Jippy

I'm all for making sure public investments are efficient and achieving a public good, but I get a bit annoyed with the continued attempts to veil opposition as a reasoning exercise that uses very little reason. A long list of qualifiers and slanted language (e.g. "pillaging") immediately turns off anyone that one is trying to convince, and really just comes off as a shallow attempt to gloat of one's intelligence. A well rounded argument would take into account the MPG calculations as was done, but also include the other stated goals of the project: land use, economic development, parking demand reduction, efficiency of the route (keep in mind that the Silver Lines "pillaging" of other routes also indicates that those riders made rational decisions that said service is a more effective route than the previous one), accessibility improvements for low-income and disabled citizens, and recognition that investments are not about immediate return on investment. I don't expect to double my money in the first week of any investment that I make. Picking and choosing a narrow set of data to demonstrate the apparent failure of an investment really does nothing for me. If someone told me that my mutual fund selection sucks because the fee is higher than the industry average, then they clearly failed the test of accounting for the fact that my rate of return is dramatically higher than the industry average, even when accounting for the higher fee. The same reasoning applies in this case.

Two predictions to make: 1) does it get built? 2) since it is an Orion project, to what degree do the pretty pictures evolve into a valued-engineered mass of functionality?

I actually don't agree. I would rather see a parking lot for another couple of years, knowing that a surface lot can be corrected. Once this goes up, it will be there for the rest of our lives. Maybe I have an inflated sense of what Grand Rapids is becoming (I keep on hearing GR is on track to become the Portland of the Midwest). Then I see this stuff, that the community and the City/DDA are good with it, and phrases like "It's better than what was there before". The fatalistic attitude reminds that "If it is good enough for Grand Rapids" is not the bar this community should be setting. Would this be good enough in Portland, or Chicago, or Austin, or D.C., (or Long Beach, CA), or any of the other place that Michigan is bleeding young educated residents by the thousands?

The more I look at the differences, I alter between laughter and anger by the lack of corporate responsibility on this project. The original rendering meets every single recommendation that I offered a few posts back (no comparison was done when I offered the round of proposed improvements). The original meets all basic urban design requirements. The final is architecturally uninspiring with attributes of poor urban design. Lastly, it just is lazily inconsistent. Why are the panels completely covering the northern end of the parking garage and the southern end of the parking garage is completely exposed, despite the fact that they are the exact same design. It just lacks logic, coherence, creativity and Grand Rapids deserves better than this.....especially since the City choose to sell them the property.

The apartments have been value-engineered significantly. Cheap EIFS walls are much cheaper than windows. Also, go back to page 1 and see how this project has taken a turn for the worse. It has gotten taller, but the design has worsened.

The garage looks terrible. It is just bad architecture, planning and urban design. This is more representative of cities that are grappling for development -- any development -- than a city that ensures development complements the urban form desired by the community. I have said this in the past, but I blame the City Planning Department more than the developers. The City should have codes that require parking to be screened. This is an extension of the same requirements that require surface parking to be behind buildings and/or screened from streets. In an urban environment, private parking should not be visible from the street. IMO, the office building is fine. The apartment building is bad. In addition to the garage, the materials look cheap -- probably EIFS which will age poorly. Additionally, it has no architectural variation on the corners or top. Lastly, the windows appear to be flush with the wall, leading to little depth variation. In sum, the apt looks much like a suburban hotel slapped on top of a parking garage......and why only gray and white? Are they trying to camouflage the building during the endless winter days? Now to improve the apartment: use Hardiboard panels or other durable material on the upper floors rather than EIFS Add another color, ideally a bright color that will accent the drab Bring some of the vertical elements of the apartment over the parking garage Add black or wood accented overhangs over the retail fronts Make sure the first floor is brick Add some type of top to the building so the gray doesn't fade into the winter sky Ideally, windows would join at corners, and not be the generic ones proposed that could probably be purchased at Home Depot. The apartment should distinctly have different colors, materials, and architectural style than the office building (versus both being 80s/90s corporate architecture). And also have variation in the horizontal plane (versus the one continuous building feel). The "D.C." way of doing it would be to have three different designs: one for the office, the connecting piece, and the apartment. Each would have a different color palette, some variation in materials/height/horizontal texture, and complementary but distinct architectural styles. Grill away.

Looks a lot more "apartmenty" and value engineered. I like the addition of the restaurant, but the overall architecture is a step-back. I like the Chicago brownstone look of the previous renderings.

Long-term, it will work out for the City. They are better positioned to shape redevelopment in the area with this parcel. Long-term, parking demand will grow, and/or they will be able to redevelop it into tax-generating property. Also, I would assume GR's parking is structured as an enterprise fund, so this bad deal has no impact on the city's general fund.

What is MSU's Stem Cell research program, Alex.

...or get a free (reduced price) parking ramp in exchange for no-cost downtown developable property above. Easy way to triple one's revenue.

I am in complete agreement, esp about the opportunity cost. I gave my talking point response, not the dissertation. :-)

City-owned parking is a public good. As such, the City needs to weigh the competing public needs, wants and impacts that the parking produces. I generally agree with the strategy the City has set-forth. The messaging could be improved. Downtown parking pricing should be structured to yield an 85% occupancy rate at peak times. If parking exceeds 85%, it is priced too low. Under this rate, then it is priced too high. The policy objective is to ensure that sufficient people are utilizing the system, but also ensuring that parking is made available for the times one needs it. To achieve this objective, parking rates should be variable based on usage at any given time. Having a parking rate system structured in this manner actually makes parking easier, as it ensures constant access to parking spaces. While the City and the Rapid do not share revenue, it is a good policy goal to ensure that transit rates are lower than parking rates. Ideally, the City will reinvest a portion of parking revenue into alternative transportation modes. The goal is to accommodate more development with the existing amounts of public parking. The only way to do this, is to ensure more people ride buses (or streetcars), bike, or walk.

Wonder what the status of the USPS office location is? Remember when the MSU president let loose the information about its likely closure at a press conference?

Note to self: don't buy properties with waterbodies flowing underneath.

Development tax incentives should be tailored to achieve specific community priorities. Grand Rapids has evolved enough that infill should no longer be the priority in and of itself. Green building, superior design, mixed-income housing, historic preservation are some of the top of mind priorities that I would be comfortable providing limited term tax incentives for.

It would appear that there is extremely high demand for both.

Doesn't 616 Development have 1,200 people on a waiting list? Long-term, your predicted absorption rate may be right, but downtown could certainly accommodate a higher unit count the next few years.

My long desire has been for a streetcar route that roughly follows 2, hangs west on Wealthy (with a reconstructed bridge over/under 131), crosses the Grand River on a bridge adjacent the RR bridge, heads north next to GVSU, veers west (maybe at Bridge) to connect to Seward and heads north on Seward, and then goes back east at Leonard. Choice 2 would facilitate this eventual build-out.

Well, we are then slaves to our corporate masters either way. I vote for continuing to improve our (imperfect) democracy.

It's possible that the architect/project manager didn't know what they are doing, but CSX has been dragging their ass on this one. China can build a high speed line from Beijing to Shanghai in the amount of time it has taken get CSX to move an inch on this project.

This is my favorite one. Shows how far Grand Rapids has come in 11 short years.

The challenge is not having it become another Monroe with the pedestrian mall. The only truly successful bus-only road I have seen is 16th street in Denver. http://goo.gl/maps/YRlGY Even the Indianapolis example looks completely devoid of people on a nice day.

While the last place doesn't surprise me based on the condition of Michigan roads, the fact that we invest 25% less than 49th place is absolutely ridiculous. That fact suggests a much bigger political problem in this state, unwilling to invest in its own future economic growth.

Only his opinions deserve respect. Not the other way around..

The Freakanomics transit argument has been thoroughly debunked, but I will take it directly out of the source he cites for justification (out right lie or mistake?) http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb32/Edition32_Chapter02.pdf Section 2-14 states that rail transit is dramatically lower than cars for energy consumption. Buses (not transit in general as he writes) consume 26% more per passenger-mile. HOWEVER, no transit agency will ever tell you the only motivation to transit service is environmental. Further, the net environmental benefit is clearly in support of buses over cars. What Morris attempted to do is look at the silo of vehicle vs vehicle, but that does not take into account the full system impact of car vs transit that a more thorough researcher would examine. From an environmental impact standpoint, transit systems support a more compact, urban type of development to achieve maximum efficiency and conversely urban development best operates in the context of rich transit service. The average car user travels more miles than the average bus user, so passenger-mile is the wrong measure. The right measure is energy consumed per passenger by mode type. The average bus user in an urban situation (where the majority of users originate) also has a greater impact on road network congestion, since road widening is highly unlikely in urban corridors -- thus each user has a greater incremental positive impacts on rates of congestion than a suburban bus user will have. So the theoretical to give the thousands of Rapid riders a car justified as being a more efficient alternative will yield inferior environmental benefits on energy consumption and land use impacts, because they would yield far greater adverse impacts on parking demand, congestion on inner-city roads, and land use that the author never takes into account for. And there are several respected researches that take an academically rigorous approach of looking at system impacts of GHG emissions for various transportation modes. Cars nearly always lose out (diesel commuter rail sometimes lose to cars). Bikes always win (even over walking).