the emphasis and shift in American culture to favor 
suburban living led to the decentralization of downtown (see Appendix A). However, 
the city planners vehemently strode to fix the decentralization issues throughout the 
course of the mid-1900s, leading to stronger emphasis on the canal that made 
Rochester by the 1990s as the guide to further revitalization plans.  
  
                                               
99 National Register of Historic Preservation Nomination: The Second Genesee Aqueduct, Monroe 
County, New York. 1976. 
38 
 
 
 
Chapter 4: The Fate of the Broad Street Bridge and Aqueduct  
 
The city planners have a hefty task of redefining the central business district, 
mitigating the density issue onset by the amount of surface parking lots, and retaining 
population downtown outside of business hours. The city shifted its focus to retaining 
businesses and population downtown by establishing public-private partnerships, 
creating public spaces, and urging for residential development. Several projects 
emerged to revitalize certain neighborhoods throughout the city, however no 
comprehensive plan was enacted for the city in its entirety. The following chapter 
focuses on several city plans in the heart of downtown which fixate on the history of 
Rochester as a method to revitalize the city.  
1990s and Early 2000s City Planning Efforts 
In the 1990s through the early 2000s, multiple plans were developed by the 
City of Rochester. These plans focus on specific areas of development or areas 
needing attention, including the central business district. Plans like Vision 2000 
produced in 1990, and the Renaissance 2010 Plan, originally developed in 1999 and 
reworked in the early 2000s, focused on stimulating downtown growth through 
private-public partnerships, developing residential, commercial and businesses 
throughout the city, and creating tourist attractions within specific areas of the city. 
Altogether, city planning efforts in the last 25 years have responded to the economic 
struggles of the city and updating zoning, or other strategic methods to foster 
downtown activity. 
39 
 
 
 
 Majority of city plans in the 1990s and 2000s, ignored the Broad Street bridge 
and aqueduct, often wishing to improve the pedestrian sidewalks and focusing on the 
bridge as another path for cars and pedestrians to access more interesting 
developments throughout the city. While proposals for the adaptive reuse of the 
abandoned structure were increasing within this time period, the city neglected the 
bridge and aqueduct until the introduction of the Grasso-Zimmer Plan around 2006.  
Tom Grasso, President of the 
Canal Society of New York, publicly 
introduced his vision for downtown in 
2006. A local sixth grade class, 
working with Grasso, created a report 
to market the plan and its downtown 
Figure 20 The Grasso-Zimmer Plan, from: “A 
Revitalization Report: Written for the Grasso-Zimmer revitalization efforts.100 The plan 
Plan.”pg.6. 
proposed to re-water the aqueduct by removing the top cap of the bridge. A re-
watered Broad Street would extend west towards Brown Street, terminating in a 
newly created basin. To the east, the canal will continue south and link to the Genesee 
River, past the Inner Loop. A round lock, claimed to be the first of its kind, would 
allow for boats to enter or exit the new canal. The ambitious and unusual idea of 
reintroducing the Erie Canal back downtown was developed into the Historic Erie 
Canal Aqueduct and Broad Street Corridor Master Plan, published in May 2009.101 
                                               
100  “A Conversation with Tom Grasso, President of the Canal Society of New York,” 
https://www.wxxi.org/sites/default/files/a_conversation_with_tom_grasso.pdf.;  
“A Revitalization Report: Written for the Grasso-Zimmer Plan.”  
https://modelsofexcellence.eleducation.org/writings/revitalize-rochester 
101 Ibid.; Thomas X. Grasso, “The Erie Canal and Rochester: Past, Present, and Future,” Rochester 
History 72, no. 1 (Spring 2010). 
40 
 
 
 
By celebrating the history of Rochester and the canal that made the city, the 
master plan proposed to bring the aqueduct back to its first period of significance by 
demolishing the Broad Street bridge and refilling the original canal bed that Broad 
Street currently covers. Developing a newly branded Canal District would create a 
unique downtown amenity, lined with public spaces, businesses and residential 
developments. The overarching goals of celebrating canal history and creating a 
mixed-use community would aid in revitalizing downtown. In order to connect to 
outlying communities, the plan also incorporated the potential use of light rail transit 
along Main Street and Plymouth Avenue to encourage more activity in this new 
district.102 
 Apart from reintroducing the memory of the Erie Canal downtown, a series of 
plazas, public spaces, and 
various mixed-use buildings 
would exist along the canal. 
Breaking down the square 
footages by program, 130,000 
Figure 21 Preferred Master Plan, from: “Historic Erie Canal 
Aqueduct & Broad Street Corridor: Master Plan,” May 2009. Pg. 76 sq. ft. of retail, 498,000 sq. ft. 
of residential, 260,000 sq. ft. of hotel, and 58,000 sq. ft. of office space would be 
added along this new corridor. An additional 700,000 sq. ft. of parking and 326,000 
sq. ft. of open space would accommodate those living, exploring, and working in the 
                                               
102 “Historic Erie Canal Aqueduct & Broad Street Corridor: Master Plan,” May 2009. 
www.cityofrochester.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=21474837846. 
41 
 
 
 
District. Through private development initiatives, the master plan wished to create a 
place to shop, call home, work, and play.103  
 In Phase I of the master plan, the Broad Street bridge 
cap would be demolished and the aqueduct re-watered for 
$7.5 million. The demolishing of the Broad Street bridge 
would make way for the new Aqueduct Commons open 
space. On the eastern edge of the aqueduct, the Commons 
would be a tiered public space that could be utilize for 
retail and cafe programs as well as planned public events. 
The restored aqueduct, additionally, would be used as 
Figure 22 View Looking East to 
Aqueduct Commons & open, public space. Featuring the new canal, the aqueduct 
Rewatered Historic Erie Canal 
Aqueduct, from: “Historic Erie 
Canal Aqueduct & Broad Street could then be used by boats, becoming a place for 
Corridor: Master Plan,” May 
2009. Pg 83. recreational activity. Additionally, the master plan notes 
that the removal of the Broad Street bridge allows users to be closer to the Genesee 
River, therefore further harnessing the overall vision of celebrating the waterways 
that made Rochester.104  
 Presented to the public in September of 2008, three options of the master plan 
exist. The first option maintains Broad Street as a vehicular passageway but utilized 
watered medians and fountains to subtly introduce the Erie Canal back into 
downtown. Option two, which aligns closely to the Grasso-Zimmer Plan, is the most 
invasive, completely reintroducing the Erie Canal back downtown and forming plazas 
                                               
103 Ibid. 
104 Ibid. 
42 
 
 
 
on the eastern side of the aqueduct. Option three, favored by the public, would create 
a hybrid plan. The plan would maintain traffic between Washington and Exchange 
streets, implementing watered medians. The canal would be present on the original 
aqueduct, which would be bookended with two public spaces.105 
 The Historic Erie Canal Aqueduct and Broad Street Corridor Master Plan, 
while innovative in re-establishing the Erie Canal downtown to capture the value of 
the Erie Canal as seen in two of Rochester’s suburbs, Fairport and Pittsford. Although 
the extensive re-watered canal plans are no longer present in current city proposals, 
the demolishing of the Broad Street bridge and re-watering the aqueduct is 
maintained as the most viable solution for the abandoned structure according to the 
City of Rochester.106 
2018: ROC the Riverway 
The City of Rochester’s newest plan, entitled ROC the Riverway, focuses on 
activating the Genesee 
River’s edge with the 
development of 28 sites 
along the river. The 
Figure 23 RTR Overview Map, City of Rochester, accessed December 14, 
2018, http://www.cityofrochester.gov/roctheriverway/. overall plan is a 
culmination of past city revitalization efforts, combined into a cohesive plan aimed at 
energizing Rochesterians and New York State into implementing these ideas. Since 
the plans debut in May of 2018, the City was awarded $50 million by the State of 
                                               
105 Ibid. 
106 Ibid. 
43 
 
 
 
New York to implement Phase I plans.107 A total of thirteen sites comprise Phase I, 
each site being in a different stage of development, from schematic design to 
construction ready. Overall, the ROC the Riverway plan has garnered the most 
publicity over other city planning initiatives in the past two decades due to the 
securing of funding.108 
Beyond the combination of multiple undeveloped or unrealized projects and 
sites in the past decades, the ROC the Riverway project is a result of three studies and 
recent events in Rochester. First, the Rose Fellowship focused on studying, “How can 
Rochester activate and revitalize Main Street, the Genesee River Corridor, and the 
Broad Street Aqueduct.”109 Two recommendations from this study guided the 
creation of ROC the Riverway. The suggestion of establishing downtown and 
riverfront management entity to “spearhead programming, marketing, business 
attraction, public space enhancements, and beautification” and the idea to fully 
connect the Genesee Riverway Trail (GRT) on both side of the river.110 Secondly, the 
project looks to the 2017 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) which 
was created to improve the relationship of development and access to the Genesee 
River, as well as Lake Ontario and the Erie Canal waterfronts. In addition, LWRP 
wanted to enhance and complete the Genesee River Trail.111 
                                               
107 ROC the Riverway Advisory Board “ROC the Riverway: A Vision Plan for the Future of 
Rochester’s Genesee Riverfront, Phase 1 – May 2018,” May 2018. 
108 Ibid. 
109 Ibid.; Rose Fellowship Panel Presentation, “Rochester, NY: Activating Downtown,” March 18, 
2016, Accessed October 31, 2018. 
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/rosefellowship/ 
110 ROC the Riverway Advisory Board “ROC the Riverway: A Vision Plan for the Future of 
Rochester’s Genesee Riverfront, Phase 1 – May 2018,” May 2018, pg. I-4. 
111 “ROC the Riverway Advisory Board “ROC the Riverway: A Vision Plan for the Future of 
Rochester’s Genesee Riverfront, Phase 1 – May 2018,” May 2018, pg. I-5. 
44 
 
 
 
 The last reasoning or push for the creation of the ROC the Riverway plan was, 
what the project determines as, “Downtown Resurgence.”112 The plan recognizes the 
slump in downtown activity, mixed with high vacancies throughout the 1990s and 
2000s, but enthusiastically praises new development efforts downtown. The increase 
in downtown’s population, from 3,250 people in 2000 to 7,200 in 2017, supports the 
city’s arguments that the ROC the Riverway project is necessary to transform and 
develop downtown due to the renewed interest in city living. The plan additionally 
notes the visibility of activity downtown, from the city’s multiple festivals to the 
creation of a bike share program 
known as Pace in the last few years.113 
Totaling $500 million, the 
ROC the Riverway’s main goals 
include the creation of an accessible 
Genesee Riverway Trail to link all the 
developed sites together. Other goals, 
or objectives, include the creation of 
public spaces downtown, boosting 
private and public-private partnerships, 
developing neglected sites, and 
Figure 24 No title, from: ROC the Riverway Advisory 
Board “ROC the Riverway: A Vision Plan for the Future of creating safe and four-season activity 
Rochester’s Genesee Riverfront, Phase 1 – May 2018,” 
May 2018. http://www.cityofrochester.gov/roctheriverway/, along the river. The plan has three 
pg. 27. 
                                               
112 Ibid. 
113 ROC the Riverway Advisory Board “ROC the Riverway: A Vision Plan for the Future of 
Rochester’s Genesee Riverfront, Phase 1 – May 2018,” May 2018. 
45 
 
 
 
focus sites, South River, Downtown, and High Falls, hailing Downtown as the 
project’s centerpiece. Both the South River and High Falls sites are more dedicated to 
open public space and development of recreation, while Downtown will feature a 
series of improvements to existing buildings like the Blue Cross Arena and Riverside 
Convention Center, while improving the neglected plazas of these buildings on the 
river side. The linkage of these three focus sites together via the GRT is most 
extensively seen Downtown with the proposal to create a series of elevated walkways 
on facades of many developments that were built right at the Genesee’s edge.114 
The combination of past city endeavors and projects is most evident at the 
Broad Street Bridge and 
Aqueduct. Labeled as the 
“Aqueduct Re-Imagined,” 
the Grasso-Zimmer plan 
idea of removing the Broad 
Street bridge cap is once 
again prevalent guiding the 
development of this area.115 
Figure 25 Phase I Recommended Projects, from: ROC the Riverway 
Advisory Board “ROC the Riverway: A Vision Plan for the Future of 
Rochester’s Genesee Riverfront, Phase 1 – May 2018,” May 2018. Viewing the aqueduct as a 
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/roctheriverway/, pg. III-52. 
centerpiece within the Downtown focus area, the plans call for a plaza space on the 
eastern edge of the aqueduct, while also more fully develops the north terrace of the 
Rundel Memorial Library. The aqueduct itself is shown in several renderings, as a re-
                                               
114 ROC the Riverway Advisory Board “ROC the Riverway: A Vision Plan for the Future of 
Rochester’s Genesee Riverfront, Phase 1 – May 2018,” May 2018. 
115 Ibid. 
46 
 
 
 
watered pond to be used for ice-skating in the winter, or with plaza and green space 
mixed with water elements. Similar to the Historic Erie Canal & Broad Street 
Corridor Plan, the plans justify removing the top half of the Broad Street bridge 
claiming that in doing so, a dynamic public space can be created. Unlike its 
predecessor, the ROC the Riverway plan only features re-watering the aqueduct and 
having some sort of water feature on Broad Street between the western edge of the 
aqueduct and Exchange St.  
An estimated cost of $60 million for developing the aqueduct into a public 
space is further justified by the $6 to $7 million figure necessary for repairing and 
maintaining the structure every ten years. Additionally, as noted by the ROC the 
Riverway plan, removing the Broad Street bridge will open up new views downtown. 
Though the plan states views have been blocked by the bridge for a century or more, 
it does not reveal what is to be viewed.116 
The design for the restored and re-watered aqueduct aligns to the previously 
proposed Erie Canal Aqueduct & Broad Street Corridor plans of 2009, often reusing 
the same graphics. Re-watering and bringing the aqueduct back to its period of 
significance as the carrier of the Erie Canal over the Genesee River is a missed 
opportunity by the city to fully revive a unique structure for programmatic purposes 
other than a stagnant reflection pond that can be used for ice skating during the winter 
months. Although the change in elevation resulting from the 20th century addition of 
the Broad Street bridge may hinder a continuous Genesee River Trail path along both 
sides of the river, the extension and creation of a walkway over the river alongside 
                                               
116 Ibid. 
47 
 
 
 
historic facades is a failed opportunity to activate street life. While activity should be 
placed along the river edge, the segregation of hikers and bicyclists from the city 
further promotes the separation of the river and city by not completely integrating 
these pathways. Integrating the pathways into the streetscape of downtown, 
improving street conditions and developing retail along the integrated pathway may 
be a more beneficial opportunity than separating potential customers behind buildings 
on a narrow path elevated above a river.  
The ROC the Riverway plan is the most extensive plan introduced by the city. 
While many different site developments seem feasible in their early schematic 
designs, the demolition of the Broad Street bridge for a reflection pond necessitates 
further exploration. Bringing back the bridge to its period of significance, although 
aiding the course of the Genesee River Trail, will not benefit the community and is a 
loss of revenue and opportunity to fully develop the space, creating a unique multi-
tiered environment over the Genesee. 
Broad Street Bridge and Aqueduct Proposals 
While the ROC the Riverway project calls for the demolition of the Broad 
Street bridge which currently caps the aqueduct, numerous projects have developed 
over the years. The development of the second Erie Canal aqueduct into the Broad 
Street bridge is, in its own right, an adaptive reuse project that strategically reused the 
old canal bed for a new transportation purpose. A variety of proposals vary in form 
but consistently argue for the usage and retention of both layers of the bridges, 
therefore acknowledging the significance of the Erie Canal and the short-lived 
subway as well as the space left behind.  
48 
 
 
 
 Several proposals for adaptively reusing the Broad Street bridge have shown 
up on the now defunct Rochester website, Rochester Subway (rochestersubway.com). 
The website, run by various Rochesterians and spearheaded by local graphic designer, 
Mike Governale, introduced the troubled history of the Rochester subway system. 
Other blog writers contributed to the conversation about Rochester’s local 
government and planning ideas, sometimes denouncing the city’s plans and offering 
alternatives. Overall, the website served as a platform for Rochesterians to voice their 
opinion regarding Rochester urban planning, architecture, and transportation projects 
proposed by the city. 
 The Broad Street bridge proposals vary from creating a running track through 
the interior of the bridge to nightclubs and concert spaces. Out of the wide range of 
proposals, two have garnered much attention: the downtown winter garden scheme 
proposed by William Rawn Associates of Boston and the Broad Street Underground 
led by local architect, Lewis Childs. 
William Rawn & the Winter Garden 
Prior to the mid-2000s plans to remove the Broad Street bridge, the City of 
Rochester allocated funding to figure out how to enliven the bridge and aqueduct. The 
Vision 2000 plan revealed the desire of developing the bridge and aqueduct into a 
public space. By 1993, a new and exciting proposal was unveiled.117 
                                               
117 Sherrie Negrea, “Aqueduct could be altered: Consultants propose stores, winter garden,” Democrat 
& Chronicle, July 25, 1994; Sherrie Negrea, “Study: Turn aqueduct into garden, bar, cafe: Three firms 
also suggest canal with replica of historic barge,” Times Union, July 25, 1994. 
49 
 
 
 
 In 1992, the city received $50,000 from the New York State Urban 
Development Corporation to study 
reuse options for the aqueduct. The 
city additional contributed $8,5000 
for this study. Appointing a 
committee of eleven Rochesterians, 
three portions of the study were 
completed within the first five 
Figure 26 No title, from: Rochester Economic Development months. The study included the 
Corporation, Reuse Feasibility Study for the Broad Street 
Aqueduct, prepared by William Rawn Associates, Architects, 
Inc., LaBella Associates, PC, and Real Estate Enterprises, Inc. structural integrity, marketability 
(September 1994), pg. 5. 
and different architectural designs and uses of the aqueduct.118 By September of 1994, 
the Boston based firm, William Rawn Associates along with the Rochester firm, 
LaBella Associates, developed the “Reuse Feasibility Study for the Broad Street 
Aqueduct.” The study concluded that the design proposed by William Rawn 
Associates would play an important role in downtown revitalization as well as 
reclaim Rochester’s historic artifact as a “cultural highlight” in downtown.119 
 As early as July 1993, the design proposal of reusing the Broad Street 
Aqueduct debuted in the local newspapers. Architect William Rawn described the 
design as part of an effort to think about how people will use the space while 
simultaneously opening up the “‘subterranean atmosphere’” to provide access to 
                                               
118 Sherrie Negrea, “Downtown winter garden: Consultants advise development under Broad Street 
Bridge,” Times Union, July 27, 1993. 
119 Rochester Economic Development Corporation, Reuse Feasibility Study for the Broad Street 
Aqueduct, prepared by William Rawn Associates, Architects, Inc., LaBella Associates, PC, and Real 
Estate Enterprises, Inc. (September 1994), pg. 31. 
50 
 
 
 
natural light.120 This new design proposed to remove three lanes of traffic on the 
bridge to allow for a glass-enclosed Winter Garden along the southern edge. The two-
story Winter Garden, a total of 14,5000 square feet, would completely transform the 
aqueduct and bridge, as well as provide a year-round function. Flanking the 
introduced Winter Garden at the original canal bed level, would be a café to the east 
and a sports bar to the west. At street level, the Winter Garden would emerge next to 
three lanes of traffic, and a park or plaza space could be created next to the War 
Memorial and the Rundel Memorial Library.121 
 A grand total of $14 million, Rawn noted that the project is both visionary and 
practical. Rawn and the Aqueduct Study Committee in July of 1994 argued the 
importance of the aqueduct downtown and how the development of a Winter Garden 
can transform the historic structure and the center city. The designer added that a 
simulated canal could be installed on the north side of the aqueduct, complete with a 
packet boat to instill the memory of the Erie Canal.122 
 While this inventive adaptive reuse project never actualized, it was highly 
publicized in the early 1990s throughout Rochester’s newspapers. Though no funding 
or developer support ever emerged, it did resurrect the concerns over the use of the 
bridge and aqueduct, leading to more citizen-led design proposals throughout the 
1990s through today. 
                                               
120 Sherrie Negrea, “Downtown winter garden: Consultants advise development under Broad Street 
Bridge,” Times Union, July 27, 1993. 
121 Ibid.; Sherrie Negrea, “Aqueduct could be altered: Consultants propose stores, winter garden,” 
Democrat & Chronicle, July 25, 1994; Sherrie Negrea, “Downtown winter garden: Consultants advise 
development under Broad Street Bridge,” Times Union, July 27, 1993.; Rochester Economic 
Development Corporation, Reuse Feasibility Study for the Broad Street Aqueduct, prepared by William 
Rawn Associates, Architects, Inc., LaBella Associates, PC, and Real Estate Enterprises, Inc. 
(September 1994). 
122 Ibid. 
51 
 
 
 
Broad Street Underground 
Posted in September of 2013 on the Rochester Subway website, a new 
proposal highlighted the reuse of the bridge. Architect Lewis Childs, photographer, 
writer and inventor, Neal Rudin and John da Silva, created the Broad Street 
Underground project. The team’s vision was to create a galleria complete with retail 
that would connect the Riverside Convention Center to the Blue Cross Arena.123 
Through preserving the bridge and aqueduct in its entirety, the Broad Street 
Underground project would occupy and reactivate the vacant structure.  
 The project argued for the development of a two-story retail space within the 
interior of the bridge, complete with 
two promenades to lead users to the 
shops and restaurants housed within 
the structure. On the south side of the 
bridge, a voltaic glass galleria would 
Figure 27 No title, from: Mike Governale, “Broad St. bring natural light into the bridge as 
Underground: ANOTHER Proposal for the Abandoned 
Subway!,” Rochester Subway, September 23rd, 2013, well as cover the street level sidewalk 
accessed October 6, 2018, 
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2013/09/broad-
street-underground-proposal-for-abandoned-rochester- on this side. The project would 
subway/ 
additionally call for the closing of two 
or three lanes of traffic to develop the galleria structure. Though not entirely set in its 
                                               
123 Mike Governale, “Broad St. Underground: ANOTHER Proposal for the Abandoned Subway!,” 
Rochester Subway, September 23rd, 2013, accessed October 6, 2018, 
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2013/09/broad-street-underground-proposal-for-abandoned-
rochester-subway/  
52 
 
 
 
programmatic function, the project developed 80,000 square feet of usable space 
within the interior of the bridge that would result in taxable revenue for the city.124 
 Estimated to cost $21 million, the Broad Street Underground project further 
expanded the Winter Garden idea of utilizing the interior of the bridge as useable and 
inhabitable space.125 However, like the Winter Garden project, the Broad Street 
Underground proposal was never realized or garnered a larger public or financial 
support to implement. 
Conclusion 
Rochester 2034 is the city’s first comprehensive plan that aims to guide the 
city’s future growth as national trends favor urban living. Though not fully complete, 
the current community workshops guiding city planners produced keywords and 
phrases like “vibrancy” and “sense of community” into the city’s lexicon. While the 
city does not have a preservation department or employ preservationists, the sense of 
place wanted by Rochesterians could be achieved with the employment of 
preservation and adaptive reuse projects. As seen with the variety of proposals for the 
Broad Street bridge, adaptive reuse can transform a historic structure into a unique 
space, aiding the city in providing needed program to certain downtown areas or 
vacant structures while also retaining its historic fabric.  
Since the urban renewal era, not much physical change has occurred in the 
center city. Downtown Rochester is still suffering from the decisions of city planners 
that altered the pattern of the city during the urban renewal era, but the national trend 
                                               
124 Ibid. 
125 Ibid. 
53 
 
 
 
for urban living offers new hope for the city. The challenge now is for Rochester to 
positively create and develop a downtown community and step away from 
automobile-centric design and planning. Without proper development and activation 
of downtown spaces, how long does Rochester expect its downtown to survive?  
It is the ultimate purpose of this thesis to explore the adaptive reuse of the 
Broad Street bridge and aqueduct and how adaptively reusing the vacant structure can 
spur revitalization efforts downtown. While reusing the structure is not a new idea, 
the design will respond to the needs of the present and future community by 
programming both the interior structure as well as Broad Street into a mixed-use 
public space. Through the adaptive reuse of the Broad Street bridge and aqueduct, 
Rochester will be given a centerpiece in the heart of downtown that will further aid in 
the revitalization of the city.  
 
 
  
54 
 
 
 
 Chapter 5:  Preservation and Adaptive Reuse 
 
 The historic preservation movement has its origins in protecting our Founding 
Father’s homes and altering them into house museums to educate the public and 
insight nationalism amongst the American people. As the urban renewal era in 
American history destroyed much of our built heritage, preservationists vehemently 
argued for the retention of significant buildings and neighborhoods that defined 
towns, cities, and the people who lived there. Though many urban neighborhoods and 
communities were destroyed for new buildings and highways, the preservationist 
movement grew out of the destruction leading to a piece of legislation in the 1960s 
that defined the field of historic preservation today.  
 For those outside of the field of historic preservation, the term “historic 
preservation” is often seen as a device to hinder future use and development of 
historic cities, or to dictate what color one can paint their front door. While certain 
cities and historic districts may regulate things like paint color, the field of historic 
preservation is more complex than being the “paint police.” Generally, historic 
preservation promotes the continued use of a site or structure through the physical 
retention of the place while also interpreting and showcasing the historical 
significance and narrative for the purpose of education and garnering a connection 
with the past.  
 As the field of historic preservation progresses, theories and opinions as to 
what we preserve and how we preserve are continuously explored and debated. 
Additionally, the question as to what the appropriate course of action for preservation 
is often dependent upon personal opinions regarding the history of a specific site. The 
55 
 
 
 
complexity of historic preservation and determining what is appropriate or not is 
often placed on preservation professionals from government agencies. In order to 
further streamline appropriateness, the Secretary of the Interior produced standards 
and guidelines to aid preservation efforts. These standards are used by government 
agencies, planners, preservationists and architects as the ultimate guide to historic 
preservation best practices. 
 Despite the creation of legislation, standards and guidelines, the field of 
historic preservation is not static, it is changing and adapting to fit the needs of 
communities. Historic preservation is a tool for many cities to retain their historic 
character while also advancing and transforming their downtown economy and 
community. Historic preservation should not be seen as the paint police, the house 
museum creators, or as a field that wants to set-back progress. Rather, it should be 
seen as a field that encourages the transformation of cities into active and livable 
communities based on the sense of place our built heritage provides.  
 This chapter will define historic preservation terms in regard to how we save 
structures. The next portion of the chapter will briefly explore the Federal, New York 
State and City of Rochesters’ understanding of preservation at these governmental 
levels in order to understand how the development of the listed Broad Street bridge 
and aqueduct can be achieved.  
Definitions 
 Emulating and learning from the past are embedded in the architecture 
profession prior to the inception of the professional field of preservation. From 
Viollet-le-Duc’s stylistic improvements to Gothic churches to John Ruskin’s anti-
56 
 
 
 
preservation philosophies regarding authenticity and decay, the field is steeped in 
complex theories regarding what is deemed appropriate for the preservation, 
conservation, or reuse of a structure. Each term has an equally multifaceted history 
based on theory and the proper way to “preserve” memory. 
 It is important to define each of the three terms previously listed to articulate 
the role in which each term plays in the modern preservation movement and its 
relevance to the goals of this thesis. Prior to providing a succinct definition for each 
term, it is important to note the four treatments, and their definition, as defined by the 
National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior. Each treatment is given its 
own set of standards and guidelines to assist in the “preservation” of properties. 
• Preservation: the focus on the maintenance and repair of existing 
historic materials and retention of a property’s form as it has evolved 
over time. 
• Reconstruction: acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic 
property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the 
property’s history character. 
• Restoration: depicts a property at a particular period of time in its 
history, while removing evidence of other periods. 
• Rehabilitation: re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a 
property for interpretive purposes.126  
                                               
126 Technical Preservation Services, “Four Approaches to the Treatment of Historic Properties,” 
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-
treatments.htm. 
57 
 
 
 
While the technical descriptions are beneficial in understanding the role of 
these four categories in regard to historic structures, the definition of the terms 
preservation and adaptive reuse for this thesis is a conglomeration of both technical 
and theoretical concepts.  
Throughout this thesis, preservation is used to broadly describe the intention 
of retaining and recognizing historic memory. Through preservation strategies, 
including the Secretary of the Interior’s four technical approaches, historic thought, 
memory and/or character is recollected for the purpose of educating or maintaining 
the physical appearance of a building or neighborhood. Preservation most broadly 
captures the significance of place and the recognition that the memory and physical 
characteristics should be retained. 
Lastly, adaptive reuse refers to the preservation of a historic structure through 
the creative reuse. Reusing a structure can include programming a vacant structure or 
altering or creating additions onto a historic structure for programming purposes. The 
most common example of adaptive reuse seen across North America, is the 
conversion of warehouses and factories into apartment buildings. Adaptive reuse is 
rooted in recycling a building for a new purpose. However, it is important to note that 
the best adaptive reuse practices are respectful of the historical and architectural 
integrity and attempt to highlight architectural features and exhibit the historic 
narrative within the new design. Good adaptive reuse practices should not be 
confused with facadism, or in which only the exterior façade is preserved while 
behind the front elevation a new building is constructed.  
58 
 
 
 
The most interesting and unique preservation projects celebrate the history of 
the building, its past inhabitants and the story the building can tell about a community 
or American history. The preservation of historic structures is not simply embedded 
in maintaining old buildings, but in identifying the building’s history and role it 
played in defining a community.  
Federal, State and Local Governments and Preservation 
 Historic preservation is regulated at three different levels in the United States 
in correspondence to three levels of government: Federal, State and local. In 1966, the 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was passed, establishing the need for 
preserving and reflecting upon our Nation’s historic heritage, through creating the 
National Register of Historic Places, State Historic Preservation Offices, detailing the 
role of the Secretary of the Interior in regard to preservation, and creating the Section 
106 Review process. Prior to 1966, preservation was seen as a grassroots movement, 
and not understood at the national level. Though some acts were passed since the 
early 1900s to protect sites, objects, and recording buildings, the NHPA was a major 
achievement that defined the preservation field in the United States.127 
 While the NHPA created the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) in 
1966, states further protected their built heritage with other pieces of legislation. In 
the state of New York, the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 serves 
as a counterpart to the NHPA. Like the NHPA, this piece of legislation created a list, 
                                               
127 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. § 470, et seq.; Andrew Hurley, Beyond 
Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University 
Press, 2010).; New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, “Federal & State 
Preservation Legislation,” New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, 
https://parks.ny.gov/shpo/environmental-review/preservation-legislation.aspx 
59 
 
 
 
known as the New York State Register of Historic Places. Additionally, Section 14.09 
of the act, which is similar to Section 106 of the NHPA, ensures that the SHPO will 
be consulted if any project that is being planned “may or will cause any change, 
beneficial or adverse” to a structure, site or object listed or eligible for listing on the 
State Register.128 Using the same rhetoric as Section 106, State Agencies are required 
to avoid and mitigate any “adverse impacts” to the listed or eligible properties 
through consultation and producing alternative design schemes.129  
 At the State level, the Division of Historic Preservation (DHP) within the 
State Historic Preservation Office generates a report every five years regarding the 
plan and direction of historic preservation across the entire state. The most recent 
report, the New York State Historic Preservation Plan 2015-2020 highlighted the 
history of preservation in the state as part of a tribute to the 50th anniversary of the 
NHPA. The plan listed goals for the entire state which included the strengthening of 
the practice of preservation, promoting local and regional preservation and cultivating 
heritage tourism. Throughout the report, a timeline presented key moments in 
preservation history, and included successful preservation projects funded through the 
State or receiving Historic Tax Credits. The report highlighted the importance of 
preserving our built heritage and how preservation can fulfill the State’s “current 
needs, issues and opportunities.”130 
                                               
128 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, “Federal & State 
Preservation Legislation,” New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, 
https://parks.ny.gov/shpo/environmental-review/preservation-legislation.aspx 
129 Ibid. 
130 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, New York State Historic 
Preservation Plan, 2015-2020, (Albany, NY: Division for Historic Preservation, 2015), 
https://parks.ny.gov/shpo/preservation-
plan/documents/NewYorkStateHistoricPreservationPlan20152020.pdf, pg. 4. 
60 
 
 
 
 Locally, historic preservation is not a prominent factor in city planning 
decisions. Firstly, the City of Rochester does not have a preservation division or 
department or employ preservationists. Though the city hires planners, engineers, 
architects and landscape architects, preservationists are kept out of the loop of major 
city planning decisions. The local preservation society, the Landmark Society of 
Western New York, however, has a relationship with the city and is consulted in 
regard to Rochester’s built heritage as needed. The Landmark Society operates as a 
separate, non-governmental organization that is referred to by the city as a resource 
for preservation inquiries including listing a structure at the city-level.  
 The City of Rochester, however, established a Preservation Board in the City 
Code. This Board is comprised of seven citizen members who reside in the city limits. 
The seven members consist of one realtor, two registered architects, two residents of 
preservation districts, one city resident, and one member of a historical association. 
The Board’s authority, provided by City Code Section §120-194, is to develop and 
adopt preservation guidelines, and to review Certificates of Appropriateness which 
are mandatory for those residing in a preservation district or a structure listed on the 
Designated Buildings of Historic Value. Currently, the city has eight preservation 
districts and approximately 1,750 properties listed. The districts are part of the city’s 
Preservation Ordinance that was established in 1969, which determined how physical 
changes to properties within a district can be made. The Board’s purpose, in 
61 
 
 
 
reviewing these Certificates of Appropriateness, is to ensure any repair or restoration 
is compatible with the historic design.131 
  Beyond the Preservation Board, historic preservation is not integral to the 
City of Rochester and its planning endeavors. As seen within the ROC the Riverway 
plan, preservation is not a driving force for the city, but an economic necessity to 
ensure development and programming is occurring downtown. Most recently, 
downtown residential developments have utilized vacant office buildings for 
apartment complexes. However, the reuse of these structures was not based on 
preservation policy or desire to preserve downtown’s identity, but the economic 
benefit provided by reusing a structure rather than new construction. Additionally, the 
phrase “historic preservation” is scarcely mentioned, if at all, in current city plans. 
Perhaps seen as a negative term, preservation is often given the connotation that 
preserving the built environment will not allow a city to advance into the 21st century 
if it is stuck in the past. Despite the lack of recognition of preservation in the city 
plans, the altering of historic structures listed at the local, state and federal levels will 
be met with resistance, most significantly from the Landmark Society of Western 
New York.  
 Apart from the legislative process of Section 14.09 in the New York State 
Historic Preservation Act of 1980 which, like Section 106, will require a review 
process of state-funded plans that will impact historic properties, the Landmark 
                                               
131 City of Rochester, NY, “Rochester Preservation Board,” City of Rochester, 
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/presboard/;  City of Rochester, NY, “Historic Preservation,” City of 
Rochester, http://www.cityofrochester.gov/historicpreservation/; City of Rochester, NY, “Historic 
Preservation - Designated Building of Historic Value,” City of Rochester, 
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589947612; Code of Rochester § 120-194  
62 
 
 
 
Society publicly voiced opposition to the lack of “historic voices” in the ROC the 
Riverway project.132 In October of 2018, the Landmark Society debuted its Five to 
Revive listing of five historic structures in Western New York that should be given 
attention and should play “an active role in the communities that surround them”133. 
In a Democrat & Chronicle article dated October 10th, the Landmark Society named 
the Broad Street aqueduct as one of the organization’s Five to Revive. The article 
continued in stating that the Landmark Society wishes that the preservation 
community of Rochester would be more present in the ROC the Riverway plan. 
Overall, the Landmark Society acknowledges the importance of the historic structure 
and are supportive of the reuse of the structure as a centerpiece for downtown but 
assert that preservationists should be part of the planning process.134 
Conclusion 
 The fate of the Broad Street bridge and aqueduct, at this point in time, is 
uncertain. Due to state funding for the ROC the Riverway project, the State Historic 
Preservation Officer will review the demolition of the bridge and the re-watering of 
the aqueduct. If opposition within the local community is fierce enough, and the 
SHPO agrees that the demolition of the 20th century component of the structure is 
inappropriate, then the project will be halted.  
                                               
132 Brian Sharp, “Landmark Society Seeks Role in Aqueduct Plan,” Democrat & Chronicle, October 
10, 2018. 
133 Landmark Society, “Five to Revive | Landmark Society,” Landmark Society of Western New York, 
http://landmarksociety.org/programs/five-to-revive/. 
134 Ibid.; Brian Sharp, “Landmark Society Seeks Role in Aqueduct Plan,” Democrat & Chronicle, 
October 10, 2018.; Landmark Society, “2018 Five to Revive | Landmark Society,” Landmark Society 
of Western New York, http://landmarksociety.org/2018-five-to-revive/. 
63 
 
 
 
 Further described within the next chapter, historic preservation is a tool for 
revitalizing urban cores and should be used as such. The City of Rochester has the 
opportunity to leverage its built heritage for new purposes which will positively affect 
the economics, local community, and vitality of the city. Preserving the character and 
identity of downtown will not hinder the future success of the city, but rather develop 
Rochester’s sense of place rooted within the city’s historical narrative.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
64 
 
 
 
Chapter 6:  Urban Revitalization and Historic Preservation 
 
 Around the time of the Inner Loop planning in Rochester, an article appeared 
in the Democrat & Chronicle entitled “We Need a Loop… Not a Noose.” While the 
title certainly indicates the creation of the Inner Loop is similar to a noose, the rope 
around the city is the issue of traffic congestion. The newspaper article vehemently 
opposed the pleas of the Landmark Society to reevaluate the mass destruction of 
historic structures for the Inner Loop project. The article, like Rochester’s city 
planners, stressed the importance of the arterial highway to relieve downtown of its 
current “traffic strangulation” in order to combat blight. The plea to save historic 
structures was seen as negligent because the need to save downtown with the creation 
of an arterial highway outweighs preservation.135 Ironically, the Inner Loop became 
the noose around the city’s neck, suffocating business endeavors and leading to 
economic decline.  
 Fortunately, the absurd notion that destroying a city will save a city is a theory 
of the past. The inactive and cookie-cutter atmosphere created during the urban 
renewal era with various modernization projects are being combatted with the use of 
historic preservation as an urban revitalization tool today. Through the recognition of 
historic structures as contributing to a city’s identity and character, retaining and 
adaptively reusing our built heritage affectively creates authentic, active and 
revitalized downtowns. 
                                               
135 “We Need a Loop...Not a Noose,” Democrat & Chronicle, July 13, 1952. 
65 
 
 
 
Historic Preservation as a Revitalization Tool 
 The preservation of our built heritage has a rich history in the United States. 
From its origins in preserving patriotic sites to saving individual, architecturally 
significant structures, preservation has become a tool for reimagining, reactivating, 
and revitalizing our neighborhoods, communities, and cities. As early as the 1970s 
with the rise of the preservation movement, preservationists like Jane Jacobs 
recognized the importance of retaining entire neighborhoods filled with an assortment 
of historic buildings. The emphasis of saving these places was not placed solely on 
the historic or architectural significance, but the connection these buildings have with 
the community who works, shops, plays, and lives within them. Put simply, 
preservation has evolved into saving the sense of place versus saving a singular piece 
of architecture. This chapter is distilled into two categories articulating why 
preservation is important in urban revitalization and how it can be achieved. 
Altogether, this chapter expresses the importance of preservation as a unique tool that 
should become the “default option” for urban revitalization.136 
Why Preservation is Important 
 As many preservation professionals will argue, preserving our past is the best 
way to learn, understand, and experience our heritage. The sense of connection 
gained from preserving our built heritage is embodied in our personal and communal 
identities, articulating a sense of pride in one’s community. The sense of belonging 
                                               
136 Forum Online, “Ten Principles for ReUrbanism: Reuse and Reinvestment in the 21st Century,” 
Preservation Leadership Forum, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 
https://forum.savingplaces.org/blogs/forum-online/2016/09/07/ten-principles-for-reurbanism-reuse-
and-reinvestment-in-the-21st-century 
66 
 
 
 
and rootedness the past provides is one of many important reasons to preserve the 
built environment. Beyond the notion of saving the past saves our personal identities, 
the sustainable and economic benefits of preservation are also important to explore.  
 Perhaps over articulated by preservation professionals, the sense of place, 
identity, and authenticity that older buildings provide enriches communities by 
connecting people to the past. Preservation has expanded upon preserving individual 
places to preserving neighborhoods and districts with the emphasis on managing 
change to continue the vitality of place. Expressed by Jane Jacobs, “cities need old 
buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districts to grow 
without them.”137 The character older buildings provide, the communities created in 
older neighborhoods, and the connection to the past are vital elements seen within the 
urban landscape and emphasize the power and potential of older buildings, as noted 
by former NTHP CEO Stephanie Meeks. 138 
 In 2013, a Preservation Green Lab report tested Jane Jacobs ideas across six 
cities in the United States to understand the connection between our built heritage and 
urban vitality. Jacobs, who emphasized understanding how people used spaces 
through critical observation, understood the connection between place and 
community. As explored in the report entitled Older, Smaller, Better: Measuring How 
                                               
137 Preservation Green Lab, The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building 
Reuse, (Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2011), https://living-
future.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The_Greenest_Building.pdf; Preservation Green Lab, Older, 
Smaller, Better: Measuring how the character of buildings and blocks influences urban vitality, 
(Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2014), 
https://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey
=bac17bb3-e9cf-1d28-7cae-558fa35820e5&forceDialog=0.; Stephanie Meeks, The Past and Future 
City: How Historic Preservation is Reviving America’s Communities (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 
2016). 
138 Stephanie Meeks, The Past and Future City: How Historic Preservation is Reviving America’s 
Communities (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2016). 
67 
 
 
 
the Character of Buildings and Blocks Influences Urban Vitality, neighborhoods 
filled with a mixture of different age buildings are more walkable, more diverse, have 
an active street life, provide affordable and flexible spaces, are filled with local 
businesses, and contain a hidden density of more people and businesses per square 
foot than newer buildings. The report continuously emphasized the importance of 
place and how younger people prefer living in neighborhoods with a mixture of old 
and new buildings. Meeks, in her book, further expressed the dominance in urban 
living preferences amongst college-graduates and empty-nesters, citing a Time 
magazine article from April of 2014 noting the shift in the American Dream of living 
in a city versus suburbia. Meeks furthers supports the preference for urban living by 
expressing that 80% of Americans live in urban areas, a growth of 12% between 2000 
and 2010. As seen in Andrew Hurley’s book, Beyond Preservation: Using Public 
History to Revitalize Inner Cities, the preference to move back to the cities began in 
the 2000s subsequently spurring the reuse of older buildings.139   
 The reuse of older buildings provides a sense of authenticity that cannot be 
found in suburban America. The active street life, the urban density, and the mixed-
use atmosphere of urban cores provide for a vital downtown community. However, 
through the connection to the past and growth in popularity of older neighborhoods, 
Hurley warns about the displacement of people through gentrification. To overcome 
                                               
139 Andrew Hurley, Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities 
(Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2010).; Preservation Green Lab, Older, Smaller, Better: 
Measuring how the character of buildings and blocks influences urban vitality, (Washington, D.C.: 
National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2014), 
https://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey
=bac17bb3-e9cf-1d28-7cae-558fa35820e5&forceDialog=0.; Stephanie Meeks, The Past and Future 
City: How Historic Preservation is Reviving America’s Communities (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 
2016). 
68 
 
 
 
over-inflating property values, Hurley argues that community engagement is key in 
future planning endeavors. Ultimately, the connection people have to urban 
landscapes develops and fosters community, a shared sense of place, and strengthens 
our community and individual identities. The tangible aspect of our built heritage 
further defines our community’s narrative but also creates happy and healthy 
communities.140 
 Today, sustainable and environmentally conscious design are a primary focus 
for many architects, planners and engineers. All aspects of the built environment are 
being assessed based on their ability to save energy and money, produce less waste, 
and environmental impact. Different rating systems and codes are being developed to 
guide sustainable design nationally and internationally. As designers continue to 
strive towards environmentally conscious design, these designers should be aware 
that preserving existing buildings is a sustainable design practice.  
Existing buildings can easily be transformed and recycled into a building with 
a new purpose. As noted by the Whole Building Design Guide, a program from the 
National Institute of Building Sciences, historic buildings “were traditionally 
designed with many sustainable features that responded to climate and site.”141 
Beyond the inherent “green” strategies of existing buildings, the ability to reuse and 
retrofit buildings with sustainable technologies will ensure optimal building 
performance. Organizations like the Whole Building Design Guide and the National 
                                               
140Ibid.; Thompson M. Mayes, Why Old Places Matter: How Historic Preservation Affect Our Identity 
and Well-Being (Washington, D.C.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018). 
141 WBDG Historic Preservation Subcommittee, “Sustainable Historic Preservation,” Whole Building 
Design Guide, https://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/historic-preservation/sustainable-historic-
preservation.  
69 
 
 
 
Trust for Historic Preservation’s Preservation Green Lab (now the Research & Policy 
Lab) further stresses the benefits and importance of linking preservation and 
sustainability.142  
Within the design community, the United States Green Building Council’s 
LEED rating system is the most widely known designation for sustainable designs. 
LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, has various categories 
focusing on various types of buildings or neighborhood development projects. 
Though the checklists used by LEED to comprehend how green a building only 
fixates on the sustainable measures and methods, rather than overall building 
performance, the rating system is pursued by developers due to the stigma 
surrounding LEED as the leader of sustainable rating systems. Additionally, LEED 
does not consider historic preservation and the necessity of retaining character 
defining features. For example, instead of replacing historic windows with energy 
efficient designs that are not historically accurate, additional tactics, including 
caulking or weather-stripping windows, and adding storm windows are more 
preservation-friendly methods to retain historic windows while improving energy 
performance. Additionally, the retention of historic windows effectively recycles 
original features and limits the amount of waste produced by the project.143  
                                               
142 WBDG Historic Preservation Subcommittee, “Sustainable Historic Preservation,” Whole Building 
Design Guide, https://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/historic-preservation/sustainable-historic-
preservation.; Sharon C. Park, “Sustainable Design and Historic Preservation,” CRM  1998. 
Sustainable design and historic preservation. CRM 2 (1998): 13–16. 
http://tusculum.sbc.edu/toolkit/toolkit_pdfs/Park,Sharon_SustainableDesignHP.pdf 
143 Technical Preservation Services, “Sustainability,” National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, https://www.nps.gov/tps/sustainability.htm; USGBC, “LEED,” U.S. Green Building Council, 
https://new.usgbc.org/leed; WBDG Historic Preservation Subcommittee, “Sustainable Historic 
Preservation,” Whole Building Design Guide, https://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/historic-
preservation/sustainable-historic-preservation. 
70 
 
 
 
Though LEED is a desirable rating system for architectural firms to achieve, it 
is not the most attainable rating system for the reuse of existing buildings. While 
improvements can be made to LEED to better incorporate adaptive reuse into the 
scorecard system, applying green measures to historic buildings are still achievable 
and not limited to the LEED scorecard. As evidenced by the AIA COTE Top Ten 
Awards (American Institute of Architects Center on the Environment), sustainable 
strategies can be easily applied to historic structures, making these buildings 
comparable to new green construction. COTE Top Ten rigorously applies ten 
measures to sustainable design, ensuring the project is designed with the environment 
and community in mind. Various metrics for each measure are assessed, dictating the 
effectiveness of design strategies and solutions. Although new construction will allow 
for maximized control over sustainable design, last year’s winners include three 
innovative adaptive reuse designs, proving that the implementation of sustainable 
measures can effectively produce a “green” historic building.144 
The three 2018 COTE Top Ten winners that reused existing buildings 
included the Ortlieb’s Bottling House in Philadelphia, the Renwick Gallery in 
Washington, D.C. and the San Francisco Art Institute Fort Mason Center Pier 2. All 
three projects utilized the buildings’ physical design and added sustainable measures 
including low-flow fixtures and energy efficient lighting fixtures. For example, the 
Ortlieb’s Bottling House worked with the buildings design of high ceilings and 
operable windows to provide proper ventilation throughout the interior of the 
                                               
144 AIA, “COTE Top Ten Awards,” American Institute of Architects, 
https://www.aia.org/awards/7301-cote-top-ten-awards. 
71 
 
 
 
building. Additionally, a cool roof was designed to reduce the building’s heat island 
effect.145 Similarly, the San Francisco Art Institute benefits from the natural 
ventilation and exposure to sunlight the original building design provides. The 
addition of a photovoltaic solar system resulted in producing 100% of the electricity 
for the building.146 
As seen with past COTE Top Ten winners, existing buildings are inherently 
green buildings that require few sustainable strategies to further improve the 
buildings’ efficiency. Whether it is the original design intention that provided for 
proper ventilation or created a thermal mass to heat or cool a building, the reuse of 
historic structures has less of an impact on the environment than new construction.147 
As seen in the Preservation Green Lab study entitled “The Greenest Building,” 
reusing existing buildings positively benefits the environment by diminishing 
environmental impacts associated with demolition and new construction. The study 
focuses on energy use, life cycle analysis, and embodied energy to report quantitative 
data regarding to the reuse of historic buildings. For example, over a 75-year period, 
adaptively reusing a building for commercial purposes yielded 13% less impact to 
climate change in the city of Portland, versus a newly developed commercial building 
of the same size in the same location.148 Additionally, within Portland, the study 
concludes that 15% of the county’s CO2 reduction target could be met through the 
                                               
145AIA, “Ortlieb’s Bottling House,” American Institute of Architects, 2018 COTE Top Ten, 
https://www.aia.org/showcases/186146-ortliebs-bottling-house. 
146 AIA, “San Francisco Art Institute - Fort Mason Center Pier 2,” American Institute of Architects, 
2018 COTE Top Ten, https://www.aia.org/showcases/181821-san-francisco-art-institute---fort-mason-
ce.  
147 Preservation Green Lab, The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building 
Reuse, (Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2011), https://living-
future.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The_Greenest_Building.pdf. 
148 Ibid. 
72 
 
 
 
adaptive reuse of existing buildings versus creating newer buildings with green 
strategies.149 The report determines that further research is needed regarding  
sustainability and preservation, but concludes that the reuse of existing buildings is 
more sustainable than new construction. 
Sustainability and historic preservation are inherently linked as the reuse of 
existing buildings limits the amount of landfill waste and embodied energy for the 
creation of new materials for new construction. However, a delicate balance is needed 
by architects and designers to appropriately apply sustainable measures to existing 
structures without compromising historical integrity. As the design world 
continuously promotes sustainable practices, preservationists must continue 
encouraging the reuse of historic structures for both the preservation of our built 
heritage and the environmental benefits of recycling existing buildings.  
The economic benefits attributed to adaptively reusing our built heritage, like 
the social and environmental benefits, further justify reuse. In Thompson Mayes’ 
2018 book, Old Places Matter, Mayes expresses six reasonings behind the economic 
impact of preservation. Refined from the NTHP and Donovan Rypkema, Mayes’ 
reasonings include: jobs, income, state and local taxes; heritage tourism; 
revitalization; attracting talent and investment; property values; and business 
incubation. Also stated by Meeks and Hurley, Mayes notes the reuse of historic 
buildings produces higher paying jobs and money generated remains in the local 
economy as compared to new construction, therefore benefitting local communities 
through employment, income, and taxes. The local economy is further benefitted by 
                                               
149 Ibid. 
73 
 
 
 
heritage tourists, new residents and small businesses that are attracted to older 
buildings and the sense of authenticity the buildings provide. The increase in interest 
alternatively increases property values, therefore further providing economic benefits 
to the local economy. Hurley, however, cautions against the exploitation of reusing 
old buildings for profit intentions. Preservation, then, should be seen as an economic 
tool, not the economic tool for revitalizing communities.150 
The reuse of historic buildings deeply impacts communities, the environment, 
and local economies, creating unique, vibrant and sustainable urban atmospheres. The 
transformation processes, however, should be gradual, and emphasis should be paid 
upon the existing community and defining a balance between old and new. Old 
buildings have the potential to serve a variety of functions, but also the power to 
define our sense of place and sense of self. 
How Urban Preservation Can be Achieved 
 Recent endeavors by organizations like the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation (NTHP) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) explore the role of 
preservation in revitalization, providing tips to overcome common hindrances. Within 
the October 2017 report, Untapped Potential: Strategies for Revitalization and Reuse, 
                                               
150Preservation Green Lab, Older, Smaller, Better: Measuring how the character of buildings and 
blocks influences urban vitality, (Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2014), 
https://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey
=bac17bb3-e9cf-1d28-7cae-558fa35820e5&forceDialog=0.; Andrew Hurley, Beyond Preservation: 
Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2010).; 
Stephanie Meeks, The Past and Future City: How Historic Preservation is Reviving America’s 
Communities (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2016).; Thompson M. Mayes, Why Old Places Matter: 
How Historic Preservation Affect Our Identity and Well-Being (Washington, D.C.: Rowman & 
Littlefield, 2018). 
74 
 
 
 
the NTHP Green Lab and ULI addressed four barriers to reuse: zoning, parking, 
financing, and codes.151  
 Within any city, a series of zoning laws dictates the development and 
appearance of new buildings and the environment of downtown. As argued by the 
NTHP and ULI report, various zoning barriers hindering the reuse of buildings 
includes the limitations of building use, development standards favoring new 
construction, non-conforming buildings to current standards, vulnerability of smaller 
buildings zoned for higher FARs, and complex zoning overlays. The solutions offered 
in the report include the rewriting of outdated zoning laws and creating form-based 
zoning codes. The creation of less segregated and structured zoning codes will 
promote reuse, mixed-use, and context sensitive development.152 
 Across the United States, the invention of the automobile further progressed 
sprawl outside of our dense urban centers, the creation of highways, and the necessity 
for creating parking lots. The obligation to accommodate for cars has transformed 
urban patterns and dictates future development with parking requirements built into 
city codes. Though parking is a necessity, the report acknowledges that the 
elimination of minimum parking requirements, as well as exempting older buildings 
from requirements will further assist cities in reusing their built heritage.153 For 
example, the Center City of Rochester does not require parking for new 
developments, due to the abundancy of parking facilities downtown.   
                                               
151Preservation Green Lab, Untapped Potential: Strategies for Revitalization and Reuse, (Washington, 
D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2017), 
https://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey
=a8afe694-4ea4-06db-a7d4-3ac98e470904&forceDialog=0. 
152Ibid. 
153 Ibid. 
75 
 
 
 
As seen within the economic and authenticity factors reusing historic 
buildings provides, the market potential for reusing buildings is capitalized by small 
and start-up businesses that actively seek flexible, open plan workspaces older 
buildings provide. The added historic character of the building, as noted in the report, 
further impacts these businesses identity and marketing narrative. Additionally, 
financial barriers can be lifted with the implementation of Federal Historic Tax 
Credits which incentivizes adaptive reuse. Between 1977 and 2014, over 40,384 
buildings were adaptively reused with Federal Tax Credits, generating $22.6 billion. 
Additionally, $98.6 billion income was generated from these reused properties, 
benefiting the local economies. Alternatives to Federal or State Tax Credits include 
finding alternative sources of funding, like revolving loan funds or grant programs 
like the NTHP’s Main Street Program. The usage of tax credits and additional 
funding programs like the Main Street Program, spurs development and investment, 
which leads to an increase in property values, new jobs downtown, and new local 
businesses.154  
  The report emphasizes codes as a fourth and final barrier to reuse. While 
codes are in place to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the public, the adoption 
of a flexible approach to building codes would further allow for adaptive reuse. 
Though codes are necessary, the report argues that new codes could be written for the 
                                               
154 Preservation Green Lab, Untapped Potential: Strategies for Revitalization and Reuse, (Washington, 
D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2017), 
https://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey
=a8afe694-4ea4-06db-a7d4-3ac98e470904&forceDialog=0.; Stephanie Meeks, The Past and Future 
City: How Historic Preservation is Reviving America’s Communities (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 
2016).; David Listokin, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr, “The Contributions of Historic 
Preservation to Housing and Economic Development,” Housing Policy Debate 9, no. 3. 
76 
 
 
 
reuse of buildings to perpetuate the opportunity to reuse a city’s existing fabric. The 
adjustment to existing codes additionally obstructs costly upgrades and aids in the 
retention of historical features.155 
 Beyond the solutions provided in the Untapped Potential report, the NTHP 
also developed ten principles of ReUrbanism, which focused on reusing, reinvesting 
and revitalizing cities. Centering around preservation, reurbanism focuses on 
responding to the needs and issues of cities and is a guideline to transform these 
cities. The focus on preservation and on people results in the contribution to creating 
stable and vibrant cities. The lengthy titles of each principle promotes preservation, 
walkability, use of mass transit, sustainability, human scale development, and the 
sense of authenticity provided through adaptive reuse. Ultimately denoting the 
importance of preservation, the ten principles of reurbanism can be applied to any city 
or neighborhood to promote the preservation of our built heritage for future 
generations.156 
 A myriad of barriers hinder the adaptive reuse and revitalization of buildings, 
neighborhoods and cities. As noted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 
the process of rightsizing cities through planning and zoning efforts will properly 
utilize reuse as a revitalization strategy to create sustainable and active 
                                               
155Preservation Green Lab, Untapped Potential: Strategies for Revitalization and Reuse, (Washington, 
D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2017), 
https://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey
=a8afe694-4ea4-06db-a7d4-3ac98e470904&forceDialog=0. 
156 Forum Online, “Ten Principles for ReUrbanism: Reuse and Reinvestment in the 21st Century,” 
Preservation Leadership Forum, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 
https://forum.savingplaces.org/blogs/forum-online/2016/09/07/ten-principles-for-reurbanism-reuse-
and-reinvestment-in-the-21st-century. 
77 
 
 
 
communities.157 The opportunity for revitalization is nested in preservation and 
therefore barriers need to be eliminated to promote and achieve the desirable sense of 
place and authenticity sought after by start-up businesses, hipster bars and restaurants, 
and college graduates.  
ReUrbanism and Rochester 
 Learning from the NTHP’s exploration in ReUrbanism, the ten principles 
could easily be applied to Rochester. Exploring the city’s history, after World War II 
Rochester accommodated vehicles, not people, by allowing for the demolitions of 
neighborhoods to make way for the Inner Loop, highways and other vehicular-
oriented designs. With significant amounts of cars downtown, a parking situation 
surfaced, leading to the necessity to bulldoze buildings in order to build parking lots 
or garages. The remnants of designing with the automobile in mind as a response to 
traffic problems, led to the decline of businesses, outward sprawl, and a downtown 
riddled with seas of parking. Fortunately, the increase in downtown population, the 
eagerness of the city to improve, and the national trend favoring downtown residency, 
garners new hope for Rochester. 
 As seen in various parts of Rochester which retains its historic character, most 
notably Park Avenue, local businesses, shops, and boutiques are thriving. Stated in 
the ten principles of ReUrbanism, the charm of the historic sense of place is an 
economic engine. The tree covered streets, historic houses and storefronts, and 
                                               
157 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Managing Change: Preservation and Rightsizing in 
America, (Washington, D.C.: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 2014), 
https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018-07/RightsizingReport.pdf. 
78 
 
 
 
walkable environment, attribute to both the sense of place and community of Park 
Avenue. The human scale nature of this portion of the city additionally maintains the 
sense of community coveted by various new developments around the county.  
Downtown Rochester, too, could experience this atmosphere if greater efforts 
are placed on developing place for people rather than individual buildings with 
grander connections to streets and sidewalks. The physical environment of the city’s 
streetscapes could be improved alongside development of vacant structures into 
inhabitable spaces for all. The notion of creating single-use buildings for offices or 
residences should be abolished from future development plans, therefore allowing for 
a mixed-use street environment that will lead to street activity. The redevelopment of 
historic buildings with multiple uses works in tandem with the improvements needed 
to the city’s streetscape to offer a welcoming atmosphere that will be inhabited by 
people.  
Embracing the historic character of downtown Rochester by adaptively 
reusing its structures for new, mix-use purposes is only part of the solution to 
revitalize a city. Developing a walkable and bike-able environment is also necessary. 
Reliance on cars further drives the notion that downtown is not for people, and 
therefore the creation of complete streets to accommodate people, bicycles and cars, 
should be attained downtown. In addition, mass transit options reduce the dependence 
on the automobile. Locally, a non-profit organization known as ReConnect Rochester 
focuses on creating safer streets designed for pedestrians, bicycles and mass transit. 
Headed by Mike Governale, the former director of the Rochester Subway website, 
ReConnect Rochester vigorously argues for improvement to public transportation. 
79 
 
 
 
Rochesterians rely on their automobiles to get them from point A to point B due to 
the lack of mass transit but also the convenience the automobile provides. The city 
only has a bus services to connect downtown with suburbia, and due to limited reach 
into the surrounding community, it is not a competitive alternative to automobile use. 
ReConnect Rochester emphasizes the need to improve the bus system, providing 
figures as to how the $1 ride on the bus is more economically sustainable than 
owning or using a personal automobile. The non-profit additionally works on 
improving bus stop environments as well as developing the bike share initiative 
within the city.158  
Overall, the efforts to revitalize and transform Rochester into a vibrant 
community must be done in collaboration with preservation and adaptive reuse 
efforts. The necessity to create street activity downtown and harness a sense of place 
is rooted in working with the city’s historic structures and transforming them to fit the 
needs of the community. The additional needs to address transportation problems by 
improving mass transit and creating safe streets, will support the new programs and 
activities occurring within the heart of the city. The following chapters provide a 
greater understanding of Rochester and the needs of the community leading up to the 
appropriate programs that can be applied downtown. Preservation is inherent to urban 
revitalization and is necessary for the rebirth of downtown Rochester by creating a 
sense of place revolving around the city’s historic identity.  
                                               
158 Reconnect Rochester, “About Us,” Reconnect Rochester, Inc., https://reconnectrochester.org/about-
us/.; Reconnect Rochester, “Public Transportation,” Reconnect Rochester, Inc., 
https://reconnectrochester.org/resources/public-transportation/. 
80 
 
 
 
Conclusion 
 Historic preservation is no longer limited to preserving significant Americans’ 
homes and converting them into house museums. Through the use of legislation and 
innovate design strategies, historic structures, sites, objects, and landscapes can be 
preserved for the continual use as homes, offices, or other facilities that serve the 
larger community. Adaptively reusing structures is a resourceful way to sustainably 
fulfill the needs of a community. The retention of our built heritage alternatively 
effects the community by harboring an authentic sense of place. Rather than 
destroying usable buildings, the sustainable, economic, and authenticity factors 
outweigh the notion that newer is better. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the past 
by demolishing buildings and creating non-descriptive architecture, cities should 
reuse their built environment to create active, sustainable, and authentic communities.  
Neighborhoods along Park Avenue and Monroe Avenue are popular 
destinations with a series of shops, restaurants, bars, and apartments nestled into 
historic buildings. The charm of these neighborhoods is rooted in the historic 
architecture, providing residents with a sense of authenticity and community. 
Downtown Rochester, too, can provide new inhabitants with a sense of place and 
community seen in other parts of city, if it is willing to develop and occupy vacant 
buildings downtown for future shops, restaurants and other amenity spaces. Rather 
than building more parking lots and garages, Rochester should shift its focus to 
retaining a downtown population. With the development of new high-end condos 
along the Genesee River and the conversion of the Xerox office tower into residential 
apartments, now is the time for the development of grocery stores, restaurants, and 
81 
 
 
 
other amenities for this emerging community. The neglect to create this type of 
development, strengthens Rochester’s automobile-centric design focus, forcing new 
downtown inhabitants to rely on their vehicles to take them outside of the city to 
stock their fridges 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
82 
 
 
 
Chapter 7:  Architectural Intervention  
 
 The Broad Street bridge and aqueduct are 
integral to the historical narrative and identity of 
the City of Rochester. The aqueduct and cap of 
Broad Street characterize the expansion, growth, 
and development of the city. While the interior of 
the bridge was abandoned in the 1950s, the void 
left emphasizes the state of Rochester due to 
decentralization and shift towards suburbia after 
Figure 28 Illustration by Author. World War II. With the national trend towards 
urban living, Rochester has the unique opportunity to once again reclaim its 
prosperous and active identity by reusing the one structure that best illustrates the 
city’s history.  
Site Analysis 
 
Figure 29 Illustration by Author.                            Figure 30 Illustration by Author. 
 Rochester is located in Upstate New York within Monroe County (Figures 29 
and 30). The city limits extend upward to Lake Ontario, one of the Great Lakes, while 
83 
 
 
 
the heart of the city sits eight miles 
south of the lake. As seen in the above 
figures, the Erie Canal extends from 
Albany to Buffalo, crossing through the 
center of the city. These diagrams, 
however, depict the Erie Canal Path as 
Figure 31 Google Earth Underlay, Illsutration by originally designed, and therefore is not 
Author. 
accurate to the rerouted canal seen 
today.  
 Figures 31 and 32 showcase the 
boundaries of the city and include the 
Genesee River path north towards Lake 
Ontario as well as the current and 
Figure 32 Google Earth Underlay, Illustration by original Erie Canal paths. Figure 33 
Author. 
further demonstrates the original Erie 
Canal path over the aqueduct and 
Genesee River in the heart of the city. 
 The character of downtown 
Rochester, or the center city which is 
defined by the Inner Loop, simply lacks 
program and “life.” (See Appendix B). 
Figure 33 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by In order to best develop an active 
Author. 
downtown environment, new residential 
84 
 
 
 
needs to be added within the Inner Loop to 
populate, densify and justify additional program 
downtown. Figure 34 identifies the existing 
residential buildings downtown in brown, while 
suggesting the adaptive reuse and construction of 
new residential structures in yellow. New 
Figure 34 Illustration by Author. 
structures can be introduced in existing vacant lots 
or surface parking lots throughout downtown. 
However, in order to instill an active street 
environment, these new residences should be 
mixed-use buildings with commercial and office 
space available on the ground floor.  
 As the Genesee River passes through the city, 
Figure 35 Google Image Underlay, an existing Genesee River Trail haphazardly 
Diagram by Author. 
meanders the river’s edge. A continuous trail can 
be introduced along the river’s edge by utilizing 
the first floor of the Aqueduct Building on the west 
side, which can be entered at the Broad Street 
level. On the east side, the trail can continue 
underneath the existing Rundel Memorial Library, 
Figure 36 Illustration by Author. extending north through the new plaza and on a 
new walkway placed next to a new mixed-use residential building. The new trail path 
allows for continuous views of the Genesee River, thereby capturing it as an amenity. 
85 
 
 
 
 The surrounding context of the 
Broad Street bridge and aqueduct are 
important to comprehend in 
Figure 38 Illustration by Author. understanding the character and 
activeness of the city. Surrounding the 
bridge on the west side is the Blue Cross 
Arena. The Arena is home to 
Figure 39 Google Image Underlay, Diagram by Author. Rochester’s hockey and lacrosse teams, 
but also serves as a venue for concerts, ice skating shows, and events like monster 
truck rallies. This Arena serves a wide demographic of the city and the surrounding 
suburbs. To the east side north of the bridge is the Rochester Riverside Convention 
Center, which also holds a variety of small to large scale public and private events. 
Immediately south of the bridge on the east side is the Rundel Memorial Library. The 
library, built in the 1930s, was built over 
a millrace and the railroad tracks, 
therefore this space is connected to the 
interior of the bridge. The library itself 
offers a multitude of events for 
Rochesterians of all ages, including 
lectures and classes throughout the 
Figure 37 Google Image Underlay, Diagram by Author. 
weekdays.  
 As stated in prior chapters, the Broad Street bridge and aqueduct is listed on 
the National Register. However, Rochester’s center city is also includes many other 
86 
 
 
 
listed buildings and structures, indicated in light blue on the diagram in Figure 37. 
This diagram showcases Rochester’s architectural character, while further addressing 
the need to treat the bridge and aqueduct with the same respect as other listed 
structures by maintaining the structures’ in its entirety so it can further serve the city 
as a reminder of Rochester’s past while programming it for the future. 
Program and Precedents 
The character of downtown 
Rochester lacks a centerpiece for 
the city, as well as programmed 
spaces for gathering and 
entertaining. Concluding the site 
analysis within the Inner City, a site 
matrix was developed to understand 
either side of the bridge. The matrix 
suggested the poor presence of 
restaurants, residential and retail 
Figure 40 Illustration by Author. 
along both sides of the river. Both 
sides, however, showcased a 
multitude of parking and office 
structures downtown, further 
cementing the city’s 9 to 5 
operation.  
Figure 41 Illustration by Author. 
87 
 
 
 
In assessing the characteristics of downtown 
Rochester surrounding the bridge, it was clear that a 
new form of public space with retail and restaurant 
experiences was needed. This conclusion led to a 
precedent study which highlighted famous bridges, 
Figure 42 Illustrations by Author. including the Pulteney Bridge and Ponte Vecchio, as 
well as transformed pieces of 
infrastructure now utilized for 
public spaces, including the High 
Line and Viaduc des Arts.  
Earlier parti studies of the 
Broad Street bridge and aqueduct 
Figure 43 Layout, Images and Illustrations by Author. closely followed 
Pulteney Bridge and 
Ponte Vecchio in 
which the addition of a 
21st Century layer of 
retail and restaurants 
would be added along 
the street level of the 
Figure 44 Illustrations by Author. 
bridge, while 
additionally converting the interior for commercial usage. Earlier ideas, seen in 
Figure 44, play with developing commercial space along the entirety of the bridge, or 
88 
 
 
 
breaking up the bar to allow for views towards the river, similar to the Ponte Vecchio. 
Furthermore, Figure 43 illustrates the idea of reintroducing the arches of the façade 
on this new 21st century layer. 
However, the final design 
focuses on creating a lantern 
with a simple rectilinear form to 
stand alone as a new piece of 
architecture introduced to the 
Figure 45 Layout, Images and Illustrations by Author. historic structure.  
As seen in Figure 44, the 
green path along the street level 
indicates the conversion of Broad 
Street into a pedestrian walkway. 
In this case, the Highline and 
Figure 46 Illustration by Author. 
Plantee Promenade of the Viaduc 
des Arts was explored with the creation of a 
public promenade in the heart of a city with 
foliage and native plants arranged to create a 
new form of public park. The study of the High 
Line lead to ideas about entry into the bridge 
structure in terms of entering the interior of the 
Figure 47 Illustration by Author 
bridge at street level, as seen in Figure 47.  
89 
 
 
 
Lastly, the Main Street Bridge in Rochester was 
also consulted as a case study due to its Ponte Vecchio 
quality in which many commercial buildings were built 
along either side of Main Street over the course of the 
1800s. Prior to its demolition in the 1950s, the Main 
Street bridge extended retail across the Genesee River to 
allow for a continuous retail corridor. The imagery of the 
Main Street bridge with the irregularity of the river 
Figure 48 Illustration by Author. 
façade led to the idea to create bump outs within the 
bridges’ arches to extend program over the Genesee.  
The preliminary design partis and ideas led to 
a more respectable approach in the architectural 
intervention of the bridge within the final design. The 
interior of the bridge would be utilized for programed 
Figure 49 Illustration by Author. 
retail and restaurant space, while the street level 
would be utilized for public park and gathering spaces with minimal construction to 
alter the appearance of the bridge. Although trees and planters are visible along the 
top of the bridge, the final design steps away from a new architectural language along 
the entirety of the bridge, thereby retaining views to the river and avoiding the 
development of two levels of commercial retail.  
90 
 
 
 
Design Strategies 
 Three rehabilitation strategies to activate 
and utilize the Broad Street bridge and aqueduct 
were developed following the early design 
schemes. These rehabilitation strategies: closing 
off Broad Street to vehicular traffic; infilling 
half the interior while retaining the other half 
for circulation; and using clouds and raised 
Figure 50 Illustration by Author. 
access flooring; were created to guide the 
design and minimize the impact of the 
architectural intervention on the historic 
structure. The ultimate design develops a 
respectful architectural intervention by 
minimally intruding on the current character of 
the bridge through the maintenance of the 
Figure 51 Illustration by Author. 
southern portion of the interior for circulation. 
The absence of new construction on the street 
level of the bridge, maintains the top as a public 
park and promenade, while a small lantern is 
centered and serves as a moment of entry into 
the interior.  The infill portion of the project, on 
the northern side, features operable windows 
Figure 52 Illustration by Author. 
within the interior and exterior arches and 
91 
 
 
 
raised access flooring to allow for circulation between either sides due to the height of 
the interior arches, as well as provide 
for sight out of the interior bridge. 
The raised access flooring further 
allows for the introduction of 
HVAC, electrical and other 
mechanical systems within the 
infilled portion.   
Figure 53 Illustration by Author. 
Final Design  
 The final architectural 
intervention utilizes the three 
rehabilitation strategies and 
introduces a pub/restaurant on the 
western side of the bridge to serve 
the Blue Cross Arena attendees 
Figure 55 Illustration by Author 
before or after games and 
performances. As one continues east 
within the bridge, the central lantern 
separates the pub/restaurant with a 
Figure 54 Illustration by Author. 
museum and gallery. This museum 
gallery will be the downtown branch 
for Rochester’s Memorial Art 
Figure 56 Illustration by Author. Gallery, located outside of the Inner 
Figure 57 Illustration by Author. 
92 
 
 
 
Loop. This museum also corresponds to the sculpture garden that is created on the top 
of the bridge, in which sculptures are nestled between planters.  
 As one leaves the bridge on the eastern side, a sunken plaza is situated at the 
raised floor access level to allow a continuous connection into the bridge and under 
the library. Beneath the library, a walkway extends across the mill race while a new 
restaurant and test kitchen are infilled. Over the course of the seasons, the infilled 
restaurants and museum can be used, while the sunken plaza on the east and plaza on 
the west could be used for multiple purposes. The sunken plaza could be used for 
cinema screens, concerts, plays and dance performances due to the design of 
amphitheater seating. Additional retail within the new mixed-use residential building 
serves both the sunken plaza and the upper portion of the plaza which is at street 
level.  
 On the western side of the bridge, another multi-use plaza allows for four 
seasonal use. During warmer months, festivals and farmers markets could utilize the 
plaza as market stall space. In addition, food trucks can serve the plaza, providing 
more food options for workers and residents downtown. During the colder months, an 
ice-skating rink can be placed on the plaza, while enclosed market stalls can use the 
sidewalk space to provide ice skaters with skates or a warm drink during the winter. 
An additional ramp permits entry to the bridge on the western side, allowing users to 
enter at the raised floor level and continue down to the original canal bed level.   
93 
 
 
 
Figure 58 Illustration by Author. 
Conclusion 
 The final architectural intervention respectfully adaptively reuses the Broad 
Street bridge and aqueduct by placing programing within the interior of the structure. 
By filling the void in the heart of the city with a programmatic purpose and utilizing 
the top of the bridge for public space, the bridge serves a purpose for the city as a 
centerpiece of activity. Although the architectural interactions with the bridge itself 
create a unique design, there is a need for further city planning efforts within the 
surrounding context of the bridge to justify the development of retail within the 
bridge. The introduction of new residential downtown will support the development 
of commercial retail.  
 
 
 
 
 
94 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 59 Boards, Images, and Illustrations by Author. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
95 
 
 
 
Chapter 8:  Conclusion  
 
  Through the adaptive reuse of structures within the heart of the city, 
Rochester could revitalize and activate the city by creating an authentic sense of place 
that historic preservation provides. The struggles of the city, which have extended 
from the 1950s and 60s decentralization and urban renewal efforts, must be overcome 
through intentional and cohesive design approaches to allow to city to densify and 
populate. The awareness of the Genesee River and the countless historic structures 
downtown, should be seen as amenities and unique attributes to the city, and therefore 
efforts to celebrate, preserve and interact with these amenities are necessary.  
 Overall, the design intervention of adaptively reusing the Broad Street bridge 
and aqueduct focuses on introducing program into the interior of the bridge which 
will be supported by new residential on the periphery of the bridge. The further 
creation of public space along the existing Broad Street and two public plazas on 
either end of the bridge, will serve as key gathering spaces for dining and 
entertainment. As dictated within the verbal presentation of this project, further 
design manipulation is needed to create a cohesive public plaza and promenade at 
street level to fully integrate this new design into the city. 
 The design intervention is not a panacea for Rochester; would not singularly 
solve the city’s needs for activating downtown. The design is, however, part of a 
larger vision for revitalizing downtown. The design guidelines, including adding new 
mixed-use residential, creating a continuous Genesee River Trail on both sides of the 
river, and creatively activating the void in the heart of the city, can be used as a 
formula for Rochester to respectfully and purposely revitalize.  
96 
 
 
 
 Appendices 
Appendix A 
 After World War II, cities across America noticed a shift in population from 
cities to the newly developed suburbs. 1950s America preferred individual homes 
centered on a green lawn, with a driveway to house one’s automobile. Individualism 
and the “American Dream” of owning a home in the suburbs led to the 
decentralization of downtowns. As more affluent families preferred the comforts of 
suburbia, expensive highway projects continued to develop, therefore allowing 
workers to commute in and out of the city easily. As the popularity of the suburbs 
ensued, new shopping experiences, like the strip mall and enclosed mall, were 
favored destinations. These malls offered expansive parking lots, making it easier for 
suburbanites to drive and shop in contrast to downtown retailers. Soon, department 
stores and shops closed their downtown stores, relocating to the suburbs. Over the 
course of the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s, downtowns of American cities became uninviting 
and vacant places, only serving the purpose for office space - unless already moved to 
suburban office parks. The decline of downtown led to the rise of the urban renewal 
era, with the major idea that through destroying parts of the city, the city could be 
saved.  
 The vast majority of urban renewal projects throughout the 1950s to 1970s not 
only destroyed historic fabric of cities but displaced many people in the name of 
progress. Demolishing the blighted areas of cities filled with lower class residents, 
forced people out of their homes and communities. While urban renewal efforts were 
done within city limits, the primary goal was to get the suburbanites back downtown, 
97 
 
 
 
therefore series of highways or enticing architectural spaces were designed in effort to 
repopulate the city. However, the shortcomings of many urban renewal projects was 
the focus on designing with the automobile in mind, as well as creating spaces that 
people would visit, but not inhabit. The failure to retain people downtown past 9-to-5 
endeavors, creating highways to make the city more accessible from the suburbs, and 
the development of parking lots or garages continued the vicious cycle of allowing 
downtowns to decline and suburbia to flourish.  
Downtown Decentralization: Constraining the City 
 Argued by various urban historians, the decentralization of downtown can be 
pinpointed to a host of issues, technologies and changes in American thought post-
WWII. In the case for Rochester, the creation of a series of highways connecting 
outlying towns and communities, spurred the development of the suburbs. The 
affordability of the automobile and ability to quickly travel downtown within twenty 
minutes, further supported the growth of the Rochester suburbs. In 1950, Rochester 
experienced its peak population of 332,488 downtown, but soon after a sharp decline 
resulting in 296,230 residents by 1970. Meanwhile, the suburbs continued to flourish 
and grow in population and size.159 
  Built between 1949 and 1960, the New York State Thruway, known as the 
Governor Thomas E. Dewey Thruway, extended 2,800 lane miles and cost nearly $1 
billion to build.160 The announcement of the path of the Thruway south of the city of 
                                               
159 Blake McKelvey, “A Panoramic Review of Rochester’s History,” Rochester History 11, no. 2 
(April 1949). 
160 Thruway Authority, “Overview of the Thruway System,” New York State Thruway Authority, 
https://www.thruway.ny.gov/oursystem/overview.html. 
98 
 
 
 
Rochester, prompted the need to connect the city to this new commercial and travel 
artery. The declining use of the Rochester subway, the Thruway system across the 
state, and increased traffic congestion in the center city, led to the support of creating 
an arterial highway around the city. The arterial highway, known as the Inner Loop, 
would ease traffic 
congestion and connect 
Rochester to the 
Thruway and outlying 
communities. New 
York State additionally 
recognized the need for 
the creation of arterial 
Figure 60 Map showing Inner Loop Proposal, Rochester, N.Y., Monroe County highways in cities, 
Library System, Rochester Municipal Archives, accessed December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&resourceid=111610251
1&currentIndex=0&view=fullDetailsDetailsTab. offering to pay for the 
construction costs and half the land costs. While opposition to the route proposed by 
the State was resolved by February 1949 by widening the Inner Loop around 
downtown, it was clear to both the State and the City that this arterial highway was 
necessary to improve traffic congestion downtown and to make the city better 
connected and accessible.161 
 “What will the Inner Loop be and what will it accomplish?” was the reigning 
question after the arterial highway map was debuted in February of 1949.162 The 
                                               
161 “Arterial Highway Plan Goes Ahead on 2 Fronts,” Times Union, February 24, 1949.; “Loop Plan 
Highlights Fight on Congestion,” Times Union, February 25, 1949. 
162 “Loop Plan Highlights Fight on Congestion,” Times Union, February 25, 1949. 
99 
 
 
 
Inner Loop was praised as the panacea to downtown traffic issues by allowing 
vehicles to utilize the various exits to reach their destination quicker without 
navigating the central business district. Previously known as the central traffic 
district, the City Planning Commission stressed the importance of denoting the center 
city as the central business district. This distinction would highlight the importance of 
downtown as an “economic entity, and not just a district through which automobiles 
pass.”163 By depressing or elevating the Inner Loop, depending on its location around 
the city, the new highway would maintain higher speeds without the hindrance of 
stoplights and on-grade crossings, thereby decreasing downtown traffic by an 
estimated 60% to allow for more efficient usage of the center city streets.164 The city 
additionally recognized the lack of parking facilities downtown and proposed to 
create new parking structures to additionally accommodate for the automobile.  The 
2.7 mile, $34 million Inner Loop, and its at-grade partner, the Outer Loop located 
further outside of the center city, begun construction in 1951 and was officially 
completed by 1965.165 Seen as a success of modernization and street improvement 
efforts, the Inner Loop now gave clear definition to the center city.166 
 The resulting effects of the Inner Loop led to a more accessible downtown, 
achieving the goals of connecting downtown with the Thruway and suburbia. The 
                                               
163 Emmet N. O’Brien, “City Studies Loop Theory on Traffic: Business Area Become Key in 
Planning,” Democrat & Chronicle, September 16, 1948. 
164 Truman Searle, “You’ll Be Driving on Them: Are You Up-to-Date on Out Loops?” Democrat & 
Chronicle, July 12, 1953. 
165 Peter Stutz, “Final Segment Open on 3-Mile Inner Loop,” Democrat & Chronicle, October 21, 
1965. 
166 “Keep Arterial Program Moving,” Times Union, January 20, 1949.; Kermit Hill, “LOOP-ing Our 
Traffic Problems,” Times Union, February 28, 1953.; “National Expert Praises City’s Loop Plan For 
Relieving Acute Traffic Congestion Problems,” Times Union, September 30, 1953.; no title.Times 
Union, October 20, 1965. 
100 
 
 
 
creation of parking structures additionally contributed to the automobile-centric 
planning ideas. Alleviating downtown congestion through the Inner Loop creation 
and development of parking, further assisted in the growth of suburbia now that 
downtown was built for the suburbanite’s car. Seen as positive planning throughout 
the urban renewal era, it soon became clear that the Inner Loop constrained the city, 
effectively disconnecting the center city and its businesses from the rest of Rochester 
with a six-lane moat.    
 The suffocating center city recently was released from its noose.  In an effort 
to correct the urban renewal creation of the Inner Loop, the City of Rochester 
demolished the eastern portion of the arterial highway. The depressed portion closed 
in 2014 before being filled in completely in 2017, creating developable spaces 
downtown. Although no new development has occurred yet, there is an opportunity to 
reintegrate the center city with the eastern side of the city.167  
Civic Pride 
 Over the course of the rapid expansion of the Flour City, calls for a civic 
center were expressed. A series of proposals done by famous architects and planners, 
began emerging around 1911, extending through the urban renewal era. The 
development of a civic center would not only house important governmental offices 
and public buildings but invoke civic pride in Rochesterians. While a multitude of 
plans emerged, including plans by Alfred Brunner and Frederick Law Olmstead, and 
                                               
167 City of Rochester, NY, “Inner Loop East Project,” City of Rochester, 
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/innerloopeast/.; Keith Schneider, “Taking Out a Highway That 
Hemmed Rochester In,” The New York Times, November 1, 2016, 
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/business/old-highway-paves-road-for-recovery-in-
rochester.html. 
101 
 
 
 
Harland Bartholomew, it was not until the late 1950s that Rochester would develop 
its Civic Center. This center, however, only contained courthouses, the Police 
Department and a jail. Other civic buildings, including a library and public 
auditorium, were already constructed in the 1930s and mid-1950s.  
Completed in 1936, the Rundel Memorial Building is in a peculiar location. 
On the east side of the river, above the 
Johnson & Seymour Race and the 
Rochester Subway, the library was 
constructed on a series of piers to 
avoid the tracks. Constructed out of 
steel with the capacity to store 830,000 
Figure 61 Albert R. Stone. Aerial view showing Rundel 
Building under construction. Monroe County Library books, the Rundel Memorial Building 
System, Albert R. Stone Negative Collection, Rochester 
Museum & Science Center, accessed December 14, 2018, is named after Morton W. Rundel, a 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&res
ourceid=1116891499&currentIndex=0&view=fullDetails
DetailsTab. local businessman whose fortune was 
acquired in the stock market. Designed by architects Edwin Gordon and William 
Kaelber in the Beaux-Art and Art Deco styles, the library building is a prominent 
civic building, on a commanding site. Due to its placement over the Johnson & 
Seymour millrace, arched openings at the base of the building allow water to flow 
into the Genesee River. Funded by Rundel and the WPA, the symbolism and quotes 
placed throughout each building’s elevation prompted Rochesterians to learn and the 
city to prosper.168  
                                               
168 Blake McKelvey and Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck, “The Origins of the Rochester Public Library,” 
Rochester History 48, nos. 1 & 2 (January & April 1986). 
102 
 
 
 
 Across the Genesee, on the west side, the War Memorial superblock was 
constructed. Now the Blue Cross Arena, the War Memorial was a public auditorium 
and memorial dedicated to Rochester-area veterans. Located on the original Kimball 
Tobacco Factory and the Carroll, Fitzhugh and Rochester millrace site, the first 
superblock in downtown demolished the factory and historic millrace. Designed by 
architect Leonard A. Waasdorp, the 
War Memorial featured a chapel space 
with an eternal flame that linked to the 
community auditorium. Although 
funding was secured as early as 1945, 
demolition and construction did not 
Figure 62 War Memorial, Rochester N.Y. Monroe County begin until the early 1950s. Officially 
Library System, Rochester Municipal Archives, accessed 
December 14, 2018, 
https://catalogplus.libraryweb.org/?section=resource&res opening in 1955, the 7,000-person-
ourceid=1117023429&currentIndex=3&view=fullDetails
DetailsTab. capacity auditorium became an 
amenity space for Rochesterians and suburbanites who would venture downtown for 
various performances, including the circus and hockey games.169   
Renovated in the 1990s, the chapel area was developed into a lobby space. 
Waasdorp, having visited multiple memorials before designing the War Memorial, 
wanted to create a sacred space to honor veterans and those who died in war. His 
intention was to separate the lobby space from this sacred chapel, however, the 
                                               
169 Daniel J. Palmer, Rochester’s Downtown Architecture: 1950-1975 (Charleston, SC: Arcadia 
Publishing, 2010). 
103 
 
 
 
redesign completely erased the chapel space, moving the memorial to veterans and 
the war dead to the exterior of the building along the river.170  
 Continuous plans which emerged throughout Rochester’s history stressed the 
importance of creating a Civic Center. However, by the late 1950s, buildings that 
would make up the Civic Center, including a library and public auditorium, were 
already constructed. While the city considered multiple sites, including building over 
the river between Main and Court Streets, the development of the Inner Loop led to 
the chosen site in the 
southwestern quadrant of the 
city, using the new arterial 
highway as a border.171 This 
location was chosen based on 
the proximity to the library and 
Figure 63 Civic Center Plan, from: “Civic Center: Rochester, New War Memorial, effectively 
York,” 1956, http://mcnygenealogy.com/book/civic-center-1956.pdf 
pg 3. adding the two buildings as 
part of the proposed plans. Raised on a plinth, the 1956 proposal of the Civic Center 
comprised of city and county buildings surrounding an open-air plaza with the 
capacity of 30,000 people, and a parking garage for 1,300 vehicles located underneath 
the plaza. The remaining space along the Inner Loop and extending along the river 
towards Court Street, would be dedicated to green space. The green space would 
additionally extend over Exchange Street which is submerged and built on top of for 
                                               
170 Ibid.  
171 Calvin Mayne, “Civic Center Seen No Snag to Loop,” Times Union, June 8, 1954. 
104 
 
 
 
this scheme. Lastly, a Federal Building and State building are proposed south of the 
Rundel Memorial Building on the east side of the Genesee.172  
 The master plan, designed by Faragher & Macomber and Voorhees Walker 
Smith & Smith architectural firms, was half realized. The Hall of Justice (court 
building) and the Public Safety buildings were erected in their proposed locations, 
facing the massive public plaza space between 1958 and 1963. The green park space 
and the additional government office buildings on both sides of the river were never 
developed. However, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the jail was expanded, and a 
new Public Safety building was created on the south side of the plaza, backing up to 
the Inner Loop. Additionally, in 2009, the vast plaza space was redesigned as a green 
space for the city, although the only inhabitants are jury members and those awaiting 
trial.173  
Urban Renewal Efforts 
Similar to the War Memorial and Civic Center superblocks, a series of other 
superblocks were continually proposed and developed in downtown over the course 
of the 1950s to 1970s. Like other cities, the creation of superblocks destroyed 
neighborhoods and the historic fabric and character of downtown. In Rochester, the 
destruction of streets and historic buildings in the name of urban renewal led to large-
scale projects with modern buildings and vast amounts of parking. Since the 1950s, 
Rochester experienced a density issue, where most of the urban fabric is made up of 
                                               
172 “Civic Center: Rochester, New York,” 1956, http://mcnygenealogy.com/book/civic-center-
1956.pdf; Daniel J. Palmer, Rochester’s Downtown Architecture: 1950-1975 (Charleston, SC: Arcadia 
Publishing, 2010). 
173 “Civic Center: Rochester, New York,” 1956, http://mcnygenealogy.com/book/civic-center-1956.pdf 
105 
 
 
 
parking lots instead of buildings, people, and activity. The efforts to construct with 
the automobile in mind, led to the demise of the city, as well as certain urban renewal 
projects too.  
Rochester’s most notorious superblock, Midtown Plaza was a product of the 
late 1950s that is still discussed today. Developed through private funding by two 
major Rochester retail families, the McCurdys and Formans, Midtown Plaza was the 
America’s first downtown 
enclosed shopping center. 
Designed by Victor Gruen, the 
architect behind the suburban 
shopping mall, this project 
transformed the Rochester 
skyline and commercial 
Figure 64 Cover Page from “Midtown Plaza: The New Business 
Center of Downtown Rochester, New York.” activity downtown. Unlike the 
suburban shopping mall, Gruen and the city believed Midtown Plaza would transform 
downtown. Gruen’s theory of transfiguration, similar to urban revitalization, 
suggested that Midtown Plaza, with its retail plaza, office space, hotel and restaurant, 
would revive downtown’s economy. Although many view and remember Midtown 
Plaza as an enclosed mall, Gruen urged that all programmatic elements were integral 
to the project and its success.174 
                                               
174 Karen McCally, “The Life and Times of Midtown Plaza,” Rochester History 69, no. 1 (Spring 
2007). 
106 
 
 
 
Announced in 1958 and completed in 1962, Gruen’s vision of Midtown Plaza 
was an enclosed town square. Beyond two-stories of retailers, the interior plaza space 
was also for public art, performances, meetings and for people to congregate. Born in 
Austria, the town square was reminiscent to the active and multipurpose squares in 
Europe. Continuing from Gruen’s transfiguration theory, he also believed in 
designing social environments, which was highlighted in his 1964 book, The Heart of 
Our Cities. This book dedicated a chapter to Midtown Plaza, again recalling its multi-
program design. On top of the interior mall, Midtown Tower consisted of ten stories 
of office space, faced in grey brick, and four stories of hotel with a top floor 
restaurant, faced in diamond-shaped aluminum. Below the shopping mall, three 
stories of underground parking were constructed.175 
Over the course of the latter half of the 19th Century, downtown retail, as well 
as Midtown Plaza, declined. Closing its doors in 2008, Midtown Plaza had a high 
vacancy rate, was seen as unsafe due to loitering teenagers, and could not compare to 
Gruen’s suburban malls. Suburban shopping centers dominated retail culture, being 
more convenient to the suburban shoppers Midtown Plaza was trying to entice. 
Additionally, the inwardly focused design was oriented around the suburbanites’ 
experience. The suburban shopper, having drove downtown, entering the city on the 
Inner Loop, would enter the underground garage of Midtown Plaza. No longer would 
suburban shoppers walk the downtown streets since the garage escalators brought the 
                                               
175 Ibid.; Daniel J. Palmer, Rochester’s Downtown Architecture: 1950-1975 (Charleston, SC: Arcadia 
Publishing, 2010). 
107 
 
 
 
shopper into the interior plaza.176 The design of the Plaza, as well as the shift in retail 
culture, led to Midtown’s failure.  
The 10-acre superblock complex of Midtown Plaza project consisted of six 
total buildings, all which were demolished around 2015. Only Midtown Plaza and 
Midtown Tower were newly constructed, while the arcade Gruen design connected 
McCurdy’s and Forman’s department stores and Rochester’s largest hotel, the 
Manager Hotel.177 All demolished, Midtown Tower was stripped of its facade, 
revealing its steel structure, and then transformed into Tower280, an apartment 
complex with offices and room for retail at street level. However, one lot, known as 
parcel 5, remains vacant in the heart of downtown. Despite the project’s failure, the 
superblock allowed for the extension of Broad Street further east, finally allowing the 
street to have a proper terminus.178 
 Another urban renewal project under the guidance of the city and Mayor 
Gillette’s newly created Department of Urban Renewal and Economic Development, 
known as the Genesee Crossroads Urban Renewal Project was developed between 
1965 and 1977.179 Located north of the Main Street bridge and straddling the river, 
this 13-acre superblock demolished the site completely in order to create few, multi-
storied structures and parking. Architects, including Midtown Plaza’s Victor Gruen 
and I.M. Pei and Associates, developed proposals for this site in the early 1960s. 
                                               
176 Ibid. 
177 “Midtown Plaza: The New Business Center of Downtown Rochester, New York.”  
178 “Midtown Plaza: The New Business Center of Downtown Rochester, New York.”; ROC the 
Riverway Advisory Board “ROC the Riverway: A Vision Plan for the Future of Rochester’s Genesee 
Riverfront, Phase 1 – May 2018,” May 2018. 
179 Blake McKelvey and Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck, Rochester: A Panoramic History (Sun Valley, 
CA: American Historical Press, 2001). 
108 
 
 
 
Similar to various other proposals throughout the early 1920s and 30s, I.M. Pei’s 
proposal included building on top of the Genesee River in the form of a twenty-story 
office building.180  
 The 19th Century urban blocks were demolished in favor of singular buildings 
with adjacent parking lots. The first building to be completed in the Genesee 
Crossroads project, the IBM building, 
a modern glass box of a building lifted 
on concrete stilts. A parking lot 
surrounded the four-story office 
building which was completed in 
1968.  Shortly thereafter, five more 
buildings were erected on the western 
side and one on the eastern side of the 
Figure 65 No title, from: Daniel J. Palmer, Rochester’s Genesee. These buildings, including a 
Downtown Architecture: 1950-1975 (Charleston, SC: 
Arcadia Publishing, 2010). Pg. 46. 
Federal Office building and 
courthouse, a Holiday Inn, a brutalist apartment complex, and two additional office 
buildings, known as the Crossroads Building located at Four Corners and the First 
Federal Plaza building, which was completed in 1977. In addition to these buildings, 
a park known as Carroll Park was created. Designed by Frank Schlesigner, the 3-acre 
park was developed on top of a new underground parking garage to serve the office 
buildings. To connect both sides of the city, a y-shaped pedestrian bridge was erected. 
                                               
180 Daniel J. Palmer, Rochester’s Downtown Architecture: 1950-1975 (Charleston, SC: Arcadia 
Publishing, 2010). 
109 
 
 
 
Known as the Sister Cities Bridge, the bridge continues to fly flags of other countries 
in which Rochester has a sister city.181 
 Now one of Rochester’s iconic bridges crossing the Genesee, the Sister Cities 
Bridge was a creation of the Genesee Crossroads project. However, as the project 
ventured to the east side of the river, another Rochester icon was to be demolished. 
The Main Street Bridge, which was rebuilt four times over the course of Rochester’s 
history, continuously featured buildings on the bridge.182 Compared to Florence’s 
Ponte Vecchio, the village of Rochester built a public market on the northern edge of 
the bridge in 1827, which prompted ad hoc building of commercial structures. 
Completely covering the river from view by the 1830s, the Main Street Bridge 
defined Main Street as the major economic and commercial thoroughfare of the city 
with the continuation of commercial retail along its edges. However, due to the 
dilapidated appearance of the bridge, the buildings were removed, revealing the stone 
bridge underneath and the Genesee River.183 
Unlike the Midtown Plaza and the Genesee Crossroads projects that fixated on 
developing office, hotel and commercial spaces, the 1970s Southeast Loop Urban 
Renewal project was oriented around creating residential and park space for the city. 
Similar to the other superblock urban renewal projects throughout the city, the 
Southeast Loop project called for further demolition of the city’s existing fabric. 
Located on the southeastern side of the Inner Loop, the park was to serve as a 
                                               
181 Ibid.; Blake McKelvey and Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck, Rochester: A Panoramic History (Sun 
Valley, CA: American Historical Press, 2001). 
182 Dorothy S. Truesdale, “Historic Main Street Bridge,” Rochester History 3, no. 2 (April 1941). 
183 Ibid.; Blake McKelvey and Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck, Rochester: A Panoramic History (Sun 
Valley, CA: American Historical Press, 2001).; Daniel J. Palmer, Rochester’s Downtown Architecture: 
1950-1975 (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2010). 
110 
 
 
 
stimulus for residential development, but only three brutalist apartment complexes 
were ever built. However, in 1977, the decision to build the Strong International 
Museum of Play downtown, was hailed as a victory for the park. Opening in 1982, 
the Strong Museum fills in the rest of the 13.5-acre superblock project.184 
Known as Manhattan Square Park, the five-acre park was designed by 
landscape architect Lawrence Halprin. 
Opening in 1975, the park site in the 
Manhattan Square superblock was 
once occupied by tenements. Halprin 
designed six zones, with the focal 
point being a sunken, concrete plaza 
Figure 66 No title, from: “Unloading Day,” Democrat & that was meant to be viewed by the 
Chronicle, May 22, 1977. 
prospective high-rise apartment buildings in the superblock, or by the 100ft 
spaceframe observation structure. The angular concrete design, similar to other 
Halprin designs, featured a 2,000-seat amphitheater, waterfalls, and distinct spaces for 
an ice-skating rink that could be converted into tennis courts during the summer 
months.185  
Seen as “an enticement to bring suburban dwellers back into the city,” the 
$5.5 million, five-acre Manhattan Square Park became a place for festivals, concerts 
                                               
184 “Manhattan Square Pays Off Again,” Times Union, September 2, 1977.; The Strong National 
Museum of Play, “History | The Strong,” The Strong National Museum of Play, 
http://www.museumofplay.org/about/history.; Daniel J. Palmer, Rochester’s Downtown Architecture: 
1950-1975 (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2010).; “Manhattan Park to Open with Music and 
Fireworks,” Democrat & Chronicle, September 7, 1975. 
185 The Cultural Landscape Foundation, “The Landscape Architecture of Lawrence Halprin--
Manhattan Square Park,” Cultural Landscape Foundation, 
https://tclf.org/sites/default/files/microsites/halprinlegacy/manhattan-square-park.html 
111 
 
 
 
and special events since its opening in September of 1975.186 However, as soon as the 
park opened, Rochester’s newspapers reported the issues of retaining an attractive 
park, harping on the city to take the time and money to ensure the park is “kept 
lively” for Rochesterians.187 While events, including the creation of a 200-foot ski 
mountain, have been held in the park over the years, the hopes that the park would 
revitalize the city was never realized.188 The renovated ice-rink in 2008 and the 
creation of an indoor tennis bubble, simply do not garner enough pull downtown to 
transform the park, or the city, into an active community.189 
Conclusion 
 The decentralization of Rochester is an onslaught of several reasonings and 
planning choices. Throughout America, the end of WWII led to the creation of 
families and a baby boom. These families, in turn, sought the comforts of an 
individual home in the suburbs, versus the confines of an overcrowded city. 
Travelling farther distances than earlier transportation forms, the personal automobile 
was an affordable luxury that contributed to sprawl development. Coupled with the 
creation of highways, living outside of the city was now easier. The decline in 
downtown populations, taxpayer revenue, and activity downtown, led to urban 
renewal in the 1950s. Beginning with the of the Inner Loop, the “improvements” 
                                               
186Terry Dillman, “For Loop Appeal: $3 Million Park,” Times Union, March 28, 1973.; “Manhattan 
Park’s a Gem; It Must be Kept Lively,” Times Union, September 12, 1975.; “Manhattan Square Pays 
Off Again,” Times Union, September 2, 1977. 
187 “Manhattan Park’s a Gem; It Must be Kept Lively,” Times Union, September 12, 1975.; 
“Manhattan Square Pays Off Again,” Times Union, September 2, 1977. 
188 Claudette James, “CitySki Aims to Pack ‘Em in Downtown,” Democrat & Chronicle, November 4, 
1985. 
189 Brian Sharp, “Renovated Ice Rink Draws Hundreds,” Democrat & Chronicle, November 29, 2008.; 
“Tennis Players’ ‘Bubble’ Proposed for Manhattan Sq.,” Times Union, June 23, 1979. 
112 
 
 
 
made in Rochester demolished neighborhoods in favor of modernization. These 
projects that desperately tried to save the city, led to further decline. 
The perception of cities by the 1970s and 1980s as crime and drug ridden 
places, furthered the economic decline of downtown. Due to influx of immigrants, 
downtown’s demographics rapidly changed. To white suburbanites, downtown 
became a scary place attributed to vacancy rates and the large non-white and lower-
class populations downtown. Race riots throughout America and in downtown 
Rochester furthered suburbanites fear of downtown. The perception of downtown 
damaged Rochester’s reputation and economy, leading to the downtown office 
environment operating during business hours without street activity and inhabitants to 
sustain a vibrant city atmosphere. However, Rochester’s city planners developed 
further strides throughout the 1990s and early 2000s to reverse the decentralization of 
downtown. (see chapter 4). 
113 
 
 
 
Appendix B 
Zoning 
Shown in the illustration below, the center city is designated under Chapter 
120, Article IX of 
the City Zoning 
Code as the Center 
City District, or 
CCD. Within the 
CCD, there are 
seven various 
districts with a set 
of specific 
regulations applied 
Figure 67 Zoning Diagram, Google Earth Imagery with diagram drawn by Author. to building heights, 
materials, and 
building form. The overall goal of creating the CCD is to promote 24/7 activity 
downtown by increasing residential development within the Center City. Within the 
CCD, no parking is required but if parking is desired, a proposal with a parking 
analysis is necessary. The Broad Street bridge is in the Riverside District (CCD-R) 
and has six primary purposes: preserve the existing character of the riverfront; 
promote development compatible with the desirable built character of the riverfront; 
improve the visual and physical access to the riverfront; provide uninterrupted public 
access to the river’s edge’ promote the riverfront as a place for public gathering and 
114 
 
 
 
activity; and reduce the “barrier” effect of the river which separates the sides of the 
city.190 Overall, the character of any new building within the district shall be 
compliant to the architectural character of the district, buildings should not exceed six 
stories, a setback of 30-feet is required for any riverfront buildings with a maximum 
of three stories before receding another 30-feet to build three additional stories. 
Additional regulations include the character of storefronts, signage, and lighting to 
maintain the architectural character of the Riverside District.  
Population and Demographics 
 The population of 
downtown has varied 
throughout the city’s history. 
Beginning as a boomtown with 
a massive influx of residents 
every year in the mid-1800s, 
Figure 68 Illustration by Author. 
Rochester flourished 
throughout the 19th and 
early 20th centuries as a hub 
on the Erie Canal, and then 
a major technology and 
photography center. 
However, Since the 1950s, 
Figure 69 Illustration by Author. 
                                               
190 City of Rochester Code § 120-57 through § 120-67. 
115 
 
 
 
the population plummeted with 
the rise of suburbia, resulting in 
a lower concentration of 
population within city limits. 
Since 2016, Rochester’s 
population has slightly 
increased, leading to the 
connotation that urban 
revitalization efforts are crucial 
Figure 70 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. to maintain downtown 
population increases. 
 Out of the 210, 291 inhabitants recorded in 2018, majority of downtown 
residents are black (38.6%) and white (36.7%), with lower percentages of 
Rochesterians identifying as Hispanic, Asian, multiracial, Native American, and 
Islander, as seen in Figure 69. 
 Within the Center City, a total of 7,200 inhabitants reside as of 2017. In 
comparison to the Center City population in 2010, the 2017 population is a 121.54% 
increase. As seen in the diagram in Figure 70, the majority of residential units are 
located on the east side of the city. Downtown residences vary in form, from mid-rise 
apartment complexes to rowhomes, all built within a variety of time periods as 
residential units or as factories, mills or other structures that were adaptively reused 
for residential living.  
116 
 
 
 
Transportation 
Due to urban 
renewal efforts and the 
rise of suburban 
population, the 
automobile is the 
preferred mode of 
Figure 71 Illustration by Author. transportation in and 
around Rochester (Figure 
71). Commute times, seen 
in Figure 72, average 
between 15-19 minutes 
from the suburbs to 
downtown, therefore 
cementing the reliance on 
automobiles over lengthier 
modes of travel like mass 
transit. The urban fabric of 
Figure 72 Illustration by Author. the city reflects the 
vehicle-oriented design with the amount of parking lots and garages littering the 
Center City (Figure 73). The Center City, constrained by the Inner Loop, has a 30 
mile per hour speed limit. As seen in Figure 74, the eastern portion of the Inner Loop 
117 
 
 
 
is demolished, thereby 
allowing for the integration 
of the east side of the city 
downtown.  
 Despite the reliance on 
the automobile, the city also 
has a public bus system 
operating within the city 
Figure 73 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. limits and extending 
outward to the suburbs. 
Seen in Figure 75, the two 
bus service lines operate 
along primary and 
secondary city streets with a 
variety of stops along their 
routes. The buses terminate 
on the east side of the city at 
the major bus facility. In 
addition to mass transit, 
Figure 74 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. 
recent initiatives for creating 
bicycle lanes and a bike share program have evolved over the last five years. The bike 
share program, known as PACE, operates within the city and is an initiative set by 
ReConnect Rochester as an alternative to automobile dependence. One recent change 
118 
 
 
 
to the Broad Street bridge 
involved the inclusion of 
bike lanes instead of parking 
lanes for cars on either side 
of the street. The six-foot 
bike lanes are highlighted in 
green and have some plastic 
bollards but are not totally 
separated from vehicular 
Figure 75 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. 
traffic on the bridge. Other 
streets throughout the city 
use the same method of 
green painted bike lanes, 
without other methods to 
provide safety to the bikers 
from vehicular traffic. 
Additionally, the 
Center City is highly 
walkable in terms of its size 
Figure 76 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. 
and also features trails along 
the river’s edge and heritage trails with various stops within the city highlighting the 
past, including the Heritage Trail which begins at the Rundel Memorial Library 
(Figure 77). With an overall walk score of 65, the City of Rochester is a highly 
119 
 
 
 
walkable city, though in 
need of the creation of 
complete streets to offer a 
more attractive and safer 
walking environment.  
Tourism and Program 
 Tourism statistics for 
Rochester include the larger 
 Finger Lakes Region. An Figure 77 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author.
estimated total of 1.5 
million tourist visit the region annually for the various festivals and events in 
Rochester, as well as the wineries around the Finger Lakes. A variety of festivals are 
located within the Center 
City, or in certain city 
neighborhoods, provide 
street activity within the 
city. For example, the 
Figure 78  Illustration by Author. International Jazz Festival, 
a two-week event, closes down certain streets along East Avenue and the Eastman 
School of Music for concerts in the streets during the day and nights. Artists in a 
variety of genres from around the world perform during the festival, as well as local 
artists. Another popular festival is the Lilac Festival, which also attracts many tourists 
from around the State and Canada. This festival is located within Highland Park, 
120 
 
 
 
designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, during the peak bloom season for the lilacs. The 
festival offers concerts, food trucks, and artisan booths. The Lilac Festival is integral 
to the identity of the City of Rochester due to its nickname, the Flower City, which 
was established alongside the park system in the late 1800s.  
 Within the Center City, there are a variety of points of interests which attract 
tourists and residents of the 
region. Most significantly, 
the Blue Cross Arena 
attracts a wide variety of 
people due to its events. 
Events include games by the 
Rochester Amerks (hockey), 
the Rochester Knighthawks 
(lacrosse), and the Razor 
Figure 79 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. Sharks (basketball); 
travelling circuses, ice-skating shows, concerts, and even monster truck shows. The 
Rochester Riverside Convention Center also holds a wide variety of events, including 
concerts, lectures, larger city events, and corporate functions. Several theaters 
downtown and the Eastman School of Music also host a series of plays, concerts and 
movie screenings. A few museums reside within the city, including an Auto Museum 
on Main Street and the Strong National Museum of Play which developed within the 
Manhattan Square superblock.  
121 
 
 
 
 In addition to the points of interest listed in the Figure 79 diagram, Figure 80 
illustrates the nationally and 
locally listed buildings and 
structures residing in the 
Inner Loop. It is important 
to note that buildings are 
also listed on the New York 
State Register, but these are 
also nationally recognized 
and therefore appear as 
Figure 80 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. nationally listed in this 
diagram. Within the Inner Loop, one preservation district is located, as well as 
roughly  
 The Flower City has 
fourteen parks within the 
Inner Loop. However, 
unlike the parks outside of 
the Inner Loop, these parks 
are smaller in size and often 
are not occupied by people 
other than at the lunch hour 
of the business day. Unlike 
Figure 81 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. 
the larger parks, there are no 
122 
 
 
 
recreational activities offered in these parks, besides the Martin Luther King Jr. Park 
(formerly the Manhattan Square Park) which has ice skating during the winter 
seasons. Most recently, the Genesee Gateway Park, labelled as number 2 in Figure 
81, is being transformed into an urban skatepark known as the Roc City Skatepark for 
skateboarders downtown.  
 A small variety of restaurant and cafés are spattered downtown, mostly along 
East Avenue where the Eastman School of Music and a larger bar scene is located. 
The restaurants on East 
Avenue, both within the 
Inner Loop boundaries and 
further outside the Center 
City, are well populated 
during nights and weekends 
by both suburbanites and 
city residents. Within the 
heart of downtown, few 
Figure 82 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. 
restaurants, cafés and coffee 
shops exists, and often only operate during business hours. One of the most popular 
downtown restaurants for tourists and Rochesterians is the Syracuse-based Dinosaur 
Bar-B-Que, located south of the library in the old Lehigh Valley rail station. In 
addition, only one grocery store exists in downtown, further denoting the dependence 
on transportation outside of the Center City for groceries. The largest grocery chain, 
123 
 
 
 
Wegmans, originally had a store within downtown, but left during the decline of the 
city in the late 1900s.  
 Downtown Rochester has 
a variety of vacant buildings 
and lots located on the east 
side of the river. Due to the 
filling in of the Inner Loop 
and the breaking apart the 
Midtown Plaza superblock, 
various large vacant lots 
appear waiting for attention 
Figure 83 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. and development (Figure 
83). The diagram represents 
only lots and buildings that 
are reported vacant by the 
city, but excludes the vacant 
storefronts or floors of 
buildings downtown. Along 
Main Street, near the Auto 
Museum, various storefronts 
are vacant, further showing 
the decline in business 
Figure 84 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. 
population within the Center 
124 
 
 
 
City. Other parts of the city where local businesses thrive include along East Avenue 
and Park Avenue. Apart from the vacancy downtown, majority of downtown is 
devoted to office space. As seen in Figure 84, over 20 buildings are devoted to 
governmental offices at the local to federal level. As noted in Figure 84 regarding the 
downtown population, 89,105 downtown employees occupy the city, a stark 
juxtaposition from the 7,200 total residents within the Inner Loop.  
Climate 
Rochester and 
Upstate New York is known 
for the amount of snowfall 
annually. Rochester, Buffalo 
Figure 85 Illustration by Author. and Syracuse all compete 
amongst each other for the 
higher year snowfall 
average. Due to the location 
of all three cities along the 
Great Lakes, lake effect 
Figure 86 Illustration by Author. 
snow impacts the amount 
of snowfall. On average, 
Rochester receives around 
100 inches of snowfall per 
year, with the most amount 
Figure 87 Illustration by Author. 
125 
 
 
 
of snow accruing from December to February.  
Beyond snow, Rochester experiences all four seasons and has a mild summer 
with the average high 
temperature as 81°F and the 
average low as 60.7°F. 
During colder months, 
average temperatures range 
between 17.6°F and 31.7°F. 
Lower and higher 
temperatures are recorded, 
Figure 89 Google Image Underlay, Illustration by Author. 
especially during winter 
months due to wind chill 
factors. During all four 
seasons, the average 
humidity within the city 
averages 67% and 76.8%, 
Figure 88 Illustration by Author. 
providing for a comfortable 
exterior environment.   
The average rainfall per month fluctuates between 2 inches to 3.5 inches a 
month, as seen within Figure 63. Information regarding the 100-year flood event is 
diagramed in Figure 62 and was found through FEMA’s flood mapping and the City 
of Rochester. According to the mapping, the area north of the Main Street Bridge is 
subject to flooding on the west side of the river, as well as flooding south of the Court 
126 
 
 
 
Street dam on the west side. According to the 
city, the dam at Court Street, as well as the 
Mount Morris dam further south of the city 
which controls flooding in downtown 
Rochester.  
 Seen in Figures 90 and 91, 
Rochester’s sunshine hours vary regarding the 
month. In the winter season, the average hours 
Figure 90 Illustration by Author. 
of sunshine are 2.5 hours in 
the month of December 
versus 10.1 hours in July. 
The lack of sunshine during 
colder months is attributed 
mostly to the cloud 
Figure 91  Illustration by Author. 
coverage, therefore producing many grey and 
overcast days during these months. The sun path diagram additionally showcases the 
path of the sun during the June solstice in dark blue, the December solstice in light 
blue, and the path during the equinoxes in the medium blue color.  
 
 
127 
 
 
 
Bibliography 
“A Conversation with Tom Grasso, President of the Canal Society of New York.”  
Accessed November 22, 2018. 
https://www.wxxi.org/sites/default/files/a_conversation_with_tom_grasso.pdf. 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Managing Change: Preservation and  
Rightsizing in America. Washington, D.C.: Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation, 2014. https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018-
07/RightsizingReport.pdf 
AIA. “COTE Top Ten Awards.” American Institute of Architects.  
https://www.aia.org/awards/7301-cote-top-ten-awards 
AIA. “Ortlieb’s Bottling House.” American Institute of Architects, 2018 COTE Top  
Ten. https://www.aia.org/showcases/186146-ortliebs-bottling-house 
AIA. “San Francisco Art Institute - Fort Mason Center Pier 2.” American Institute of  
Architects, 2018 COTE Tope Ten. https://www.aia.org/showcases/181821-
san-francisco-art-institute---fort-mason-ce 
“A Revitalization Report: Written for the Grasso-Zimmer Plan.” Accessed November  
22, 2018. 
https://modelsofexcellence.eleducation.org/writings/revitalize-rochester 
Barnes, Joseph W. “Historic Broad Street Bridge and the Erie Canal  
Sesquicentennial, 1825-1975.” Rochester History 37, no. 3 (July 1975). 
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v37_1975/v37i3.pdf 
Beame, Edmond M. “Rochester’s Flour-Milling Industry in Pre-Canal Days.” The  
128 
 
 
 
Business History Review 31, no. 2 (Summer 1957): 209-225, accessed 
October 24, 2018. 
Benfield, Kaid. “The Original High Line: La Promenade Plantée in Paris.” The  
Atlantic. July 14, 2011. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/the-original-high-
line-la-promenade-plant-eacute-e-in-paris/241964/ 
Berger, Patrick. “Le Viaduc des Arts.” Patrick Berger Architect, Paris.  
http://patrickberger.fr/le-viaduc-des-arts-paris/3/ 
Brunton, John. “A Magical, Green Walk Along Paris’s Promenade Plantée.” The  
Guardian. June 7, 2017. 
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/jun/07/paris-promenade-plantee-
free-elevated-park-walkway-bastille-bois-de-vincennes 
City of Rochester Code § 120-57 through § 120-67. 
City of Rochester, NY. “Historic Preservation.” City of Rochester.  
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/historicpreservation/ 
City of Rochester, NY. “Rochester Preservation Board.” City of Rochester.  
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/presboard/ 
City of Rochester, NY. “Historic Preservation - Designated Building of Historic  
Value.” City of Rochester. 
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589947612 
 “Civic Center: Rochester, New York,” 1956, 
 http://mcnygenealogy.com/book/civic-center-1956.pdf 
Flanigan, Theresa. “The Ponte Vecchio and the Art of Urban Planning in Late  
129 
 
 
 
Medieval Florence.” Gesta 47, no. 1 (2008): 1-15. 
Friends of the High Line. “Design | The High Line.” The High Line.  
https://www.thehighline.org/design/ 
Governale, Mike. “Broad St. Underground: ANOTHER Proposal for the Abandoned  
Subway!” Rochester Subway, September 23rd, 2013 Accessed October 6, 
2018. http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2013/09/broad-street-
underground-proposal-for-abandoned-rochester-subway/  
Grasso, Thomas X. “Geology and Industrial History of the Rochester Gorge Part  
One.” Rochester History 54, no. 4 (Fall, 1992).  
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v54_1992/v54i4.pdf 
Grasso, Thomas X. “The Erie Canal and Rochester: Past, Present, and Future.”  
Rochester History 72, no. 1 (Spring 2010).  
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v72_2010/v72i1.pdf 
“Historic Erie Canal Aqueduct & Broad Street Corridor: Master Plan.” May 2009. 
www.cityofrochester.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=21474837846. 
Hurley, Andrew. Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner  
Cities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2010. 
Landmark Society. “2018 Five to Revive | Landmark Society.” Landmark Society of  
Western New York. http://landmarksociety.org/2018-five-to-revive/. 
Landmark Society. “Five to Revive | Landmark Society.” Landmark Society of  
Western New York. http://landmarksociety.org/programs/five-to-revive/. 
Lipman, Andrew David. “The Rochester Subway: Experiment in Municipal Rapid  
130 
 
 
 
Transit.” Rochester History 36, no. 2 (April 1974). 
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v36_1974/v36i2.pdf 
Listokin, David, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr. “The Contributions of Historic  
Preservation to Housing and Economic Development.” Housing Policy 
Debate 9, no. 3: 431-478. http://orcp.hustoj.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/1998-The-contributions-of-historic-preservation-to-
housing-and-economic-development.pdf 
Manco, Jean. “Pulteney Bridge.” Architectural History 38 (1995): 129-145, accessed  
October 24, 2018. 
Mayes, Thompson M. Why Old Places Matter: How Historic Preservation Affect Our  
Identity and Well-Being. (Washington, D.C.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018). 
McCally, Karen. “The Life and Times of Midtown Plaza.” Rochester History 69, no.  
1 (Spring 2007). http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v69_2007/v69i1.pdf 
McKelvey, Blake. “A Panoramic Review of Rochester’s History. Rochester History  
11, no. 2 (April 1949). 
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v11_1949/v11i2.pdf 
McKelvey, Blake. “A Sesquicentennial Review of Rochester’s History.” Rochester  
History 24, no. 3 (July 1962). 
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v24_1962/v24i3.pdf 
McKelvey, Blake. “‘Canaltown’, A Focus on Historical Traditions.” Rochester  
History 37, no. 2 (April  1975). 
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v37_1975/v37i2.pdf 
McKelvey, Blake. “Historic Origins.” In Rochester on the Genesee: The Growth of a  
131 
 
 
 
City, Second Edition. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993. 
McKelvey, Blake. “Indian Allan’s Mills.” Rochester History 1, no. 4 (October 1939).  
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v1_1939/v1i4.pdf 
McKelvey, Blake. “The Physical Growth of Rochester.” Rochester History 13, no. 4  
(October 1951). http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v13_1951/v13i4.pdf 
McKelvey, Blake. “The Population of Rochester.” Rochester History 12, no. 4  
(October 1950). http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v12_1950/v12i4.pdf 
McKelvey, Blake. “Rochester’s 125th Birthday.” Rochester History 21, no. 2 (April  
1959). http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v21_1959/v21i2.pdf 
McKelvey, Blake. “Rochester and the Erie Canal.” Rochester History 11, no. 3 & 4  
(July & October 1949). 
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v11_1949/v11i3-4.pdf  
McKelvey, Blake. “Rochester in Retrospect and Prospect.” Rochester History 23, no.  
3 (July 1961). http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v23_1961/v23i3.pdf 
McKelvey, Blake. “Sesquicentennial of Rochesterville.” Rochester History 29, no. 3  
(June 1967). http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v29_1967/v29i3.pdf 
McKelvey, Blake F. Rochester: The Water-Power City 1812-1854. Cambridge, MA:  
Harvard University Press, 1945. 
McKelvey, Blake and Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck. Rochester: A Panoramic History.  
Sun Valley, CA: American Historical Press, 2001. 
McKelvey, Blake and Ruth Rosenberg-Naparsteck. “The Origins of the Rochester  
Public Library.” Rochester History 48, nos. 1 & 2 (January & April 
1986).http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v48_1986/v48i1-2.pdf 
132 
 
 
 
Meeks, Stephanie. The Past and Future City: How Historic Preservation is Reviving  
America’s Communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2016. 
“Midtown Plaza: The New Business Center of Downtown Rochester, New York.” 
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. § 470, et seq. 
National Register of Historic Preservation Nomination: The Second Genesee  
Aqueduct, Monroe County, New York. 1976. 
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. “Federal &  
State Preservation Legislation.” New York State Office of Parks, Recreation 
and Historic Preservation. https://parks.ny.gov/shpo/environmental-
review/preservation-legislation.aspx 
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. New York  
State Historic Preservation Plan, 2015-2020. Albany, NY: Division for 
Historic Preservation, 2015. https://parks.ny.gov/shpo/preservation-
plan/documents/NewYorkStateHistoricPreservationPlan20152020.pdf 
Palmer, Daniel J. Rochester’s Downtown Architecture: 1950-1975. Charleston, SC:  
Arcadia Publishing, 2010. 
Park, Sharon C. “Sustainable Design and Historic Preservation.” CRM 2 (1998): 13- 
16. 
http://tusculum.sbc.edu/toolkit/toolkit_pdfs/Park,Sharon_SustainableDesignH
P.pdf 
Perkins, Dexter and Blake McKelvey. “Early Rochester Illustrated.” Rochester  
History 5, no. 3 (July 1943). 
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v5_1943/v5i3.pdf  
133 
 
 
 
Perkins, Dexter and Blake McKelvey. “Touring Backwards: A Visit to Rochester in  
1818, and Again in 1838.” Rochester History 2, no 1 (January 1940). 
https://www.libraryweb.org/~rochhist/v2_1940/v2i1.pdf  
Preservation Green Lab. Older, Smaller, Better: Measuring how the character of  
buildings and blocks influences urban vitality. Washington, D.C.: National 
Trust for Historic Preservation, 2014. 
https://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.
ashx?DocumentFileKey=bac17bb3-e9cf-1d28-7cae-
558fa35820e5&forceDialog=0 
Preservation Green Lab. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental  
Value of Building Reuse. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic 
Preservation, 2011. https://living-future.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/The_Greenest_Building.pdf 
Preservation Green Lab. Untapped Potential: Strategies for Revitalization and Reuse.  
Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2017. 
https://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.
ashx?DocumentFileKey=a8afe694-4ea4-06db-a7d4-
3ac98e470904&forceDialog=0. 
Rochester Economic Development Corporation. Reuse Feasibility Study for the  
Broad Street Aqueduct. Prepared by William Rawn Associates, Architects, 
Inc., LaBella Associates, PC, and Real Estate Enterprises, Inc. September 
1994. 
ROC the Riverway Advisory Board “ROC the Riverway: A Vision Plan for the  
134 
 
 
 
Future of Rochester’s Genesee Riverfront, Phase 1 – May 2018,” May 2018. 
Rose Fellowship Panel Presentation. “Rochester, NY: Activating Downtown.” March  
18, 2016. Accessed October 31, 2018. 
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/rosefellowship/ 
Rosenberg-Naparsteck, Ruth. “Frankfort: Birthplace of Rochester’s Industry.”  
Rochester History 50, no. 3 (July 1988). 
http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v50_1988/v50i3.pdf 
Technical Preservation Services. “Four Approaches to the Treatment of Historic  
Properties.” National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments.htm 
The Cultural Landscape Foundation. “The Landscape Architecture of Lawrence  
Halprin--Manhattan Square Park.” Cultural Landscape Foundation. Accessed 
November 22, 2018. 
https://tclf.org/sites/default/files/microsites/halprinlegacy/manhattan-square-
park.html 
The Strong National Museum of Play. “History | The Strong.” The Strong National  
Museum of Play. Accessed November 22, 2018. 
http://www.museumofplay.org/about/history 
Truesdale, Dorothy S. “Historic Main Street Bridge.” Rochester History 3, no. 2  
(April 1941). http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v3_1941/v3i2.pdf. 
USGBC. “LEED.” U.S. Green Building Council. https://new.usgbc.org/leed 
WBDG Historic Preservation Subcommittee. “Sustainable Historic Preservation.”  
135 
 
 
 
Whole Building Design Guide. https://www.wbdg.org/design-
objectives/historic-preservation/sustainable-historic-preservation 
Wickes, Marjorie and Tim O’Connell. “The Legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted.”  
Rochester History 50, no.2 (April 1988). 
https://www.libraryweb.org/~rochhist/v50_1988/v50i2.pdf.  
Williams, Deborah. The Erie Canal: Exploring New York’s Great Canals, Includes  
Oswego, Cayuga-Seneca & Champlain Canals. Woodstock, VA: The 
Countryman Press, 2009. 
136