Jippy

I disagree. Downtown redevelopment is a ballet, and the entire enterprise of redeveloping downtown is a fight against market forces...market forces that have trended towards suburbanization over the last two generations. That fight has included massive amounts of public and philanthropic investments. Demanding some level of minimum commitment for the "price" of these investments is certainly not an unreasonable demand. While ground floor retail may not be the "highest and best use" in terms of the rents commanded for the location today, ground floor retail requirements adds to the vitality and attractiveness of downtown. Over the long-run, that requirement of clustered active ground floor uses should translate into more beds and desks downtown than by purely relying on today's market forces. There are great examples of cities that do not have these requirements and they have suffered from it. Take a Google Streetview trip of downtown Tampa to see the alternative. Despite a stronger local and state economy, that downtown is a pedestrian wasteland. Big buildings. No ground floor activity. Few pedestrians, My takeaway from this round of conversation on parking and retail are: 1) there are low-hanging improvements available to immediately elevate the parking experience, 2) we need to maintain realistic expectations of what type of retail is viable today, and 3) we need to nurture and invest in our existing retail corridors while laying the foundation as to where the true retail clusters should be located when market conditions better allow it. By doing these things, we will continue to attract additional residential and commercial development. BTW, Milwaukee offers a great example of what quality retail could act like near their urban market.

Anytime you deploy the word "should [do something]", you have instantly lost a significant percentage of your potential market. People should also eat and drink less, exercise more, and procrastinate less often. For events with big draw, then folks will go downtown despite the inconvenience. However, if it is a marginal decision for what to eat or where to shop, then significant share of the market will choose to get elsewhere if they perceive the environment to be intimidating. I would say there are two paths to follow: one make parking much easier to navigate and understand (signage with rates/availability/directions). Two, become a regional draw and people will want to be where the action is. Hopefully we could do a bit of both.

Retail takes many stripes, but let's simply place into two types-- destination and service. Service retail is primarily for the benefit of the residents and offices nearby, and probably where downtown can excel -- drug store, coffee shops, dry cleaning, convenience store, etc. All other shopping most often requires a massive population nearby, of which will not happen downtown in the near future, or a contiguous strip of retail that has a rational parking layout. Here is where the city can improve. Long-term, the city needs to expand the contiguous retail corridor beyond just Monroe (BTW, I am glad they disallowed the dentist). Putting on my suburbanite hat, parking anxiety is primarily generated by two primary factors: ease and transparency of options. Ease can be improved by variable parking rates that ensure convenient parking available is always available. Ease of parking garage can also be improved by removing sign clutter and ensuring that parking garage signage is prominently displayed. Entrances to parking garages should also be retrofitted to signify where the entrance is. In most instances, the parking garage entrance is minimized and uninviting. The design should say "Hey! Park Here!" Regarding transparency, anxiety can be reduced by clearly displaying availability and the price of parking at the garage prior to entering the garage itself. A variable sign at the entrance saying: Parking Spaces Available: 182 Price: 1 Hr Free / $5 per hr after Credit Cards accepted provides transparency to a first-time user, so that they know what they are getting prior to turning off the street. Ultimately, there will need to be a new location downtown that has a contiguous strip of retail. Ionia connecting Fulton and the new market might be the logical location, but it will require ensuring new development provides amenities and diversity beyond bars/restaurants...even if it means saying no from time to time.

I took the "hint" to be more that as Monroe Center is built out, properties one block to the N and S will also start to receive some interest. This would probably include the parking lot that CWD put an option on across from Van Andel? BTW, has anyone heard any murmurs on that project by chance?

Veloise, I have seen more detailed analysis in the past that have had full breakouts for each use and required job/res unit required to serve, but the one I came across comes from ULI, which is a trusted source. http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/May/ScullyRethink I happen to live near an urban format grocery store, and I can attest that sporadic/large purchase trips are replaced by near daily small-purchase trips (which I tend to prefer). We also have evolved into a smaller palette of needed items in response to the fewer product offerings in a small urban store, which simplifies life!

Most grocers have now adopted an urban format model. Meijer/Spartan, of course, only have suburban models, but it is only a matter of time -- they are leaving huge swaths of population to their competitors within their existing distrubtion areas, and they certainly are not exclusively low-income. In regards to if that will ever occur at this site, ICCF holds the cards as they can stipulate the layout in the purchase/lease of the property. Grocers will of course propose the 28th Street style first, but that doesn't mean they won't build urban. The City/DDA can apply a fair amount of leverage as well because the store will undoubtedly receive some hefty incentives from the city. These incentives should be contingent on a complementary design. Jonathan Bradford is right, it's only a matter of time. With another approx 500 residential units/1000+ employees within a mile radius potentially coming online within the next 5 years, there will soon be sufficient demand in the store's market area. The US Census Bureau indicates that there are 8800 residents per grocery store -- and this doesn't take into account the size of the store (super stores vs urban stores are obviously different sizes and have different market areas). Clearly, there are more folks living within the potential market area at this location. I would make a bet that if Spartan, Plumbs or Meijer doesn't jump, a Walmart neighborhood center might waltz on in....that would be an ironic poke in the eye to the inventor of the super center.

Parking scarcity complaints, by their very nature, are a bit of a contradiction. Yogi Berra's famous quote best explains the paradox: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." Having too much parking is more of a problem than too little. Crowds breed energy which thereby excites additional folks to visit.

Slight iteration to your idea. I think the ICCF corner lot (Division/Wealthy) would be the perfect place with a vertical, mixed-use urban Meijer -- Meijer on Floor 1, parking on 2 and 3, apartments and Floors 4 -6. This location has higher traffic counts and visibility, which Meijer would like.

I will chime in one last time and then call it a day in honor of Independence Day: The local road network has everything do to with mass transit. Mass transit does not only replace highway trips. The majority of the trips mass transit replaces are those that would have otherwise occurred on local roads. You are correct that mass transit is not going to do away with local roads, but it has everything to do with preventing a two lane road from becoming a 4 lane road, and a 4 lane road becoming a 6 lane road. It also has to do with not making downtown one big parking garage or lot. Further, all local roads did not come into existence prior mass transit. I believe the GR Planning website has a good map that shows development by the decades. In regards of demonstrating return on investments through development, you have to look no father than Grand Rapids. Many of GR's most beloved neighborhoods were developed because of mass transit! Eastown is just one example of a neighborhood was developed by those that put in the streetcar. Manhattan would be another example. For modern day examples, the two most commonly cited and researched models are Arlington County, VA and Portland -- each attracting billions within a quarter mile of the rail system and each paying for the systems many times over in increased tax revenue. I am most familiar with Arlington. The Rosslyn - Balston corridor was a 28th Street in Wyoming-styled street with much aging retail. WMATA wanted to put the Orange Line down the middle of I-66. Arlington insisted that they place it under Wilson Blvd. Today, some 40 years later, the corridor comprises 6% of the county's land area, but over 50% of the city's tax base. With the money, Arlington enjoys amazing quality of life, low auto ownership (with saved money being expended in the local economy), and literally the best public high school in the country. It also enables to them to enjoy these services and keep tax rates compartively low. WMATA has significantly higher ridership because people work and live directly on top of the stations. Despite the tens of millions of square feet added to the corridor, congestion has actually decreased with no additional local road network capacity. In Fairfax County (which is actually more wealthy), the Orange Line cuts back to the middle of I-66. The parallel local road corridor where the Orange Line should have been built is mostly the same second-tier building stock that existed previously (single-story, auto oriented, aging, etc). Arlington and SLC and Portland are all perfect examples of new transit facilitating massive amounts of economic investment, all three cities are now enjoying far greater levels of concentrated tax base than before the investment. Do the users pay the full cost? No. But all three communities recognize the importance of the investment and how the investment is paying immense dividends economically, via regional competitiveness, and via serving a broader public purpose. Regarding the possibility of it becoming a boondogle, in the instance of light rail, I am not aware of any recent expansion that resulted in a failure to meet projected ridership. Charlotte and Phoenix are now both exceeding their 20 year projections. Denver is doing well and Norfolk (probably another good peer system to examine) is also doing exceptionally well, and Norfolk is an auto-oriented city. Seattle and Minneapolis are running a little lower than anticipated but still have very high total ridership. Clearly due-diligence is necessary, but historically properly planned systems have achieved desired results.

Here is one study among many that I have read over the years. It states that roads have needed $600 billion more than was collected through user fees since 1947: http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves.pdf Or, look at the condition of any local street network. The vast majority of gas tax funds goes to cover state and federal roads. Generally, local roads (which make up the majority of the road network) are maintained by city local budgets (property tax, sales tax remittance, etc). Clearly user fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of maintaining the road infrastructure. Hence the GR Street Taskforce Or this can be recognized that, despite a $1 trillion deficit in deferred infrastructure maintenance in this country, the Highway Trust Fund has ran a defecit for the last many years -- requiring the Federal general fund to cover a growing percentage cover the costs. So no matter how you slice and dice it, roads networks do not pay for themselves. Yes, single tolled roads can pay for themselves, but the costs imposed on drivers will never cover the cost of the road network. But thankfully we live in a country where the majority of the electorate recognizes a valid public purpose in maintaining a certain level of infrastructure to facilitate commerce and enjoyment of life. That is why governments invest in things like ports even though the ship user fees are not sufficient to cover the billions it requires to develop the facility. Thus, roads, like transit, do not pay for themselves and the mythical theory they do should disappear. Likewise, public parks are not municipal profit machines either. Now to transit. The position states, that SLC has determined that the benefits to develop a light rail system outweigh the costs. This would include the cost of the user fee, the economic development, the reduced development cost needed to accommodate downtown patrons with lowered parking demand, and the recognition that private investment almost always follows public infrastructure investment. When a government invests in a new highway within a metro area, development springs up next to it. When a government invests in a light rail system, private investment follows. It is a rational progression that private development is going to occur where current investment dollars are flowing. Face it, people like new things. Recognizing this, effective public policy can shape the outcome by ensuring any one investment will result in the community's expressed interest. Recognizing that total cost of transporting between destinations is more important than looking at individual tranches of cost, then I can look beyond the direct user cost. How much a transit user covers in the total cost of operations is important, but I hardly believe that it is the singular most important consideration. Equally important considerations are the outcomes it produces. Reduced need for vehicle infrastructure, greater participation in society by a wider variety of individuals, facilitates greater use of existing infrastructure (roads, pipes, electrical, etc), important environmental benefits, etc. Lastly, it facilitates a model of urban economic development that adds to the vibrancy of a community. No serious person can argue that Manhattan would exist in its current form without mass transit. Equally, the user does not fully cover the cost through the ticket. The point is, it doesn't matter. Manhattan is the most important economic and cultural engine in our country. They should also be able to choose how they reinvest the transportation tax money that they have generated. If they want to reassign their gas tax to transit, great. They recognize the return on investment. I do to, and I hope more participants of the GR community will recognize that return in the future.

For some fun (my ride has not yet arrived), I took you up on the offer. So according to the definitive resource known as Wikipedia, SLC received $240m in federal funding for the first 17.3 mile line, which covered 2/3 of the cost but was incorporated into the overall budget for the reconstruction of I-15, which was also federally funded. The first line clocked in at a respectable $20 million per mile (M-6 cost $35 million per mile). SLC 90's transportation investment decision: $360 million on 17.3 miles of light rail GR's 90's transportation investment decision: $700 million on 20 miles of exurban highway....urgh

I suppose one man's welfare program is another man's economic development tool. In the case of Salt Lake City, they have kindly discarded the tired rhetoric of "transit having to stand on its own" and have recognized quality transit will yield far greater investment within the community through jobs, residential development, the ability to concentrate city services, more efficient investment in infrastructure, and increased tax base. Only when one can move beyond the mythical concept that all transportation should be funded through enterprise payments (user fee payments), then we can have a serious conversation about transportation trade-offs. Research has concluded many times overs that roads do not pay for themselves, so why the far right continues to foist false arguments of transit having to pay for itself is quite perplexing. SLC has done a great job of looking beyond the rhetoric and making a decision of how they want their community to grow and what they want their community to be. I can't wait until GR is ready to have the same conversation. Perhaps the Streets Taskforce recommendations is the first step in that direction. SLC is certainly a larger "peer" city that GR can look to as how a community can pick itself up and forge its own destiny.

Love the design. Hate the overly tinted glass -- should have been clear glass to add vibrancy to the streetscape.

I visited SLC last year and it is an impressive town. In many ways it reminded me of GR. Progressive urban bent in the center, surrounded by conservative ring. Interesting intersections of the two groups with the wealthy conservative groups dedicated to the revival of urban center -- makes for an interesting synergy (as an aside, the largely non-partisan tone that most local politics in Grand Rapids is what makes it successful. Most can cooperate with those of different political stripes because it is not as overt on local issues as it is in other parts of the country...simplified and I digress). The key difference is that in SLC, the principal investor (Mormoun church) is also headquartered downtown...now if we could just get Amway to move their headquarters downtown! The other impressive component in SLC, is that the residents and businesses have a bit of a social contract to develop one of the most robust urban transit systems in the country. SLC is a relatively small city population-wise, but the community has agreed to tax themselves to develop an amazing light rail and street car network (yes, they are building each). In regards to the proposed, the $2b encompasses several square blocks and contains residential and office towers.

x99, lest we forgot how this transit/parking conversation ever began, it began with you! You surmise that anyone with "significant income" (not really sure that I know what that means, but I will play along) will never enter a bus unless they are provided with a well-furnished and expansive sea of parking, and evidently we now need lots of them. I feel like I have entered the twilight Urban Renewal Era all over again. While I would not dispute that some well-placed park-and-rides would be helpful at the southern end of the Silver Line, the idea that disposable income residents will only drive unless given a parking lots is quite ridiculous. My whole point is that choice riders come in all stripes. Some live in the burbs, some live downtown, and some live in the streetcar neighborhoods just steps away from a bus stop. Thus parking certainly plays an important role in the evolution of Grand Rapids, it is not the linchpin of success for the bus system. Reliability, predictability, cleanliness and frequency are going to be much more important drivers to its success.

Ahh, the ol' "students are not real people" argument. Perhaps GR has finally become a college town! They (students) are in fact productive participants of the community, and thus it is regretful that your reaction is to equate their use of a public form of transportation as a "glorified school bus". Students don't ride for free. They pay for it through their tuition. Grand Valley pre-pays $2.5 million for their student use each year. That is a fairly large investment compared to the overall ITP budget. (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/treasury/417530InterurbanTransitPartnership20120119_374261_7.pdf) The enhancements that the community successfully voted for will begin to address many of the reliability concerns that choice riders such as yourself share. The perspective to maintain is that this is a game of the margins. How does ITP successfully achieve a mode shift by single percentage points in their advantage. The entire community is not going to choose to ride a bus or take a bike overnight, but if the city, ITP, developers, universities, etc. continue to promote and invest in these enhancements, then the self-fulfilling cycle begins. Greater investment in the system attracts more users, which justifies more frequent, which enables greater density, which attracts more investment, etc. Next thing we know, transit ridership has doubled to 22 million annual riders over the course of 10 years. Maybe they are not business executives like they are in DC or NY, but "business people" and other choice riders are comprised of the full strata of society - income, ethnic background, working/student/unemployed, and age.

Think of GVSU as a downtown. GVSU recognizes that the opportunity-cost of paying to provide subsidized student bus passes yields a greater financial return than paying for the extra parking spaces. GRDadof3 is spot on. Perhaps a great program for the new downtown director to take a look at. GR_Urbanist, I am glad to hear your poor expenses were primarily due to the fact that so many people were using the bus. A refreshing complaint!

There were nearly 11 million trips last year on the Rapid, so the assertions are actually quite incorrect and perpetuate long-held preconceived notions. Every time I ride the bus (which I admit is not as much as I should), I see lower-income, students, and a scattering of business people. The Rapid has made great strides to improve communication of routes etc, through maps at stations, and smart phone apps. Next would be to increase headways and provide real-time information at stops to give clearer idea of when the next bus will arrive. This would assist potential riders in utilizing the Rapid as an option. BRT will only facilitate greater use of the entire Rapid bus system and certainly enhance the Division line. As for the ICCF site, there are minor improvements to the site plan that can be made to improve the pedestrian experience and still allow for ample parking, such as include one additional out-parcel along Division just south of the grocery store (heck, it could even be a "temporary" shipping container with a coffee shop or other foodie experience for the students and bus riders that would use the stop). What I would caution ICCF on is to ensure that the site plan allows for additional infill if there proves to be too much parking. And I encourage all of you to embark on a grand social experiment. Hop on a bus sometime during rush hour to do your own demographic study. I am sure you will see more diversity than you probably imagined. And to use the bus is not nearly as frightening as one expects.

While continuous buildings along Division would be ideal, the block orientation is not conducive for that scenario combined with a grocery store (north-south is longer than east-west). Parking garage above/below is not a reasonable alternative since property values and rent will not support it. I think the overall site plan is not that bad and still supports the overall redevelopment of the area. On the grocery store block, about 60% of the street frontage will contain buildings, plus hopefully the BRT station will be attractive. A minor improvement would be to include a small out-parcel immediately to the south side of the grocery store along Division that further frames the space and supports BRT users. Coffee shop? A 500 sq ft building would better frame the street edge and only eliminate 3-5 parking spaces (each parking space is about 180 sq ft). If that does not occur, the Division-facing parking should at least have a well-landscaped knee wall.

Pun intended? A gandola would be cheaper than a tunnel: several ornate utility poles, cables, a generator, 4 landing pads, and some trams. Could be wrapped up in 3 months.

Designed right, the urban market will be a smashing success. My concern, however, is that containing the project in a brand new building will eliminate the edgy urban atmosphere that makes most other successful markets a success (Philadelphia, Toronto, Seattle, Vancouver, San Fran) and thus be a bit contrived feeling. If the charm is value engineered out, the project may go the way of the City Center. Regarding building over 131, forget the pedestrian bridge or the tunnel. Let's build an icon and build an aerial gandola! Connect the market, bus station, and GVSU. See: portlandtram.org/

My two cent suggestion: Keep Wealthy in its current configuration but enhance the public realm underneath it. This will allow for greater pedestrian connection between the "heart" of Heartside and the Urban Market. If Wealthy were brought to at-grade, the heavy vehicle traffic would act as a significant psychological barrier between the market and downtown. Treating the space underneath would blend-out that separation. Secondly, build a nice looking pedestrian bridge adjoining or separate from the Wealthy Bridge with the aforementioned ADA ramps + elevators BTW, the Big Dig in Boston cost $15 billion in 1990s money, so GRDadof3 is right -- it ain't happening. That's not to say that discussions and advocacy should start focusing on what the ultimate condition of 131 should be. I would advocate for sinking it and capping with bridged parks in critical areas -- but this is 20 years out. Hopefully at that time, we solved our politically created infrastructure crisis.

Downtown parking really is a cost-benefit proposition. At $15,000 per space, I would much rather see public resources going towards improving downtown public transit. At the end of the day, dedicated transit is going to add greater economic vitality, look better, and accommodate more people and growth than endless investments in parking garages (assuming that you are of the belief that downtown will continue to thrive). One can argue that users pay for parking directly whereas transit requires tax on everyone, but that's a bit of a strawman argument. Continued investment to support downtown parking requires additional subsidy to reduce congestion, eats up valuable land that would otherwise be used for tax-producing development (underground parking costs $45,000/space), and reduces local government's bonding capacity to invest in other projects. I'm not saying that parking is not vital to the existence of downtowns. What I am saying is that at some point, the costs (direct and societal) exceeds the benefit...especially when superior alternatives begin to present themselves. I believe downtown GR is reaching that point and we may be finally reaching the density to dust off the streetcar/BRT circulator plans. I propose a route that uses Monroe/Leonard/Seward/Front/Wealthy/Ionia/Michigan/Monroe.

I suppose beggers can't be choosers, but I would love to see some additional density to this. Yes! include the Dave and Busters or Lucky Stripe (and rooftop mini-golf...that would land on a few ULI/CNU/APA covers), but an extended stay or conventional hotel and/or apartments would certainly add some value to the project and neighborhood. Frankly the whole flare-up over parking seems a bit overblown, but I am inclined to let the market decide what works in this situation. If they feel that they need it to compete, then great. But parking complaints always seem to retort to Yogi Berra-type reasoning...."No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded"

I thought the new building was going in front of the Brewery's patio and thus no parking was going to be lost? In terms of parking availability, it has never taken me more than 45 seconds to find a parking spot. Parking availability is not a problem. The perception of parking is the problem here and will continue to be in any place transitioning from suburbanism to urbanism. This tension is nearly universal in all neighborhoods transitioning into "Main Streets" as well as near all emerging downtowns. Women's perception of safety is certainly an issue, but can best be addressed by adding more density and eyes on the street. My wife and I have talked about this topic at length. She would much rather walk a block or two along streets bustling with people versus the more conveniently located but desolate parking lot.