grcitydog

Why are they thinking of building some crazy expensive system that's not tested when we don't have any sort of rail system now. I would rather see 10 miles of "normal" track than 1 mile of some hi-tech experimental track. Maybe once people get used to mass transit in Michigan and see its value, then we can move on to the cool stuff.

I voted for the proposal and am disappointed that it didn't pass, but in retrospect, it could be a good thing. I have to agree that light rail would be a bold step, something BRT is at least perceived as not. Imagine how light rail in a city this size, if it is successful, would propel GR into the spotlight as being a "green city". Hopefully, the ITP can regroup and come back with a proposal that is audacious and will get both sides talking and get things moving toward our future. Since a BRT line on division won't be built, perhaps we can get something better.

It is now a Guatemalen grocery store. I'm glad that spot wasn't empty very long.

It's very hard to read, but those are the names of the adjacent streets: Kellogg at the top and Cherry at the bottom. This area contains what is now former Mayor Logies house, among other residences.

I think the real advantage of a light rail or street car system over a BRT, especially the kind planned for Division is the permanance the laying of tracks in a road has over painting lanes. If I were a developer and wanted to build a TOD, I would much rather want to put something on a street that I knew would always be on a transit route. Maybe a BRT system would be there as long or longer, but the psychological effect of seeing rails embedded in the pavement would say to me that this thing was here to stay.

Also, you can build all the locomotives and cars you want, but this country is in woefull need of the infrastructure to run them on. It would take years if you started right now to build new tracks and upgrade the existing ones and to purchase the land for them and also build new stations.

It is my understanding that there was supposed to be a Starbucks going in there, but with the company scaling back, I don't think that is going to happen now. As to the bus shelter looking thing, I don't know, but it would be cool if that's what it is for.

Not to mention that more cars means more car infrastructure to accomodate them and that would cost even more billions of $.

I noticed that from Michigan/Fuller area looking west, the elevator towers are beginning to rise and look like they are in the middle of the street. When that building is done, it will certainly dominate the view from that direction!

I certainly hope that consideration is made for the pedestrian/ street level component of this bridge. It would be a great opportunity to make a statement as a "gateway" to the Medical Mile.

I'm glad to see a Sonic here if only because it is so frustrating to see their ads on TV and not be able to get it.

I also am appalled at this latest design. This is little better than what was there before! My only hope is that it is not the final design, but just a preliminary "sketch". If it is what is now planned, I have to agree with GRguy and say start over, it would be better to have nothing there for a while than this. The corner is too important to not go all the way with a quality building.

I think CVS was included in one of the original proposals.

What is a SPUI?

I walked down Wealthy last evening (the only way to get down it) and this building is now just a pile of rubble

I say so what if the increased ridership is students, be they GVSU or GRPS? A person on the bus is a person on the bus. Actually, it should make the system better, since fuller busses and increased demand on the system cause for more routes and more busses on those routes over the long haul. It also eliminates the waste of a separate bussing system. I know, the goal of any transit system should be to get the people who are driving out of their cars and onto transit, but we have to start somewhere and once an infrastructure is built up, more people will want to use it.

The southeast side isn't much better, with Fuller south of Wealthy closed and then Wealthy AND Cherry both closed. Makes for a busy Lake Drive.

With a building full of PhD's I'm sure they will figure something out.

^^ anyone know the history of this building. Why would it have been built so narrow? I have looked at it many times trying to figure it out

Along Wealthy Street, several buildings on the south side of the street will be razed to allow the wider street, DeVries said. Those buildings, owned by the Inner City Christian Federation, include the former So-So's Lounge, the former Que restaurant and an apartment building. The city also purchased a former photographer's studio on the northeast corner of Wealthy and Jefferson to make room for the project. I think the roundabouts are a cool idea, but I just don't like the idea of knocking down buildings to widen the street. That area is suffering enough from surface lots and lack of buildings. I know these structures aren't much to look at, but they at least represent potential. I hope new buildings are in the plans.

I love the Diamond project and hope there can be more like it in the city, including historic districts. I also like the idea of historic districts and preservation of the older styles. What I don't get is why a certain time period (from about 1860-1920) has be chosen to be the only time period that can have any significant architectural contribution. I must agree that some of the crap thrown up in the 1960s and 70s was designed based on only cost, but there can be examples found of good architecture from that period as well. I think the Diamond townhouse shows that modern architecture, when properly thought out, while decidedly different from 19th century can be equally contributing to the asthetics and integrity of a neighborhood. In fact, it shows vibrancy when there is new design right along side thriving old design. I for one would not want to live in a city in which it would feel and look like everything is a 100 years old. The key to vibrancy is diversity, not only in the people, but in the buildings.

In reading Chris Knape's blog about the DASH system being a sort of streetcar that not many "outsiders" know about, I got to thinking "why not?" The answer is that it does not have rails in the middle of the road. If there was a true streetcar system, anyone would know instantly that there was one, and what roads it went on and where it was going just by looking at the road. A bus is not a streetcar no matter how it looks, or even how it is used.

I hope this doen't mean that the project is going to be delayed.

Does anyone know the average speed of a streetcar as opposed to light rail? I'm thinking mostly that a streetcar system is probably too slow to be used for commutes of more than a couple of miles. I really can't see one going into the suburbs without taking an inordinate amount of time; and it's time and convenience that are going to get people to give up their cars in favor of any type of mass transit.

The one question that I have about BRT on a street like Division is that it would kill ANY parallel parking along the street. The businesses would then have to rely on more surface lots elsewhere. I would like to see BRT or LRT, but it does take up space and there will still be cars that need to be parked.