jas49503

When does this go before the HPC? I imaging that there will be a horde of angry residents voicing their opinion there. Living only a block from this, I'll be there if I can as the new design is an awful use of the space. At least there is parking but why they think putting it facing the street is a good idea is beyond me. If the the propsed development at cherry and eastern was shot down, I don't think this stands a chance.

So no grocery then? I think a law office should be sinister looking. Clients will go there thinking "these folks don't take no s**t". That's who I'd want representing me.

His workshop is pretty impressive for someone who appreciates woodworking. He has about a hundred old planes back there. He definitely doesn't appreciate the hipsters with no money that have invaded his neighborhood.

Not officially. He is no hurry to leave but could probably be convinced for the right amount of $$$. I think there is a lot of potential in that spot but I don't think it's going anywhere soon.

We put an offer on the antique shop but he is asking way too much. Not as much as the antique shop next to the Meanwhile though. Truly mind boggling what they think they are going to get for that place.

i am optimistic they will come back with something that works. getting the design right is more about fitting in than standing out which should be easier I would think.

I doubt it would sell at that price. It would be great but there isn't any parking and it is over double what properties are going for at diamond and Fulton. I think it is substantially more than what the owner for the space previously occupied by Raad's is asking. I can't recall what they were asking but it was enough to easily say no for an investment property. It is still for sale 8 months later.

The aforementioned buildings plus all the design choices for remodels. The asphalt shingle siding, there is a home with faux "logs", numerous terrible additions. Walk around for 5 minutes and you'll see more examples than you can count, even on the nicest street.

Someone else here probably knows better than me, but i think I heard that there was a change of some key component in the composition of concrete that makes it less durable than what they used to use.

That's great if you don't like old things and I would agree that many things are preserved that don't necessarily merit preservation but the problem is that there are some structures that are, for all practical purposes, irreplacible, that some developer or idiotic homeowner, will want to alter/demolish, and replace with something that is truly tasteless/disposable. Witness the crap that was put up in heritage hill before it was a historic district.

There is one more floor to pour and then the roof.

The problem, and the reason there is a committee, is that the guidelines are very vague. Developers are somewhat at the mercy of the comittee members personal biases but at least with a comittee, you would hope that there is a discussion and an outlying opinion is overruled. Clarifying the guidelines would go a long way towards improving the process and making things easier for developers. Knowing expectation in advance would make the approval process much smoother.

I believe that prohibiting replicas is detailed in the secretary of the interior historic preservation guidelines. Maybe prohibiting is too strong a word. When I reviewed GR's HPC guidelines the first thing to "consider is height, form, massing, proportion, size, scale, and roof shape". Secondary concerns are, "Materials, building features, and details typical of buildings along the streets ape or block will provide additional vocabulary. .." Whatever that means. It is so subjective that you could put almost anything in there if your materials are compatible and the committee is feeling generous. There are tons of examples of modern looking buildings being approved that have nothing in common design wise other than high quality materials and the first requirements. That site is helped by not having any neighbors to be compatible with. The biggest obstacle would probably be window/door design since a glass tower doesn't have the proper historic window proportions.

I always liked those thin column buildings. They might look dated but that isn't necesarsarily a bad thing. Lots of classic buildings look old but have a timeless design. the bigger problem for grand rapids is we already have a couple of those, albeit much shorter. something like this should stand out as a statement, at least in the community. Keep in mind also that the HPC guidelines expressly prohibit things that look like they were original. They mostly dwell on topics like massing and materials. There is plenty of room for a more modern design. A lot of it does come down to local interpretation of the rules.

THats why this election is like a contest for worlds tallest midget. Or like a taste test comparing a cat turd and a dog turd I think this is going to be a great development for that area. It sure does seem to be going slow.

I wondering the folks complaining about gentrification would prefer a sign that says "heartside, let's leep it sh**y". That's what stopping gentrification implies because of you aren't moving forwards, you're going backwards.

I sometimes think you guys are being overly harsh on recent projects but I would agree that Michigan and union is awful.

Little birdie told me today that they are indeed moving to a bigger location.

Maybe there is a connection.

You have people purchasing more than they can afford no matter what the price. This isn't a new problem and is why you see so many homes in a state of disrepair. In fact, this is the biggest argument for increasing the home prices in a neighborhood like HH. More affluent home buyers generally have a greater reserve for unexpected home repairs. Real estate crashes do not only affect city neighborhoods. Both my brother and sister in law lost a large amount when their susburban homes lost a ton of value during the last crash.

It is heritage hill and this discussion did start with a reference to donkey taqueria, which isn't in HH but is very close. And I never said that all old homes were great, only that the average home of yesteryear is better built that the average home of today. Mostly because labor and materials are much more expensive now than in the past. Much of it does come down to personal preference and beliefs (misunderstanding) about old homes.

1/4 of one percent is a bit of hyperbole. My old house was 1750 square feet, built by a football coach for a local high school in the 30's and still had 8" baseboards, plaster walls and a brick and stone front. The studs were actually 2"x4" and of much harder wood than you would find today. You could argue that a house built today would be larger bit then you get into the whole quality vs. quantity argument which can never be settled. Whatever side of that you stand on a high school foot ball coach is hardly a one percenter yet could still afford a house built with better materials than your average middle class subdivision house built today. I would agree that custom built homes are built to a higher standard and that a tract home of 100 years ago is still crappy 100 years later. The main difference is that so many more tract homes are built, really since WW2 than before.

If your house is more than about 15 years old you end up having the same number of problems (roughly) at the same cost, as a house built 100 years ago. The heating bills are impossible to get away from but given how much it would cost to construct a comparable home, I still consider it a bargain. Replacement cost oat is very relevant to this as well. Not so much what your house is worth if you were to sell it, but what it would cost to build a comparable house with respect to size, finishings, etc. these things are directly related to the cost and value of a home which aren't always the same. For example, my library is floor to ceiling (10.5') walnut paneling. To replicate it would probably be 10% of the cost of the house. You cant take This benefit out of the cost discussion. Otherwise we would all love in pole barns out in Lowell. Also, I don't know what old homes you've been in but in my 110 year old home I have walk in closets and attached bathrooms for all the bedrooms on my second floor, a kitchen which is probably 15'x20' with an island, double ovens, sub zero fridge, fireplace, etc. it was already there when I moved in. Sure a crappy house from a hundred years ago won't have any amenities, but a nice one will be comparable to anything built recently. Not to mention, structurally, built to a much higher standard.

I think that you are underestimating the desire of many folks to live where they can walk to things. I can afford to live just about anywhere but there is no way I am ever moving to Ada/Cascade/Rockford/etc. I don't want more than a two mile commute and have convenient dining choices consisting of Applebees and outback steakhouse make me want to vomit. and while you can move into a existing home for less, it will be finished to a far lower standard than what can be purchased in GR. the replacement value of my house is about twice what it is worth, even after the recent boom. I doubt that any builder is going to spend a million dollars on a home and sell it to you for 500k, even in a gated subdivision in Ada. also btw, that house on Madison is way overpriced. it is worth probably 1200k on the high end. I suspect that it will go for much less.

The renderings make it look like a cube but I think it is going to look pretty tall from street level. It is already looking pretty tall compared to the BOB and there is a long way to go.