Jippy

The argument I hear is that subsidizing cars is okay, but not transit. We collectively subsidize vehicles much more than we subsidize transit regardless of how much one uses the road. It seems that your individual preference is to use cars thus everyone should subsidize your transportation costs, but since your preference is not to use transit you shouldn't have to pay for other people's transit system. I for one am perplexed by the self-serving argument that asks others to help pay your costs while refusing to pay for others in the same sentence, despite the fact that it actually reduces societal costs, your transportation costs and can drive property values.

Meanwhile, roads receive over 50% of their subsidies from non-gas tax sources. Strangely that is okay and not a subsidy, but when democratic elections choose to pay for transit service it is redistribution. Ahh the logic.

I like healthy debate... as long as it is grounded in reason and openness to fact. When x99 has concluded "GR_Urbanist is right. The pie in the sky stuff is really irritating after awhile. If streetcars spur so much economic development, why not build one out in a cornfield somewhere? All of this public/mass transit discussion is grating..." and you have already concluded with your immense expertise that this is no more than a shiny new train and you have already determined that the BRT is already a waste prior to it even opening, it is not possible to take either of you seriously. [As a somewhat ironic aside, the whole concept of a streetcar suburb did what x99 sarcastically described. Streetcars were laid in greenfield tracts to create development for the claimed land. And let's not also pretend that other transportation investments in this community haven't led to massive amounts of development. Drive to any exit off the South Beltline and that is obvious (publicly funded through the appropriations committee, i.e. not gas tax). You may not have been against the list of community projects that I listed, but your attitude is not unique. It has spanned generations. They are described as naysayers. I agree that urbanism isn't a cult and any community expenditure should be scrutinized, but blindly concluding that all public urban transportation investment is a terrible thing even before the study has commenced has certainly become a cult of its own. It is called the Tea Party.

This pie in the sky stuff is so irritating and grating, like dreaming about: -building a gigantic convention center -building an awesome arena that turned a whole neighborhood from a dump into the hottest thing going on -building a botanical gardens and sculpture park that becomes one of the most visited places in the state -transforming a historic zoo -building a wonderful downtown market -building a game-changing BRT line -remaking the Grand River Like any of those ridiculous ideas will ever come to fruition. This city sucks because it keeps on talking about all this pie in the sky stuff, like streetcarts, and never gets anything done. These dreamers with all their outlandish ideas are totally the ones that are irritating. Like x99 and GR_Urbanist are saying, put up or shut up you ridiculous dreamers! If we had more people like these realists, we would be in a much better city.

Great post metrogrkid. Thank you.

A bit of a different spin, MJLO: Traditionally, BRT and LRT offer complementary service but provide different benefits. Cost efficiency vs passenger capacity vs redevelopment potential as well as a host other intangibles A BRT bus is typically 40 ft long (articulated buses are generally 60 ft long). One LRT car is typically 94 ft long and are coupled together. So LRT is really geared to carrying greater numbers of passengers. I would definitely agree that for corridor routes, BRT is a better, more cost-effective solution for Grand Rapids based on our current population growth. Streetcar, while similar in look to LRT is a smaller vehicle to better navigate tight urban turns. The Portland streetcar is 66 ft long. So it too has a higher passenger carrying capacity. Throughout the country, there is fairly clear results of streetcars signaling a level of permanence to developers and potential users that produces greater redevelopment. Since BRT is a bit newer to the U.S. the jury is out if the correlation exists to produce the same results. Cleveland is certainly a notable example of BRT's opportunity. While some criticize streetcars as being a redundant service (or as JohnE describes, an "attraction"), the primary purpose for streetcars is convenient inter-neighborhood mobility. But the greater motivation in most city is the economic development potential that it seems to induce. This was witnessed in Portland, currently in Washington DC, Tuscon and St. Louis, and the primary driver foArlington on Columbia Pike and Portland Yards. The permanence of rail tracks signals that this route is not moving anywhere and also is easier for choice riders to visualize where the route leads. In Washington, there was a bus circulator that has traveled the H Street route for many years, but since construction of the street car line, there has been more development announced in the last year than the previous 20 years combined.

I love the streetcar in the Portland Pearl District and the many billion dollars of neighborhood that it helped create. It is arguably the most attractive new-built neighborhood in America. Great neighborhood. Not sure comparing population with other larger cities is really that appropriate for streetcars. It is a neighborhood serving transportation solution. What matters is what is happening in the immediate that the line will service. I gotta say, there is a tremendous amount of development momentum and seems like more every day. Streetcars will only accelerate those proposals. I am firmly in support of the streetcar and think it will be a huge economic boost to GR.

If you search for the article title in news.google.com, you can read it for free. I did this morning.

Another option would be to just eliminate 3 parking spaces in front of the original building and the eastern curb-cut, and expand the patio to the street. This would keep the historic nature of the building while making a more pedestrian-friendly design. In doing so, they could eliminate the eastern curb-cut on Wealthy, which would actually add one more on-street parking space (and maybe two) since the western driveway sits in the sight-triangle for the intersection, and you couldn't park a car there anyway.

It looks like the print was resized and the print is stretched vertically and compressed horizontally -- giving the appearance that everything is taller and thinner

Class A vs Class B offices quality. We have plenty of available land close-in, but people still sprawl outwards. People and businesses make decisions for their own well-being, and I think this will further compel property owners on the north side of Fulton to shuffle the mix/value/quality of their product. Thankfully GR is not a depressed city, or some of these buildings would be in serious trouble. They will be upgraded and readapted. Meanwhile, the proposed building still looks "challenged". I wonder if this is the same design firm that designed the equally distasteful and thankfully doomed Meridian Apartments? I know plenty of bakers that can make an attractive and integrated three-tiered cake. Why is it so hard for Grand Rapids to receive the same? It takes all of a minute to find comparable projects with significantly better designs. I really wonder if those involved are proud of the design.

The continued redevelopment of Heartside is pulling downtown's center of gravity southward. Add brand new Class A space, convenient highway access, naming rights to the building visible from the highway and it is a no brainer why they moved. The only thing that will stop the redevelopment momentum is a couple of butt ugly buildings. This building certainly doesn't have the design to create spin-off development.

I like the height. The office building is decent, with modern design cues. Overall the project looks worse than first proposed. The residential is not great, and will probably not age well. It needs an additional color/material or more glass. The windows need more depth, and overall the residential building needs more articulation. It looks/feels like a box. Overall, a development that spans a full block but is comprised of two buildings, should really be designed with distinct colors for each building. The garage needs help. At minimum, I would pull more of the vertical architectural elements from the habitable floors down the garage. Or a more Chicago-podium style with a distinct architecturally-attractive wrap of the garage. Vehicles on upper floors should never be visible from the street. Ideally, they would add an additional floor of garage, and use the first 20 feet of each garage floor as lined habitable space -- large enough for studios or potentially condos with front door parking. Economically this is more costly, but is essentially what they did with 38 Commerce.

I think we are moving towards having a public debate on an extravagant public transit system (Denver and Salt Lake City stand out in that they funded an entire network through one vote). Although we are not there today. Alternatively, the incremental approach may work fine albeit a bit slower to complete. Give the Silver Lane a couple years of success, show off some of the development it induces, build the Laker Line, and then begin planning on the southeast line (downtown to airport through all the major activity centers).

Can you expound on the second sentence? I am curious what you think. Regarding downtown highways generally, and 131 specifically, I think it is highly unlikely to go away in the next 30 years. The next chance to have a serious community conversation about it is when it gets rebuilt (last rebuild was circa 1996 if I recall). So, assuming a 50 year life span, we are two decades away from beginning the initial conversations. I look at this more from an economic development and livability perspective. Taking away the visual clutter and psychological barrier will facilitate greater redevelopment, and should open up additional land for redevelopment, green space and transit. With the beltway around Grand Rapids effectively complete, there is adequate highway connectivity to move through traffic around downtown on the south beltline and 96/196. I would prefer to have a 6 lane at grade boulevard configured like Lake Shore Drive in Chicago (LSD is actually 10 and 12 lanes wide). If Vancouver and Portland can succeed without a highway through the heart of their downtown, I am sure a city a quarter of the size would also manage/adapt....and be better because of it. ...with a stop at GRR.

I prefer your 4 + 1 over my prediction. New residential in a new building breaking ground in 2014 (98% probability), new hotel (80%), office (50%), movie theater (2%). Any wildcards anyone dares to throw out there? I think downtown is poised to land a major new tenant. I would love to see the BOB go back to their old concept of including a boutique hotel. I vote Kimpton Hotels

Never say never! http://www.freep.com/article/20131215/OPINION05/312150060/Black-Bottom-Detroit-I-375-I-75-paradise-valley-removal?goback=%2Egde_116818_member_5818119952229498883#%21

Trader Joes or Whole Foods will announce plans

The downtown movie theater is dead The BOBville complex finally goes away it is reimagined as a mixed-use residential building Two hotels begin construction Brookstone starts construction on their project mixed-use project CWD's office or Arena Place begin construction, but not both Continued hard work on the Grand River project, but nothing firmed up Continued real estate momentum on Michigan Another new apartment project announced downtown Smallish (under 30 unit) condo project proposed Streetcar conversations pick up A new major downtown tenant is announced (my failed 2013 prediction) MSU firms up plans and tears down the Press building A mid-rise proposal for Division along the Silver Line ICCF lands a grocer. Work begins on two new construction on Wealthy plus conversion of one into mixed-use residential

You are no different with your casting of judgement. You have your opinion that all these people suck, and they have their opinion of what they desire. Rarely do I see such blatant hypocrisy, so hopefully I just missed your attempt at sarcasm.

Metrokid, I commend you on your research of what Millennials prefer in their search for great urban places, and it certainly seems like you are heading in the right direction in terms of the questions you pose. You are examining the right cities and have identified the key intersection in Grand Rapids. Demographically, you are correct that the 35,000 college students is a key local attribute that one has to take into account (I will trust that the number is correct). However, we may have a differing opinion as to the market demands by the downtown Millennial demographic specifically and the college demographic generally. This cohort certainly wants fast casual food, but they are not the type to frequent McDonald's, Wendy's, Taco Bell, etc. The demographic desired for downtown Grand Rapids desires fresh, quality, affordable and quick service food. Think food trucks in a building. Original, local and not a chain. You are right in the 18-24 hour service. While some of the service needs you listed are needed, most could be accomplished in one kiosk that handles them all. Things like "cell phone payments, USPS, Western Union/MoneyGram, ...automated bank branches, automated ticketing center for The Rapid-ITP/Ford Airport airlines/Greyhound" are ancillary services that augment a successful downtown, not add vitality to it. These are services that should be integrated throughout the downtown, but not necessarily featured as a focal point of the city's focal intersection. Think of your favorite Chicago intersection or in New York . My favorite intersection in my favorite world cities feature local flare, not the soulless services and chains that I can find literally in a million other places. This type of vitality is what Fulton and Division deserves.

Crime in parks generally originates of lack of activity and poor CPTED design (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design). A park capping a highway should not really be viewed any differently than a standard park. The crime is the consequence of other factors, not the cap If the GR highway cap linked two dense activity centers, and had night-time uses nearby, it probably wouldn't be an issue. There are another example of park over highway in Seattle and discussions currently happening in Chicago and St Louis.

Your original statement was a comment on its current safety, but basing an opinion on 20 year old facts is a bit irresponsible isn't it? Especially when it is designed to criticize another community. 20 years ago, Wealthy was a dump, East Hills didn't exist (in it's current form), downtown GR was quite, well, lame, and Grand Rapids was entirely off the map. We obviously wouldn't want others making definitive statements of our community if they are dated by two decades.

Love it!

I wish no ill will on anyone, and I appreciate the developer engaging on this forum. IMO, the take away from this process, is that Grand Rapids is still a very pro-development community, with limits. It indicates that when the community develops a vision, they will make great attempts to fulfill it. In the end, the rejection of this proposal actually makes the development process more predictable. There is no doubt that this is a difficult site to develop without aggregating with additional land. There really needs to be a buffer with the McDonald's if it is going to have office/residential on top. And office isn't going to work unless there is access to more parking. Long-run, it would best be sold and developed in collaboration with MSU who owns nearly everything else in the two blocks adjacent to the site. And the McD's franchise owners will sell out eventually when land values escalate enough.