x99

I won't claim to know everything... I certainly don't. All I said was that I wouldn't expect you (or most developers, for that matter) to know or care much about historic preservation. That's not your job, and that was my point. I was also pointing out--I think correctly, but options may differ--that having "stand out", clearly identifiable modern style buildings in traditional historic districts is not a good thing. This is no Electric Cheetah, to be sure, but I also don't think it's entirely benign. I was also pointing out a few reasons, with detailed examples, why I felt this was not a very good design for this particular historic district. If the way I chose to do that was insulting to you, you have my apologies. No insult was intended. Most developers have little if any backing in historic preservation rules, theory or practice. I was overly presumptuous expecting you too would not. I should have been more careful. As for my earliest comment you were "getting away" with something... you're right implying that was a little rude. It was, and I shouldn't have directed it at you. Like you said, you leave the design details to the design professionals. That's really where my comment should have been directed. I was trying to avoid another war of words with those particular design professionals (which some may remember from a couple years ago). Suffice to say a lot of this is subjective, and they and I disagree about the subject. I shouldn't have dragged you into a long dead Internet flame war. Mea culpa. I've loved classical architecture since I was knee high, and it seems if there is a place where it should flourish and grow, it ought to be in traditional historic districts. It irritates me to no end that it is rarely given a chance even there. Instead, people keep hiring avowed modernists to work there, too. Over, and over, and over, and over .... It's just all "modernism", all the time, almost everywhere. Oh, well. From almost any perspective outside of historic preservation, I think these buildings are a significant improvement over what currently exists, and that's something to be proud of. 'Nuf said.

Thanks for posting those. I do like this more than the original design, which always had this weird notch about a 1/3 of the way up where it looked (visually) like the building would crack off in a windstorm. I think this strongly moves it into the Postmodern camp. No, it doesn't have any real nods to architectural ornament like some Postmodern, but they do have the proportion and scale right this time around. It's a nicely done building.

There was a quote from one of the owners awhile back (to paraphrase) that the final design would show some of the scars... Let's hope the scars are not CMUs on a street-facing facade... I think that would be a first downtown, and not a good one. I can't imagine industrial concrete blocks would help market the building, but who knows? I agree re: the accuracy. If they stuck the original parapet wall back on, that would be amazing. There are precious few high style parapets left intact downtown. The building on the right had a fabulous one, with a huge pediment running the middle 3/4 of the length of the facade, and four sort-of story-high pineapple urns, 2 at the edges of the building and 2 at the edges of the pediment. It was unusual, but pretty cool. Flanagans is one of the only buildings with a massive parapet still fully intact.

Looking back at the original renderings, there is a lot more than just shorter. It appears that the amount of glass has been significantly reduced, and the opacity of the glass has been increased. Essentially, they've avoided a curtain wall system in favor of individual windows. This is good and bad. The reduction in glass brings the overall proportions of solid space to void very much in line with traditional flatiron buildings. It's almost postmodern (e.g. the style of Detroit's Comerica Tower), but I worry somewhat that it is lacking in the little (or more accurately, large) details that make the good examples of that style work. Still, a postmodern flatiron could be interesting.

Huh? It's about on par with the parking lot at Woodland Mall. And accessing the buildings on foot from Ottawa? Very disconcerting.

What did they ever decide to do on the outside of this? They can't possibly just be leaving the concrete blocks... but if they're putting in windows already...?

I had a long, lengthy, and overly academic explanation typed up that I decided would bore you to death. I'll post it anyway in case you're interested in this stuff, but here's the condensed version: When you're dealing with a historic district, the "place" is the district--not just one or two buildings. "Vibrancy" is great, but if you dump enough "modern" style buildings or additions into a "traditional" historic district (or depending on the district, possibly even a single building) you've still harmed the character the district exists to preserve. Sure, you've improved it as an urban place, but at some cost. However, it is entirely possible to both improve the urban experience and even augment the historic fabric. That ought to be the goal. Sadly, it is rarely achieved. A simplified version my longer explanation is that the National Park Service, whose job it is to write and interpret historic district regulations, says that you don't dump incompatible buildings into historic districts. It is also increasingly clear that "compatible" means "of an architecturally similar style" and that "incompatible" means something "very different" from the surrounding buildings. Hence my prior comment that you do not indiscriminately plunk down an Italianate Revival into a district full of later Modernist structures, nor vice-versa. It's like putting a zebra in the middle of the horse show. It wrecks the show. Everyone just keeps looking at the zebra. For infill in a traditional historic district to work how it is supposed to, you need a couple things to come together: 1) Architects or developers who value traditional architecture OR a historic commission who will require compatible (read: similar) architectural styles within districts; and 2) An architect who has traditional design expertise (most don't). Both those elements were coming together increasingly well for quite a few years thanks largely to a small handful of people on the GR HPC who had real knowledge of how to avoid doing damage. Unfortunately, many of the best are gone now. grcentro (who posts here from time to time) mentioned Steve Semes' book Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation. It's on my shelf. The author was largely responsible for the rewrite of National Park Service interpretive materials on this topic. It's also the only recent full length book listed in the bibliography for the "preservation brief" that historic commissions are supposed to use for guidance about additions and infill. I would wager a guess most people sitting on the HPC today have not read it and most architects working in these districts have not. If they have not, they are not qualified, respectively, to judge applications like this or design buildings in historic districts. If you don't even read the background material which is readily available, how can you possibly expect to come out the right way? This building is an exemplar of how to do it wrong, courtesy of the NPS: NPS comments that this addition on the left is "starkly different and is not compatible." Here's another, with the comment that "the design ... overwhelms the two-story and the one-story, low-rise historic buildings: Your building commits many of the same sins that these buildings commit so far as the designs are starkly different from their surroundings, and to a lesser extent, overwhelm the designs of similar historic structures. To be more specific, the vast amounts of glass without apparent structural supports (particularly on the corners), and an odd, unpainted gigantic wooden frieze are both without precedent nearby in the district. Not to mention the metal canopy tacked across the front. When you add something that is not only without precedent in the district but which is also uninspired by traditional design principles, it does tend to "overwhelm" surround buildings as a result of the differences. In a perfect example, who knows what Electric Cheetah looks like basically immediately? Everyone. Now who knows exactly what Toppers' looks like? That's a problem. A historic district should not be readily identifiable by its loud and boisterous infill. By contrast, the new building on Lyon, despite being multiple stories, would not "overwhelm" anything in this district. The design is so good that the building would just blend and disappear, despite the height. It's beautiful, well-balanced, and traditionally styled. That's the beauty of getting it right: You can do a larger building. Now, put that same building in the middle of 28th Street? It would be the Electric Cheetah problem, in reverse. Everyone would notice it instantly. To be clear: This is not bad infill that hurts the neighborhood. It is just bad infill for this historic district. From a historic preservation perspective are these buildings worse than a vacant lot and an old, dilapidated house? Arguably. But only from that perspective. It's a bunch of philosophical stuff that most developers could not care less about, for a variety of very valid reasons. When it's pointed out, though, hopefully it makes sense. Again, none of this is your fault. As a developer, I don't expect you to know any of this, unless you're also a historic preservation aficionado. Your architects are thoroughly parked in the modern camp (and have admitted as much here), and I wouldn't expect anyone to get a really good traditional design out of them voluntarily. It ain't their thing, and that's fine. You want traditional you call Dixon Architects in Ada, or someone else who has done it and done it very well. I would love to know who did that building on Lyon. They're also on the short list. Next time around, don't be afraid to try something like that.

I'm not trying to be too harsh on the design, or on you. It is infill, and does add vibrancy, but when working in a district that is historically preserved, "better than a derelict or a parking lot" should not be enough, if that designation is supposed to mean something. I would expect, in a district comprised solely of midcentury architecture, or "modern" architecture, that infill would be a good riff on that. An Italianate Revival should not be slapped in the middle of that. The inverse, however, should also be true, but rarely is. Oppositional modern-style buildings are regularly plopped down right in the middle of a traditionally styled historic district. Ultimately, this sort of thing degrades the "historic fabric" the place was preserved for in the first place. My first standard for appropriateness is that if my family members who couldn't care less about historic districts or architecture would say "then how did they build that" when told it's a historic district, something is wrong. This building fails that test, and it is HPC's fault, since they approved it. Shame on them, not on you or your architects. They lost some of their best members recently, and it shows up quite painfully in projects like this. You got away with what you could, and the damage will be done, sanctioned and wrapped up with a bow. Somehow, I completely overlooked 623 Lyon. I just looked it up on Streetview. Exemplary. Wonderfully contextual, and hilariously, not even inside of a historic district. Truly an example of placemaking, not to mention preserving and enhancing the quality and architectural character of a neighborhood. And they did it just because--not because of some government mandate--AMAZING!I give it the x99 award for some of the very best small-scale traditional architecture infill in Grand Rapids in the last 80 years. It just goes to show that pedestrian, forgettable, out-of-place dreck in traditional historic districts is completely out of excuses. If I were terra firma, I would scap this (comparative) ugly duckling, hire that 623 Lyon architect, and start over. The difference in the rents alone over the next 30 years from having a building of that superior design...

Sort of, but those gas stations are set back from the street, and were never intended to be retail store buildings. They are an interruption in the streetscape by design. Almost universally, even the plainer buildings on Wealthy have good pedestrian-level visual interest ranging from a nice cornice to interesting brickwork. The gas stations were plain buildings that interrupted the visual interest of the storefronts. This basically sort of takes a gas station and puts it right at the street. Er, why? I mean no disrespect to terra firma. They have done some good work bringing these areas back. But this design is just ... meh. I mentioned the proposals in Holland. Here it is: That's how you do it right. To be fair, they did lop off a story in the final plans, but by and large this remained intact. The point is that the talent is out there to come up with something like this, if you look for it. Hopefully terra firma will seek it out next time around.

I saw them working on it. I'm pretty sure that instead of repointing the brick first, they blew the whole thing full of caulk. Whether that was a good idea, I suppose we'll find out in 30 years. But that probably helps explain how they pulled it off so fast.

As long as it's not more slave labor distribution facilities funded by taxpayers. You wonder if the other proposals are also multibajillion dollar companies getting cash handed to them and half off property taxes. If the rest of these developments are anything like Amazon, they ain't worth it. Development is great, but not when the the public keeps being asked to fund private projects.

Developer: "I know what the boxes look like. Why not do something different?" I for one am glad someone decided to do something different. And he continues to spend money on his pet project to make it even more to his liking. Fountains? Why not! Random turrets that have no purposes other than looking cool? Sure! More mini turrets on those turrets? Absolutely! It's everything that used to make architecture fun and exciting before the modernists decided what we really needed was 70 years of soul-sucking, unadorned glass, metal, and concrete boxes.

What I find depressing is looking at this, and then at the architectural quality of the buildings being proposed/built in downtown Holland, and those recent built in Ada. I really wish we had a developer like Geenan DeKock here in Grand Rapids. What they have been doing/proposing in Holland is great stuff. Why can't we get something that actually augments the historic character and quality of our historic districts? Oh, well. I'm sure someone will think this is wonderful. It is infill, at least. Even if it borrows utterly zero from its surroundings for inspiration. Most strip malls are more interesting than this. On the plus side, there is a lack of randomly colored metal panels. That takes some guts, these days.

From a design perspective, I actually like the new one more. But it's still not nearly as good as almost any random historic flatiron-style building, unfortunately. It's boring, stripped down, completely unadorned, and devoid of anything resembling personality. Oh, well. It could always be worse... I mean, where's the six colors of metal siding mixed in with four different colors and styles of brick? Clearly lacking in input from our wonderfully talented local architecture firms...

They just put one of those in the Trust Building, too.. "Forty Pearl". Oddly, I have never seen the place open during the day, or even the early evening. I'm giving that one about 6 months. Hopefully this place will actually have customers in it...

That's positive. My recollection is that ridership was running around 2000ish versus projections of about 7500. My "fear" is that they picked up enough "short haul" legitimate free riders who there may not be a way of tracking, thus allowing the Rapid to significantly inflate its ridership figures.

Oh, yeah. It never came anywhere close to meeting original projections, which were of course the only thing that make it look like burning tens of millions on it wasn't one of the dumbest ideas ever. No news stories in at least a year, except for them trying get corporate sponsorships for the Silver Line buses because they are having problems with operations costs. Whether a fair "quick" look at ridership means anything at this point is doubtful. North of Wealthy the rides are completely free.

Maybe if they'd designed this thing to actually look attractive ... like a 40 story neogothic tower or castle ... iit wouldn't have fallen flat on its rear end. I always just assumed it was Hinman's vanity project where money didn't matter. Seems it wasn't. Oh well.

My guess is that it isn't anything other than finding enough labor to pull it all off. I think there are four or five hundred units in this thing. That's a huge number of plumbers, electricians, tile settlers, carpet installers, finish carpenters, and drywallers in a construction labor market that is already tight. It is quite a bit quicker to finish off large commercial spaces than something with a mountain of corners and closets. They also supposedly finished the interior walls with skimcoat plaster. I have no idea where they even managed to find enough guys around here who still know how to use a hawk and a trowel.

They've also poured the pool for the hotel already, so there that. If anyone wants to go swimming...

Not only small, but I'm guessing rather self-selected. I know quite a few downtown workers, and they virtually all drive downtown, nearly none live that close to a bus stop, and the vast majority drive a single occupant vehicle--all of them, in fact. Where is that data drawn from, whitemice? I would beg to differ... somewhat. A few years ago we still had a situation where there were only a few hundred monthly cards. That left room for a single marge employer to come in, after which the supply would be wiped out. That is exactly what happened. The city engaged in a below-market rate lease with Spectrum, and wiped out what they had left with just one building. I still wonder whether that was the shiny new progressive parking department at work trying to facilitate their mode-shifting social justice fantasies. Probably not, but it still baffles me how they could have been so short-sighted. But, here we are. No monthly parking and still no workable plan in the works. It was actually nearly two decades ago when the business community had a much stronger representation that things went in the right direction. There may yet be a solution to this: Sell off the parking department lock, stock, and barrel, with a requirement that at least three separate parties own the pieces, none controlling more than 45% of the sold-off spaces in each of ramp, street, and surface lot parking.

They are different. The people in Catamount are honest about it. They spent a lot of money to live there and don't want a low rent guy down the street or even inside that gate unless he is cutting the grass. I don't understand why the loudest whining came from homeowners in Heritage Hill complaining about getting more neighbors like the ones they already have. It's absolutely insane, unenlightened, ignorant nonsense which is rooted in the fear campaign the neighborhood associations whipped up. It's like someone in a new subdivision complaining that the developers just keeping putting up more of those stupid houses everywhere...

I am not sure Third Coast is guilty of this, but many of the developers working on the fringes often work in close proximity to neighborhoods. Developers who do that intentionally want to go "short" on the parking in order to use the "free" neighborhood parking in front of everyone else's house. I'm not one to demonize developers, but when they pull stunts like that they deserve a tremendous amount of grief. That city policy continues to permit this is disgraceful. I recall my calculations on one micro-unit project were along the lines of ten acres of street parking being required to service the project if it were built with zero parking and no nearby ramps, and residents had one car per unit. How the numbers work out is location-dependent, but it can get pretty obscene. It's worth noting that the current parking scenario is not going to help bring more residential online downtown, either. Not every tenant can leave every morning and return at night. The lack of available parking also puts an end to residential re-utilization of existing buildings which do not have owned parking. I do not understand how the city things this is sustainable for continued growth over the long term.

There are officially zero available parking spaces east of the Grand River. Wait times are from 4 to 16 months. If you own office space and do not own your own parking, it is now officially virtually worthless. This also (obviously) makes any sort of retail impossible given that it means most of the parking is, in fact, rather un-accommodatingly full. I'd call all of that a serious problem.

The zoning appeals board is chockablock with neighborhood association types (and at least one wrote a letter opposing this) because that's where they thought the action was... I think they all just realized the planning commission holds the purse strings. True. There's got to be a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with a lot of the old crusty (and even the less crusty) Midwestern progressive types when it comes to their own little slices of heaven. The repeated hatred of "developers" and "profits" was particularly rich, particularly when it was coupled with griping about ADUs, which are owner occupied dwellings. Some of this might be the "urban renewal" mindset, but I'm not as charitable. Most of the noisiest complaints came out of Heritage Hill. The homeowners there seem to be very concerned with their "voice" and that any proposal to increase "density" requires their "voice". Most development is by right, except for rental housing. So most of what that "voice" can be used for is to whine about rental housing. It's the same crap zoning was used for 60 years ago--keep out some population group you would rather not have. Now it's just dressed up in progressive newspeak about "profit-seeking-developers" (who rent to the guy you don't want next door and who otherwise doesn't have enough dough to get into your neighborhood). There are a lot of things I can deal with, but well-off "progressives" harping about relaxing rules that keep out less wealthy people is not one of them.