Two new residential projects for East Hills

[GRDadof3]

I hope we don't start tearing down buildings because the ones next to it have been torn down.  That's horrible reasoning.  That house has context with the historic neighborhood that it resides in.  The project that we discussing will take the place of the buildings that were torn down, once again making this yellow house more integrated with its surroundings instead of an island.

 

I didn't say anything about "we." I was just talking about my own personal opinion on the matter.

 

OK, I think even I'm

 

[organsnyder]

That looks like a dead cow to me. At best, it's a cheap imitation of a dead horse.

[GRDadof3]

That looks like a dead cow to me. At best, it's a cheap imitation of a dead horse.

 

Oh c'mon, the legs are way too long to be a cow. But you're right, it might not be dead. It just has its tongue sticking out. Maybe it's licking ants.

[RegalTDP]

My point is that it's pretty obvious which style of buildings exist in this historic district and which do not (the relatively more modernist building kitty-corner is in another district, actually).  The fact that modern traditional architecture might not be as ornate does not make it somehow less appropriate than a design which is a stark departure from its surroundings.  Unfortunately, even if the architect here was reputable, there were trying to pull off just that.  Why?  Architects have been breaking them for decades and getting away with it.  NPS tries to fix it with new guidance, and modernist architects like Ted, predictably, howl that nothing has changed and all of those revisions mean nothing, and they should still be able to slap up whatever modernist construct they can come up with, wherever they want.  We'll see, I suppose.

 

You've all but conceded these guidelines are subject to local interpretation, but yet the city isn't doing its job unless they adjudicate this way.  I think it's funny that you're treating NPS guidelines as gospel, as if you, of all people, would want stricter federal oversight of our local HPC. 

 

 

Oh c'mon, the legs are way too long to be a cow. But you're right, it might not be dead. It just has its tongue sticking out. Maybe it's licking ants.

 

100% totally a horse.  Look at the mane.  And the tail.

[GRDadof3]

You've all but conceded these guidelines are subject to local interpretation, but yet the city isn't doing its job unless they adjudicate this way.  I think it's funny that you're treating NPS guidelines as gospel, as if you, of all people, would want stricter federal oversight of .

I've read between the lines and this is what I've gleaned: "I live in an historic district (Heritage Hill) and I don't want any modern crap built on my block" - x99

[x99]

I've read between the lines and this is what I've gleaned: "I live in an historic district (Heritage Hill) and I don't want any modern crap built on my block" - x99

 

There's probably a small element of that.  I live where I live because I like traditional architecture, sure.  The bigger element, though, is in determining what ought to be a historic district and how those ought to look.  That's what makes these projects so difficult, and what has generated tremendous fights between preservationists and so-called "modern" architects who want to stuff preserved districts with their schlocky looking glass and steel stuff.  It's ironic and dishearteneding to me that Integrated's design for Eastown Flats--in a non-preserved district--would look far more appropriate in the Cherry Hill Historic District than what is actually being proposed. 

 

So far as Regal's point:  I don't necessarily have to like or agree with the program to think it ought to be administered in an appropriate and consistent fashion.  But, hey, it is a federal program, and I'm quite happy that the feds have recently started to "fix" years of screwed up thinking that classical architecture ought to be relegated to the past when, of course, it remains quite contemporary, as it has for the last 2000 years.   

 

But ah well, time to go beat on this horse where it might actually matter...   On the bright side, at least there's a horse to beat on instead of the usual crickets...

[GR_Urbanist]

Still, the East Hills Council of Neighbors has expressed concern about design and layout of the buildings, which would be flanked by driveways to on-site parking lots.

 

“The aesthetic rhythms and spacing of the proposed buildings are not appropriate for this district, where 40-foot lots are generally separated by driveways of 10 feet or less, or no driveways at all,” East Hill co-chairs Elizabeth Hoffman Ransford and Josh Leffingwell wrote in a letter to the commission.

 

“As proposed, the structures facing Eastern Avenue will be surrounded by concrete on all four sides. This creates a very suburban, non-historic setting on a crucial corner in our neighborhood.”

 

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/10/50_more_homes_in_grand_rapids.html#incart_m-rpt-2

 

Concern noted. So when can we get to building?

 

Seriously, dont pull a SWAN and try to get cute. This project will be one of the biggest the area will ever see, and will raise home values for a lot of us and be the catalyst for even better things for the whole district.

 

But if it gets screwed up because of some trifling nit-picking, or some pipe dream of getting some plastic historical replicas then I hope the city completely tells this neighborhood group to get bent.

 

You want big city swagger? This is what bigger cities have.

[GRDadof3]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/10/50_more_homes_in_grand_rapids.html#incart_m-rpt-2

 

Concern noted. So when can we get to building?

 

Seriously, dont pull a SWAN and try to get cute. This project will be one of the biggest the area will ever see, and will raise home values for a lot of us and be the catalyst for even better things for the whole district.

 

But if it gets screwed up because of some trifling nit-picking, or some pipe dream of getting some plastic historical replicas then I hope the city completely tells this neighborhood group to get bent.

 

You want big city swagger? This is what bigger cities have.

 

 

Those comments by Ransford and Leffingwell make no sense. Every house one street over and throughout the neighborhood has a driveway on each side and a road out front (3 sides of concrete). The commercial building to the West has a street out in front, a parking lot on the side and a parking lot in back. It's even period to this area. This project has concrete in the back because it's higher density, which Leffingwell has pushed for. At least the project will have underground parking and not all of it above grade.

 

Suburban?

 

- Signed, Confused in Grand Rapids

 

 

Here's the Cherry and Eastern site plan. Build it already.

 

 

I guess the bright side is that no comments were made about the modern design.

 

What they could do is just cut one of the driveways, but I'm a betting man and I bet the GR fire department wants two driveways.

[Gorath]

Based on the rendering at mlive, the southern driveway ramps down to the below ground parking.  The northern drive goes to the parking lot at grade.  I don't think you can eliminate either drive.

[joeDowntown]

I hope you are joking? "Yeah, let's put a sh*t-ton of money into a redevelopment and then limit it only to people who ride bikes." Maybe they could really find a niche and go uni-cycle only? Grand Rapids could make it on another "Best" list for being the most unicycle friendly city in the US. 

 

I'm sure the banks would find that to be a solid financial plan and a huge demographic to pull from.

 

Joe

 

 

They should be bike houses only. We already paid for the bike lanes.

And in the wintertime, the rapid and silverline are there.

Why should the environment hating one percenters be allowed space to park their terroristmobile?

[GRDadof3]

They should be bike houses only. We already paid for the bike lanes.

And in the wintertime, the rapid and silverline are there.

Why should the environment hating one percenters be allowed space to park their terroristmobile?

 

I did actually lol when I read this.

[joeDowntown]

Someone told me the developer backed out of this project. Has anyone else heard this? That would be a disappointment.

 

Joe

[GR_Urbanist]

 

The city's Historic Preservation Commission has denied the western portion of this project. The developer will be able to submit new plans, but the project "needs to be overhauled," said Rhonda Baker, the city's historic preservation specialist.

^This was from a post on an earlier story.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/10/50_more_homes_in_grand_rapids.html#incart_m-rpt-2

 

Well if this is true, then it's just another fine example of the stupidity of this town when it comes to development. Thanks to a neighborhood group that seems to think East Hills is so red hot that we can just be picky like it is Studio 54 and a Hysterical Preservation Commission that scoffs at anything that may interrupt the "everything has to look old" vibe they apparently are trying to force every frigging place they can.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if he did bail. Who would want to deal with these myopic snobs? Millions of dollars in development, tons of economic stimulus, property values that could have gone up, more taxpayers, and potential spin-off development. All of that right out the window because of what? Not enough Corinthian columns? No Victorian towers or Edwardian Gables?

 

So now we get to have a very historical empty lot. Great job, guys. Looks like SWAN has some major competition.

[GRDadof3]

^This was from a post on an earlier story.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/10/50_more_homes_in_grand_rapids.html#incart_m-rpt-2

 

Well if this is true, then it's just another fine example of the stupidity of this town when it comes to development. Thanks to a neighborhood group that seems to think East Hills is so red hot that we can just be picky like it is Studio 54 and a Hysterical Preservation Commission that scoffs at anything that may interrupt the "everything has to look old" vibe they apparently are trying to force every frigging place they can.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if he did bail. Who would want to deal with these myopic snobs? Millions of dollars in development, tons of economic stimulus, property values that could have gone up, more taxpayers, and potential spin-off development. All of that right out the window because of what? Not enough Corinthian columns? No Victorian towers or Edwardian Gables?

 

So now we get to have a very historical empty lot. Great job, guys. Looks like SWAN has some major competition.

 

 

The HPC was ALSO giving them push-back on the existing building on the East corner. Apparently the HPC felt the addition they were looking at for the East side (back) of the building was too modern looking, and could be seen from Cherry Street. I believe the addition was needed for accessiblity (elevators, stairwell) but I can't recall now.

 

This is what it looked like:

 

[x99]

I wouldn't be shocked if he did bail. Who would want to deal with these myopic snobs? Millions of dollars in development, tons of economic stimulus, property values that could have gone up, more taxpayers, and potential spin-off development. All of that right out the window because of what? Not enough Corinthian columns? No Victorian towers or Edwardian Gables?

 

So now we get to have a very historical empty lot. Great job, guys. Looks like SWAN has some major competition.

 

It isn't fair to blame people for doing their jobs.  I don't know how this was surprising.  I doubt the HPC's denial had anything to do with the placement of the driveways.  A project needs to be compatible with the existing architecture, and I don't think anyone could agree that this was with a straight face. They took a flyer on this one and it didn't work.  It would not be hard to redesign this and get it passed. 

[MJLO]

Granted I tend to side with the YIMBY's and I don't claim to be objective when it comes to new things being built,  but I don't think it hurt would to tweak the language of the HPC's charter.   The city may have to start hiring historical reenactors to satiate it. 

[GR_Urbanist]

It isn't fair to blame people for doing their jobs.  I don't know how this was surprising.  I doubt the HPC's denial had anything to do with the placement of the driveways.  A project needs to be compatible with the existing architecture, and I don't think anyone could agree that this was with a straight face. They took a flyer on this one and it didn't work.  It would not be hard to redesign this and get it passed. 

 

If it's true, then he isnt coming back.

 

I would scrap the whole thing completely. Make the existing buildings low-income housing and tell these people to go take a flying leap or sell it to them for a huge mark-up and let them build their oh so precious compatible architectural masterpiece.

 

This is supposed to be a real city, not Greenfield Village! What architecture are they trying to complement anyway?

 

The HPC was ALSO giving them push-back on the existing building on the East corner. Apparently the HPC felt the addition they were looking at for the East side (back) of the building was too modern looking, and could be seen from Cherry Street. I believe the addition was needed for accessiblity (elevators, stairwell) but I can't recall now.

 

 

 

This town... Sometimes I just dont know about this place.

[x99]

If it's true, then he isnt coming back.

 

This is supposed to be a real city, not Greenfield Village! What architecture are they trying to complement anyway?

 

On the west side of it, Cherry Hill.  On the easy side, Fairmount Square.   In general, turn of the last century to mid teen vernacular.  Not hard at all.

 

What ought to grind the developers is that Integrated does know how to get this right.  Their recent Eastown designs could almost pass for New Classical Architecture (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Classical_architecture for a lot of examples that did not come out of "Greenfield Village").  Something like that Eastown project likely would have passed muster on the western site, where they actually have more freedom than where they are attaching to the existing building on the east site.  Why they chose to go in the direction they did completely baffles me.

[GRDadof3]

On the west side of it, Cherry Hill.  On the easy side, Fairmount Square.   In general, turn of the last century to mid teen vernacular.  Not hard at all.

 

What ought to grind the developers is that Progressive does know how to get this right.  Their recent Eastown designs could almost pass for New Classical Architecture (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Classical_architecture for a lot of examples that did not come out of "Greenfield Village").  Something like that Eastown project likely would have passed muster on the western site, where they actually have more freedom than where they are attaching to the existing building on the east site.  Why they chose to go in the direction they did completely baffles me.

 

Wait, what Eastown designs? The Orion project?

[x99]

Wait, what Eastown designs? The Orion project?

 

Yup.  Both were Integrated.    I was surprised when I saw they designed both. 

[GRDadof3]

Yup.  Both were Integrated.    I was surprised when I saw they designed both. 

 

But what did Progressive design in Eastown?

[x99]

But what did Progressive design in Eastown?

 

 Nothing.  That was a typo that I corrected..   Point was, if they wanted to design something that didn't need to be "overhauled" they certainly had the capability.  The Eastown design fit fairly well with the other stuff already on Wealthy.  Instead of going that route, they basically transplanted their project they drew up on the West Side, ignored the historic designation, and not surprisingly, got told no. 

 

Architect's fault?  Developer's fault? I don't know.  All I know is that very little fault lies with the HPC, other than the extent to which those sitting on it today can be blamed for bad judgment in the past that might have given Integrated the idea the door was open to anything with four walls and a door. 

 

EDIT:  I just reviewed looked over their submission to the HPC at http://www.easthillscouncil.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/cherry_eastern_submittal_booklet_x.pdf.  They had pictures of almost every apartment building of significance in the area.  So they saw what they should have done, and came up with this?  When viewed in detail, it's even worse than the renderings posted previously.  Panelized siding, 8" Hardi-Board, discordant cubes, horizontal metal railings, and fenestration ripped from a bad mid 1960's elementary school, all tossed into a blender and melded back into something vaguely resembling a building which were all strangely the same height despite a significant grade change?  The whole thing was a schlocky melange of crap with all the charm of a turd that would look even worse in 10 years that it does now.

 

A possible explanation for the disaster:  All of the "architectural precedent" they used at page 11 doesn't even appear to exist in the district.  All of the stuff in the district they just used as examples for allowing porches, windows, and varying architectural elements.  Seriously?  Hint:  Don't ignore the period of significance for the district when designing a project, don't ignore all of the existing buildings for actual precedent as to the general design of the project, and certainly don't submit something only a mother could love.

 

This was not like the West Side where someone went around screaming "No Development! No Apartments! No Nothing!".  All they were told to do was redesign it, which happens all the time without causing developers to walk away.  Let's hope they stick with it.

[GR_Urbanist]

 

This was not like the West Side where someone went around screaming "No Development! No Apartments! No Nothing!".  All they were told to do was redesign it, which happens all the time without causing developers to walk away.  Let's hope they stick with it.

 

It's worse.

 

This is: Nothing that looks new! Make it look old-fashioned. We cant deal with 21st century design and architecture!

 

These people have gone overboard and simply are now trying to force a design based on an obsession with anything and everything old just because.

 

There are cities in Europe that have 500 year old buildings that exist perfectly with stuff designed last year.

 

What are we showing to everyone here? That GR doesnt want anything to remind them that they are in 2015? That we can rig developments to constantly give the impression that it is always 1914 in this town? That we'd rather scuttle good ideas than have it hurt overly sensitive architectural historians? for crying out loud, there is a house just a few meters south of this site where the upper floor window has been covered with siding! Maybe the HPC should be more interested in making that look "authentic" than dictating the aesthetics of brand new construction.

 

I'm shocked that the super modern house on Diamond by Wealthy didnt result in the complete collapse of East Hills.

[x99]

What are we showing to everyone here? That GR doesnt want anything to remind them that they are in 2015? That we can rig developments to constantly give the impression that it is always 1914 in this town? That we'd rather scuttle good ideas than have it hurt overly sensitive architectural historians? for crying out loud, there is a house just a few meters south of this site where the upper floor window has been covered with siding! Maybe the HPC should be more interested in making that look "authentic" than dictating the aesthetics of brand new construction.

 

I'm shocked that the super modern house on Diamond by Wealthy didnt result in the complete collapse of East Hills.

 

I disagree.  What we're showing is that we are finally starting to respect all of our historic districts, even if they happen to be in East Hills.  We're showing that the designation means more than four walls and a door, and you're good to go.

 

This area received a lot of money in the form of tax breaks because of those designations.  Without those designations and those tax breaks, would East Hills even be at a place where a development like this was being looked at?  You would still have a monstrous mess in the centerpiece of the neighborhood--the old D.A. Blodgett Home on Cherry.   You would have a lot more houses and buildings with falling off vinyl siding and boarded up windows, many of which have been cleaned up since the designation.

[GRDadof3]

I disagree.  What we're showing is that we are finally starting to respect all of our historic districts, even if they happen to be in East Hills.  We're showing that the designation means more than four walls and a door, and you're good to go.

 

This area received a lot of money in the form of tax breaks because of those designations.  Without those designations and those tax breaks, would East Hills even be at a place where a development like this was being looked at?  You would still have a monstrous mess in the centerpiece of the neighborhood--the old D.A. Blodgett Home on Cherry.   You would have a lot more houses and buildings with falling off vinyl siding and boarded up windows, many of which have been cleaned up since the designation.

 

 

I'm not aware of any projects in East Hills that received historic preservation tax credits, other than ICCF. Wealthy Street was its own Ren Zone for a while, but I think that expired didn't it?

 

What I think needs to happen is that the current owner Cherry Street Health Services needs to separate these properties (the SW and SE corners) and sell them separately. Forcing a developer to make both corners work is really hard on a pro-forma. I could be wrong but it really makes any potential development even more complicated than those corners already are.