x99
-
Posts
1,079 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Project Database
User Guide
Store
Events
Posts posted by x99
-
-
9 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:
I pulled those out of the HPC packet.
There was also this new plan for 706 Wealthy. Not sure how much has changed?
Very different. More of less all of the disaster is changed. It's pretty much what I posted a month or two should be fixed. They scrapped the weird Hardiboard fill between brick "columns" on each edge, added window hoods, and put a better cornice on it. The whole "what in the world were they thinking" factor is remediated. Personally, I prefer more distinctive, interesting designs that show a better understanding of good traditional architecture, which this is not (but neither was the old Wild Bunch, in fairness). What I prefer, though, is always risky because most architects are entirely incapable of doing it well. It's tough for a lot of them to pin down an old building by decade, and walk through the myriad styles that were prevalent from, say, 1870 through 1910. For better or worse, that body of knowledge isn't often taught, which makes it difficult to work within those styles to come up with something new, yet still inventive and appropriate. Still, there is no reason for this not to sail through. It's basic--more basic even than what is replaces--and a very "safe" design, but it doesn't detract at all from the historic buildings around it. That still puts it above 90% of the proposals you see in historic districts.
EDIT: Time flies. I posted suggestions for this building back in November. They pretty much followed them to a tee. They should have just asked me first and saved 8 months...
That design at 1201 annoys me. They're showing some good chops with the right half of the building. That's actually a really, really nice piece of work for this historic district. I'm assuming here that the shadow lines over the windows are developed from four or five layers of brick recesses, and not just colored materials. If they actually did that, actually came up with something that for all the world looks like a load-bearing facade with a heavy window recess, in a very coherent design, my hat's off to them. It borrows from buildings about 4 decades after my favorite "new historical" construction next to Martha's Vineyard, but it's every bit as good as that one. Then there's that ... thing ... on the left. WHY?! Why not just give us two great buildings? Why insist on ruining it with a building that pays respect to and uses for inspiration precisely nothing in the entire district? Put up a Victorian corner confection there... clock tower, turret, or something, and contrast that against the building on the right and the gas stations. Take a long, hard stare at the Jeffrey Richard Salon building and some historic photos of corner buildings. Architects love the "contrast" bit, but there are ways to do it nicely in a historic district other than a glass wall.
-
On 4/9/2019 at 8:39 AM, GRDadof3 said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Studio Park will have its own "security" just out and about keeping an eye on things, just like malls do.
Just how many times do I have to post my favorite South Park homeless clip?
Security isn't the solution. A big shiny bus to California is the solution. "California... is nice to the homeless. California... super cool to the homeleeeeess. ... Lots of rich peopleeee... Giving change to the homeless..." So much cheaper. Such a better solution. After decades of trying all the other solution, we really should at least try..
Seriously, though, Studio Park will present a possible problem: Hundreds of people who don't know any better actually giving them money within walking distance of the shelters. Why do people think every exit ramp has a random homeless (or at least fake homeless) guy standing sentry? IT WORKS. If people would stop buying the "I need food" line all of 300 feet from a soup kitchen, and keep their wallets closed, it would solve 90% of the "uncomfortableness" problem.
-
3
-
-
On 4/9/2019 at 7:38 AM, whitemice said:
I work for a company that services electric vehicles; in the material handling industry. That number is sort-of true. It reduces the complexity of the drive train by ~80%. You still have all the rest of the vehicle, unchanged; the rest of the vehicle is a lot of the vehicle. A vehicle, unlike a personally owned vehicle today, that is in actual service to multiple users ~12 hours a day takes way more of beating, right down to the door handles.
Some are, some aren't. Honestly this is nothing but speculation at this point. Shared vehicles may take of in urbanized areas. But in exurbs and rural areas - no way - the math can never work. That is still a lot of owned vehicles. The current TNCs (Uber, Lyft, etc...) model of parasitism of the value of people's personal vehicles have given people a very false impression of what the cost of truly shared fleet vehicles will be - and autonomy will not decrease that cost. Shared fleet vehicles will also be much more like buses than the image of the posh recliner floating down a highway which companies like the currently sell. In response to these realities it seems more reasonable to expect that many affluent households will still chose ownership.
Remember shared AV vehicles have to be stored, fueled, and services somewhere by someone. They all will need regulatory inspections. And they will need to be cleaned somewhere by someone, just like a transit vehicle today. When people don't own it, they treat it differently.It is not a manner of when, but if, however both the precisely when and the precisely how are very open questions. People who talk as if they know those answers should not be taken seriously. There are infrastructure issues like RSUs (road side units - required for AVs); who will pay for them, how will they be managed. There are all the issues of regulation and permitting. There are serious issues regarding equity and accessibility. And there remains the geometry problem: unless AVs carry significantly more people for vehicle [meaning not door-to-door service] they do not solve any capacity problems.
I am confident EVs and AVs change things, but likely far less so than some Futurists are proposing. Physics, Geometry, and Human Behavior cannot be eliminated from the equation by any technology. They muddy the picture.
Fortunately we already have the technologies to very effective deal with the demand; there is no need to wait for a silver bullet.That's a pretty rational assessment of ridesharing. I'm inclined to agree that it doesn't really solve any congestion or cost issues at all, except perhaps for making the load in parking ramps nominally lighter. When various studies look at the cost to own a vehicle, they often consider the cost to own a vehicle that is less than 4 years old, with full insurance coverage. The reality is that the automotive fleet is much older, and the insurance costs much lower. Owning a 10 or even 15 year old car and insuring it really is not that expensive compared to the cost of "sharing" someone's brand new ride. It's probably cheaper. The wear parts are all dirt cheap, the oil changes are dirt cheap, the insurance costs are dirt cheap, and the other operating costs aren't much if anything at all over a new vehicle. Ridesharing seems like a road to nowhere, unless you're someone who buys a brand new vehicle and just lets it sit, causing your worst expense to be depreciation. I know a guy who bought a car for $600, and insures it with PLPD. Since he, like 60% of Americans, has no assets to speak of, I'm sure the liability coverage is also the legal minimum. It wouldn't surprise me if he only pays $500 a year to operate the thing, plus gas. Uber and Lyft can't possible compete with that.
Even the bus can't compete with that on a macroeconomic cost level, not even at NYC occupancy levels. And on a "greenness" quotient? It takes NYC style occupancy levels just to hit fuel consumption figures that can compete with a new Camry. It takes a lot of fuel to push those heavy things around, heat them, and idle them every 500 feet, even with the Hybrid buses. Not to mention that you have to overbuild all of the roads to handle the weight.
I sometimes wonder how much better off we would be just banning everything over 10,000 pounds transiting local streets unless it was absolutely necessary (fire trucks, construction vehicles, etc), and imposing taxes based on vehicle weight and height. And then, run the bus system with far smaller shuttle vans 90% of the time. Lately, I've noticed that one of the most significant congestion producers is buses trying to make it through busy intersections, and then continuing to block them after the light turns. Not only do, say, 5 cars not get through for every one bus, but probably 4x the occupant load of the bus stands idle when the bus acts as plug in the works, and probably 1x the occupancy load of bus gets impeded whenever it stops for loading and unloading. When traffic is heaviest, the buses do the most damage to the flow. That makes me wonder whether the bus system can ever really achieve any of the lofty promises claimed for it. I don't think running a bunch of vehicles 5x the size of everything around them is something any traffic engineer would prescribe.
Tough problems, no easy solutions. Too bad subways are so expensive.
-
On 3/27/2019 at 7:41 AM, whitemice said:
But for now it is over!!! What was left of the Housing NOW Zoning recommendations passed; all greatly diminished and the ADU recommendation completely neutered.
So, after all that noise we got:
(1) duplexes on corner lots,
(2) reduced minimum unit width,
(3) it is maybe easier to build row houses
(4) some complex bonus stuff it may or may not be worth it for anyone to use.
Wow, that ain't much. A tremendous waste of energy.The duplexes are a start, I suppose, but I always though that recommendation was completely stupid. It seemed to be mostly arbitrary, and probably should have been heavily attacked on those grounds. Unfortunately, that would have mean supporting the logical alternative: Allowing up to a quadplex everywhere by right within 300 feet of a contiguous commercial area of a certain size, and allowing them by right on all major city streets which have a certain traffic count, provided that parking minimums of 1 space per unit can be met. Most of those areas are already heavily populated by split up houses, and it's a logical place for more. Why every corner lot in the city should have a duplex never made sense to me. Unfortunately, the neighborhood associations chose to attack them on a completely asinine basis, and from what you are saying, lost.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, andrew.w said:
It feels like the design team (who was that again?) and the contractor struggled on this one too. And unfortunately the more one studies the final product, the more obvious it becomes.
Design team? Jim Bob and his brother Billy Bob? Nah, that's not fair. I don't want to sell good ol' boys short. Even good country folk know better than to put cheap parts on the pickup cuz it looks like sheeeeeeeeeeyit. This whole thing is just a disgrace.
-
1
-
-
As an FYI, email boxes are probably lighting up with friendly neighborhood opposition to the proposal to make two family dwelling status available by right on corner lot houses. The battle has begun! Do your Urban Planeteer duty and write a letter of support to yer commish! Of course, the NAs won't admit that they are elitists, so the Heritage Hill NA ginned up the same old ridiculous old heap of bulls---, claiming that adding apartments just results in more expensive dwellings and has no effect on prices at all.
I'm sure Eastown and the rest aren't far behind. Apparently, basic math, supply and demand curves and virtually every single study ever done on the topic have managed to completely elude these people. One wonders whether they are actually this stupid, or lying intentionally.
If they want to oppose apartments in residential neighborhoods, fine--have at it. Why can't they just admit they are homeowner elitists who dislike renters, and stop trying to gin up opposition with an argument that is arguably fraudulent? I suppose the cognitive dissonance when they realize they're as bad or worse than the greedy land developers would probably be just too much to handle...
For the letter writing among you, let's do some friendly maths:
$250,000 loan at, oh, 4.5%. Let's tack on property taxes, insurance. About $1770.00 a month. But--oh--maintenance! And water bills! Better tack on about $4000 a year minimum for maintenance in the old place (roofs, furnaces, and all the other good stuff) and $1000 for water. So another, what.. $400 a month? So we're already at $2200 a month to live in "their" neighborhood before we even deal with saving up that little down payment problem. Let's go FHA on that thing with only about 3.5% down and.. What's this? $9000 minimum to move in? Plus other closing costs and charges? So the price of entry to BUY in Heritage Hill is easily $10,000 to get in, and then $2200 a month. And what if we need a "real" down payment? $25,000! Let me tell you who often (but obviously not always) doesn't have that kind of money, statistically speaking: MINORITIES, UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS, SINGLE MOTHERS AND WORKING CLASS FAMILIES. But who often CAN come up with $1200 a month? Oh. The same people that can't afford to buy. Yeah, that's right. It's just a retreaded, gussied up argument to make sure that only rich white people can get in, littered with phony concern. Arguably, they are basically advocating redlining the less well-off. Hypocritical, assuming they are your typical "social justice" types with yard signs proclaiming their virtue. Which a large number of them are., since I have seen their signs. At least the people in East and FH have the decency not the declare their concern and virtue while stomping on you and proclaiming how much their boot is for your own good.
Now, this is perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek and exaggerated, but it's also, um, basically true. "You gotta be rich(ish) to get in, even though we really, really feel for you. You just have a little too much money to quality for our full sympathy... we'd rather have some real poor people who don't work (which we know we won't get because no one turns houses into low income housing projects)." Now, who wants to be the first to draft an email calling declaring that CDBG funded neighborhood associations opposing more rental units are racist anti-immigrant thugs who hate women, the working class, and the poor, and are really just doing the dirty work of the big orange-haired boogey man and ICE? Ain't me. I'm just droppin' bread crumbs, people. A+B=C, and all...
-
2
-
-
Hopefully it isn't an ugly POS like that thing posted above. (Just thought I would toss out my positive comment for the day.)
-
1
-
-
On 3/1/2019 at 10:06 AM, whitemice said:
Well, for ADUs it looks like the conclusion is the Qualified Review, as expected. So, it is basically a ~$500 dollar discount on the application process, and one should still plan on it taking 5 weeks, and could still get killed by your friendly Neighborhood Association.
That's a wrap; Housing NOW was BAD for ADUs.
Horrifying for ADUs. They killed them. How foolish. Do they even realize what they've done?
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Morris said:
After the "Open House", I learned that they are going for Michigan State Housing Affordable money. They plan to rent to subsidized housing people at the 40% to 60% pay bracket.
They are planning on 14, 2 bedroom and 8, one bedroom units, varying between 600 to 900 square feet. They are also planning on an elevator, and some handicapped units. They are planning on 19 parking spots, with no extra charge for them, with 9 or 10 in the basement, and bicycle parking. They are planning to be on the March 28th planning board meeting docket.
Well, that explains how they are going to squeeze the parking in, although it's still a little tight. They have a plan, but its going to come down to implementation with HPC and planning. It's also important to note that MSHDA credits and income limits are a far cry from the dedicated Section 8 housing across the street. It would be nice if they do some market rate in there too. A mix is generally a good thing to have.
-
2
-
-
On 2/21/2019 at 1:52 PM, organsnyder said:
Here's what a garage+ADU of ~21.75' height (to the midpoint of the roof) looks like:
Both the garage and ADU are standard heights. The hip roof is designed to match the house in pitch and overhang.
Our project would have been fine under the new changes (just lop a foot off the back to get under 850 sqft—wasted lumber and no difference in street appearance, but whatever...). But we have a gargantuan lot by city standards.
Thanks for posting that. I think it's a perfect pictorial illustration of my claim that "over garage ADUs are dead under the new regs". All it takes is this picture and the aerial plat view to prove it. What you have built here is the most cost-effective garage ADU possible, arguably the only style that Grand Rapids' rents would support. And this is no longer buildable unless you have at least 25' behind your garage to the rear lot line. So why they are still wasting time with ADUs is very confusing to me. Getting rid of an $1800 fee to get a rubber stamp while tacking on about $20,000+ in construction costs is not exactly a step forward.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, andrew.w said:
I haven't seen it in person or since the end of last year, but I'm at least a little optimistic that now that it has been exposed in another 20 years or so or when the found-urban-decay-chic look goes out of style someone will put in some more money for another improvement to keep quality tenants around.
If that was the look they wanted, it would have been better to just rip off half the cladding to pull off some sort of interesting "reveal" look. That would have been a conversation piece and a bit of an architectural lark for a lot of right reasons. Unfortunately, I don't think CWD will probably ever sell any of their buildings, and if they do manage to get tenants, they will never bother finishing the buildings. But I hope you're right. Hopefully tenants will get sick of people asking why their building looks like garbage. But I suspect most people won't notice all the plate glass, the painted cement block, the missing window arches, and all of the other garbage CWD thought was okey dokey.
-
2
-
-
I walked by this project recently. What a dumpster fire. I almost think it would have been better if they had left well enough alone, if they weren't willing to do it right. I realize there were some difficulties, but... yikes.
It's the architectural equivalent of some guy finding a Duesenberg Model J in a field under a tarp, slapping it full of bondo and house paint, and thinking that's okay. It ain't. Should have left the tarp on, or done at least a half decent job of it.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Pattmost20 said:
I think back to when I had 4 people renting rooms in my house, now it is just the fiancee and I. My neighbors probably have no idea how many people have come and gone over the last 5 years, but I'm sure they would be suddenly concerned about extra traffic and crowding if I were to apply for an ADU and add 1-2 people to my property.
Of course they would be. People are just silly about this stuff. Apartments are the devil for some reason. The occupancy levels in most 2000+ square foot houses in Grand Rapids are a fraction of what they were designed for. Precious "homeowners" just want to hate on evil "renters" because they (start the litany of lies) destroy property values, don't care about the neighborhood, cause inordinate amounts of traffic, bring drugs and crime, and kidnap children. Or something like that.
The hilarious thing to me is that none of the publicly funded "neighborhood" associations (who will probably gin up a fresh round of opposition) have the word "homeowner" in their titles. But, they mostly are. As I think I've mentioned before, if they choose to generate opposition to things like this, the city should choose to take a long, hard look at all that juicy CDBG funding they pass out to them for "doing good" (or something like that) for their lower-income residents. Almost all of whom, incidentally, are renters. Seems sort of foolish to keep biting the hand that feeds you. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how this round goes. Maybe they'll wise up.
-
On 2/12/2019 at 7:21 PM, Morris said:200 Madison, corner of Madison and Cherry.....Former Church. The new owners are proposing a 22 unit apartment conversion for the Church.
They are planning on parking on the ground level of newer school side for 8 or 9 cars. Out front, they are planning on a new parking lot, and parking in the back of the Church.
The new owners have a LLC called Madison Lofts.
All things considered, it's probably the least parking-intensive use for the site. Although, I think they still might be a little shy on parking. At one point, there was some talk of putting parking in the basement of the building, but I'm not sure how feasible that ever was.
Just thank your lucky stars it isn't proposed to be a 50 unit LIHTC project or a bunch of micro-units. I'm not that area could have handled either without having severe problems either parking or crime. The Section 8 project across the street for some reason has always had a significant crime problem.
I suspect they're going to need variances up the wazoo for this project, and it will be interesting to see if the neighborhood ends up supporting it. Tentatively, I think they probably should, since most of the alternatives are far worse.
-
On 2/13/2019 at 7:45 PM, GR_Urbanist said:
YES! As my tires were spinning near the site today, I oddly was thinking at the same time, that it would be a great idea to just permanently close the street to create a nice pedestrian/park space. By the time this project is finished, most drivers will be used to the current detour, and wont miss the street.
Almost no one goes east there, except for the police. It's useful for cutting up Ionia going west, but entirely unnecessary. If there were or ever would be useful buildings there, I would keep it open, but that seems unlikely.
-
... and perhaps not ECA, but I just got a forward that the Heritage Hill Association is right on top of it, too. Although this one did not (yet) have any editorializing. Just a recap of the Facebook text. So that's a plus. I think the focus here really needs to be three things: 1) Owner occupancy is required; 2) This is a great way to keep reasonably priced housing in desirable neighborhoods and support those who are just starting out or not as fortunate; and 3) The revised ADU regs make it far more difficult to construct one of these things affordably. Neither of the two that were approved would comply with the revised regs. That last point is a little bug-in-the-ear for the planning staff, who bobbled that one.
I'm hoping they address this "public hearing" issue by sending out notices to the adjoining neighbors, and having a hearing only if there is some sort of objection. Since they can do this with firepits, there is no reason they cannot do this with an ADU. Let's be realistic, here: The only real impact of this (for a garage ADU) is the taller garage, and for in-home ADU, the fact that someone is adding an oven behind a door. Without the door, all of the additional people and the oven could just move in as friendly new roomies.
Yeah, I'm horribly tempted to post lots of stuff and stand up and scream about all the good liberals who will gripe about ADUs, lambaste the lot of them as rank hypocrites, and stuff 'em in the same metaphysical sandbox as the EGR "elitists" they like to chuckle about. But I'm not sure most of them would get the irony. Been there, done that. You'll just get nonsense about how an ADU doesn't have rent-control, so it doesn't count as lower income housing, and will really just drive up the costs further... Hey, if it helps with your cognitive dissonance...
-
Am I the only person who actually likes that parking ramp? If they add on to it in the same style, it was be sort of neat. It has a very interesting midcentury, rocket era aesthetic. The upper deck almost appears to be impossibly floating over the lower deck, and the interleaving is pretty great, too. This was clearly a thoughtfully designed parking ramp, and probably not cheap to build this way.
-
On 1/15/2019 at 8:37 AM, GRDadof3 said:
Seems to me a group of guys developed a bunch of buildings, left the "bad" stuff and took just the "good" stuff, and walked away from their obligations to the above named creditors, including the State of Michigan and Kent County Circuit Court.
So that's a third prospect I didn't really consider: That all of this stuff actually makes money hand over first, and that they did roughly what you said in order to, apparently, leave nothing left for the creditors. A substantial number of which are law firms. And on top of that, they went and filed bankruptcy so that a trustee could go and root around for even a whiff or a hint of fraud. The insane stupidity of that scenario is so mind-boggling I can't hardly imagine anyone would try it. If they actually did that, hopefully they covered their rear end really well, and paid some other lawyer lots of money to stiff the other ones. I'm sure the lawyers will all have a grand old time with this one. The news stories indicated that they are trying to walk on over a million dollars in claims. Hooboy.
-
On 1/12/2019 at 1:57 PM, GRDadof3 said:
With 616 filing for bankruptcy, many people are posting on the Mlive article on FB saying "no wonder, they're overpriced and the buildings are half empty."
So I did a little digging in the census data and found 2018 rental vacancy information by city. Grand Rapids has the 8th lowest average rental vacancy rate in the country for 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters 2018, at 4.2%. (tied for 8th with Minneapolis). I was trying to get them to filter in the right order of lowest to highest but was having trouble in excel with the census' tables.
Two things appear to be going on here: 1) My prior posts that a large number of these 616 Lofts projects couldn't possibly make economic sense were probably somewhat accurate; and 2) 616 Lofts was a property management and development company that actually owned (or at least now owns) nothing, and possibly manages nothing. It appears to have turned over all of its management functions to some outside third party in 2017, so now it (probably) has (almost) nothing to manage and probably (almost) no revenue. Presumably, you don't get into situation #2 unless situation #1 was also true. 616 took on some pretty far out projects that I don't think most other developers would have. Thus, I don't think their lack of success is really a reflection on the broader market (yet). Still, it seems possible that if their buildings are in fact somewhat empty, their aggressiveness (and resulting empty spaces) will ultimately have trickle-down effects. Whoever owns these buildings is going to have to lower rents. That will pressure other developers, and depending on the number of units at issue, could have a cascade effect. Since the apartments themselves don't appear to be included in the bankruptcy, though, the owners will still probably have some stickiness in their rents. The bankruptcy itself probably won't have much an impact upon anything (yet). Still, it's not bad news for housing affordability. So there's that.
-
On 1/8/2019 at 7:33 PM, arcturus said:
But how well can it pick up an EV which has a far lower heat signature? I'm assuming they thought of that?
-
2 hours ago, Kinkema said:
https://www.mlive.com/news/2019/01/grand-rapids-condo-project-grows-in-size-units-drop-in-price.html
More units, but I'm not a fan of the new look.
I think they are going to find out that the market for stuff that looks like that is very, very small. It consists of a tiny pool of under-30s with 6 figure incomes with bad realtors who aren't old enough to remember the last time residential architecture got weird in the early 1980s. Trying to resell that stuff a decade later isn't fun. It's just flushing money down your one-piece low height fuschia toilet. Architects have been trying for 50 years to bend the general populace to their will. It hasn't worked. That's why people call Visbeen when they want a high dollar house they can still sell for high dollars in 20 years. Artesian had this project right before.
-
1
-
-
On 1/13/2019 at 9:41 AM, GRDadof3 said:
I don't believe they were allowed to build out to the street because of historic district guidelines. @x99 would know for sure.
Probably. The real irony is that if this actually were 1890, or even 1920, they would have bulldozed this thing in an instant when it was no longer useful, and put a decent building in the proper spot. Save the best gas stations, bulldoze the rest of them. Unfortunately, HPC's hands are probably tied.
-
3 hours ago, tSlater said:
Unless they're planning a different graphic, I think I'd rather the half-grown dead ivy.
I think I'd rather almost anything but that bright yellow ... uh ... art.
I'm glad Hinman is at least doing something with decent taste and style. Hopefully it will help to offset everything on the south side of Fulton. -
2 hours ago, organsnyder said:
The only place I find the 20 foot height mentioned is here:
If I'm reading this right, this would have no impact on our project: we moved our garage from the grandfathered setback of 2.2' to the required 5' to avoid a host of restrictions on building materials, attic venting, etc.
It would not have impacted yours with that 3/4 acre lot you mentioned.
It would impact 95% of the lots, though. If memory serves, setbacks for a house means 25' off the rear lot line, and 5' off the side. So you have to hit that with a detached garage to get 25'. What sense does that make? None. And don't think for one minute that the planning department and commission were not fully aware of what they were doing to straight-up two story ADUs. They were. They just don't think it will stop people from building them. We'll see.
I'm sure Eastown and the rest aren't far behind. Apparently, basic math, supply and demand curves and virtually every single study ever done on the topic have managed to completely elude these people. One wonders whether they are actually this stupid, or lying intentionally.
I'm glad Hinman is at least doing something with decent taste and style. Hopefully it will help to offset everything on the south side of Fulton. 
Grand Rapids wants to reduce crime through building design standards
in Grand Rapids
Posted · Edited by x99
It sounds to me like this is more than just blight monitoring or broken windows policing. It's more of a proposal to incorporate a number of CPTED principles into the zoning codes. Why the opposition to this? If anyone can find a study showing that CPTED does not work, I would love to see it. Most of the individual studies and various meta-analyses I have seen indicate that it does, in fact, reduce the incidence of criminal activity. I do wonder about the bit about what you can put in windows. I don't think they would say, "Gee, you can't put expensive cell phones in the window of a cell phone store, or expensive jewelry in the window of a jewelry store." That would just be stupid. I assume the ordinance would say you cannot block the windows.
For example, I wish they had had more CPTED stuff in play for the Dollar General redesign on State. That was a lot of terribly considered design decisions by (I assume) the corporate people there. That store should be two or three times busier than it is. Unfortunately, it still looks like a closed off crime den dump from the outside. On the inside, it's clean, but it's a cavern. Comparing that to the redone Family Pantry in the linked article is a perfect contrast of how a few tweaks to an ordinance could make a good difference. One now looks good. The other still looks dumpy, probably because DG corporate completely misjudged the area based on census statistics. If you were going to pick a store to try to rob without getting caught, you would pick the DG. I don't necessarily see the harm in forcing street-facing windows for any commercial space undergoing a redesign and reconfiguration, if they're already spending a few hundred thousand or more on permitted work. They could always include some sort of exception for circumstances where it isn't feasible.