[New Construction and Renovations in the Heartside District]

To further illustrate my point (because I think it is worth making and I apologize for beating a dead horse), those taking the "so-called" moral high ground would argue that not contributing to the tax role, etc. does not qualify as a lack of contribution. The homeless contribute in alternative ways and simply because they do not contribute to our preconceived ideas of economic value does not make them any less important. The homeless offer value and our city needs no saving from them.

The counter arguments are always predictable and establish a unarguable basis without being labeled cold-hearted or discriminatory. I'm now done expressing my annoyance with such arguments. Thank you for permitting me the opportunity to voice my displeasure.

Perhaps YOU should see things from others' viewpoint. You only look at "saving another building" and scoff as if it's some trite and "upwardly mobile" thing to do. How about it being something that is helping to save the city from caving in on itself? Returning blighted and rundown properties to the tax rolls, or filling them with people who are paying taxes and actually "contributing" to society and not taking from society? How is that a BAD thing?

[New Construction and Renovations in the Heartside District]

My point about you taking the moral high ground was that you establish an unrealistic framework of which no argument can be made. Yes, we all aspire for candy clouds and bubble gum sidewalks but some of us realize that will never be reality and choose to tackle real life problems in a way that can have actual solutions. You harp on others for not aspiring for candy clouds and criticize when realistic solutions are posed. Your argument is not won but rather acknowledged as fool-hardy and Utopian. Simply because people stop responding to you does not mean you've won, but perhaps you've lost their attention. Moral low ground, as you call it, (I prefer realism) may be the world we should all start dealing in.

I would agree with you Joe that I shouldn't put a "positive spin" on homelessness. My concern and point is that, with the goal being the redevelopment of Heartside, we shouldn't just see the homeless shelters or soup kitchens as an obsticale to that redevelopment. So far, the redevelopment projects and the shelters have gotten along just fine. If the community outreach programs fulfill their goals and eliminate homelessness as GRDad hopes, then good for them. Problem solved.

Your accusation of me taking the "moral high ground" is not an insult. I'd gladly take that stand in every arguement I make for it usually wins them. If you choose to argue the moral low ground, by all means do so. I was not the one to start the conversation about the homeless, nor pure morality issues, but I decided to voice my opinion on the collective generalizing of the homeless at a Heartside pocket park. I did not stray off topic since my point relates to the community outreach programs affecting Heartside. Those programs and those they serve also affect the neighborhood in how it redevelops. Is that not what this thread is about? Homelessness in Heartside is a big problem, even bigger when people generalize, marginalize, and discard them as something other than human. Hence the recent viloence against the homeless in many cities.

[New Construction and Renovations in the Heartside District]

I love taking the moral high ground. My heart is bigger than yours. I care about other people more than you and therefore the foundation of my argument is untouchable because I've established that you are hard-hearted and not nearly as compassionate as I.

The homeless are people. The homed are people. From what I've read there has been no mention of shutting the shelters and saying "good riddance" but merely mentions of suggestions that the best use for the area is no longer for homeless shelters and that other areas may be bettered suited. That should be the conversation not moral superiority. I'm all about a big heart but I occasionally like to consult my brain, which is capable of caring for humankind whilst also understanding the ever-changing realities of a progressive economy (which happens to help both the homeless and the homed). This conversation can establish ideas to benefit both the homeless and the homed.

And can we please address the situation in real terms. We can couch every conversation about the homeless as those just needing a cup of soup (which many are) but we also need to acknowledge that there is a contingent of the homeless that are drug dependent, mentally unstable. potentially harassing, and perhaps not as "vibrant" or "diverse" as previously described. A productive conversation should admit and acknowledge all facets of an issue.

Your reply seems tinged with sarcasm and venom. Still haven't buried the hatchet have you crinzema? It seems to me that people, including you, often forget that the homeless are people as well. It would be easy to just close down their soup kitchen to force them out, wouldn't it? Have you ever helped out at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen? Or, as I mentioned in my previous post, ever talked to any of them? Before you start going after me for trying to point out that Heartside has a heart, how about you try changing yours? I think you'll have a greater appreciation for the nieghborhood. Also, I don't advocate against redevelopment. I want the old buildings saved, but not at the expense of a St. Mary's style "level them all for parking" approach. I would just like developers to have somewhat of an appreciation for what the neighborhood is before altering it to the point of closing down soup kitchens.

[Hey, what's that (and other miscellanea)?]

Just curious if anyone's been down Bridge St lately. Has anything been done to the old Little Mexico building? I know they promised to rebuild but they never did say where....

They are rebuilding. There is some demo being done in the still standing building. I believe they plan to have a sports bar as part of the new build. Maybe that will be a good place to watch the beautiful game!

[GVSU Downtown Development]

It reminds me of the library at Valparaiso University (The Christopher Center)

[Photos De Jour - Grand Rapids and West Michigan Area]

There was an access garage that i thought they were making into retail space. Has that project come to fruition?

[Grand Rapids Then and Now]

Here's one photo linky to the Aldrich Bldg when Siegels occupied it, but I think they even added more of that siding later on :

I've seen many a photo of the Aldrich building w/ the wrapping paper. I don't, however, have any in my possession but the DeVries website does. I would bet that if you call Janene at DeVries she could help you out if you let her know that you are a photo junky. DeVries has some other great shots of their restoration projects and many before and afters on their website. The work they are doing on Clear Water Place is amazing. Check it out: www.devriescompanies.com