Ted

Reagan Marketing + Design Finds New Home in East Hills They're gonna be great neighbors. Greg did it up for them!

I think it would be best for x to move up to Alpine so he can have all the parking and Crapplebee's his soul requires.

As a matter of opinion, I disagree. As a matter of custom, you're correct, that is the way the country has been designed. That doesn't make it right. And, that doesn't make it a Right. And, that certainly doesn't mean that the 5/3 site shouldn't be built on because of the parking impact to the neighborhood.

That's not an equivalence and it's not the case in point. And, whether you agree with it or not, my original statement was a statement in fact not a statement of opinion.

Nobody is 'entitled' to a car. And, certainly, nobody has a right or an entitlement to store it on public streets.

Current City of GR Zoning doesn't require a parking space for every bedroom - nor should it. There will never be enough parking. Stop worrying about parking and ride your bike.

That's the DeVries' plan. That rendering won't happen. GVSU hired Bobby Stern. Something is out there. I suspect it won't be very long...

we need more buildings downtown, not more parks.

Yep, it sucks cause of the parking...

...

It's only funny cause it's true. Sorry, pal. Spending money on roads was here long before Obama and will be here long after.

But have you seen that video! It's like you're flying!

+1

Just saw that video. Laff out loud funny! '...here's the old bridge...and here's the new bridge, exactly the same...' Those MDOT kids, they never disappoint!

Prolly right where all that open land sits...

+1

You could be correct - all things being equal. However, in this case the question is would it be better - for the City and random developer - to have 1 acre of land in the Central Business District or 1/2 acre of land across the street from a small park in the Central Business District. I think the answer, every day is: 1 acre, no park.

Yes, still developable. No, not more appealing.

Just to clarify: I'm not against the City making investments in infrastructure - this City needs much more of it. I'm against the conversion of taxable, developable land to non-taxable, non-developable land. The lost revenue is much more important than the cost of the project. But that's the problem, your discomfort wasn't the reason they did this project - it was the excuse.

I was on one of the committees that worked on this project in the conception phase. Initially, I was very excited about the project. As time went by my attitude changed. Changed in part by one of our design meetings where some City Staff's breathless, desperate support for the project had me feeling a little queasy. I asked some questions to try to discern why the project was so critical to our neighborhood and I received platitudes and vagaries in return. Then I asked - in an effort to understand the import - if the realignment of Cherry was so important then would we then be talking about realigning Weston as well? Of course not, that would be silly I was told. Changed primarily by the idea of a city with declining tax rolls and a continual budget crisis spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees and land acquisition to permanently remove a prime piece of buildable, tax revenue generating real estate from the tax rolls in return for a small park and a street that will only cost us money to maintain as time goes by - it is absurd. I was told many times about the horrific dangers of the intersection; but when I asked, in return, for the statistics showing the injuries, the deaths, and the accidents in for the intersection compared to others downtown and City wide I discovered that it really wasn't any more dangerous than any other intersection downtown - and much, much safer than almost any intersection on 28th Street. It remains a fact that in any city the most dangerous thing that any of us do is drive our cars. It's true that cars, trucks, and buses had trouble making that turn. But, that was as much about the disrepair of the street itself as it was the intersection. And, furthermore, trucks and buses going slower around urban corners makes it safer for everyone on the sidewalk and the street. It's true that the current arrangement allows for much faster vehicle cornering but that only makes it more dangerous for a pedestrian. I'm glad you like the space, John. I hope it's well used and I hope the neighborhood keeps it up. But the neighborhood doesn't need more parks. The neighborhood needs more for profit, mixed use development. And, the City took away a great development site that's never coming back - that's bad urbanism.

Just drove the re-aligned Cherry Street @ Division for the first time. Ultimately, it's a very bad urban solution to a non-problem. The whole endeavor was a big mistake.

Whatever you do, don't leave it up to the traffic engineer...

Correct. Although it is significantly smaller and less taxable than it used to be.

The Plan Holds