Wealthy Street Mega Thread

[MJLO]

On 8/17/2016 at 4:53 PM, joeDowntown said:

I hope somebody is able to get the HPC to break from their past ruling and allow windows in the front. This was rejected when proposed as it didn't fit with the original use of the building (which, come on, it was a warehouse with no windows. A little wiggle room maybe?).

Joe

This was rejected????  Wow i'm so glad they prefer the current dead zone the brick walls create.  

[GR_Urbanist]

6 hours ago, MJLO said:

This was rejected????  Wow i'm so glad they prefer the current dead zone the brick walls create.  

Gotta preserve our history, ya kno? Future generations may not understand how ancient man used to store things in windowless spaces otherwise.

 

But that rejection was a while ago, and I think they are a bit more reasonable as of late.

[elcelc]

On 8/27/2016 at 5:17 PM, Pattmost20 said:

I think that would be a great theme for a brewery. Back in the late 1700s and early 1800s, The East India Trading company sent a lot of beer from London to India, so there is definitely a cool connection there. 

This is what I had in mind from my previous travels to Victoria BC.  Alas, not politically correct...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/after-47-years-victorias-landmark-bengal-lounge-nearing-its-end/article28831889/

 

[x99]

18 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

Gotta preserve our history, ya kno? Future generations may not understand how ancient man used to store things in windowless spaces otherwise.

 

But that rejection was a while ago, and I think they are a bit more reasonable as of late.

Sadly, I doubt there is absolutely no possible way to do that to this building within the federal rules.  The correct decision on a proposal like this seems pretty cut and dried from a preservation perspective.  So federal tax credits are out, at least.  So I hope those are not part of their development plan... That said, that does not mean this cannot happen.  There is probably a viable way around the "doesn't comply with historic district rules" issue (although not the tax credit issue) in this particular case, and hopefully 616 figures it out...   

[joeDowntown]

I drove past a survey company drilling on the Northeast corner of Wealthy and Fuller today. Wonder if we'll see plans for this lot soon?

Joe

[john_denver]

I was in Bombay for lunch today and the person said they want to focus on different IPAs.  She said they are playing with the idea of a Cardamom IPA.  Very Indian...at least the Cardamom part.

[GRDadof3]

733 Wealthy goes before HPC this month. 

 

 

 

 

 

[joeDowntown]

It'all be interesting to see how the HPC reacts to this buildings, since they shot down a similar plan before (though someone said the makeup of the HPC is different now). I like the way the varied the window design and added the cornice back. Would love to see the aluminum panels between floors 4 and 5 with a more decorative panel. 

Looks nice.

Joe

[GR_Urbanist]

I like it!

I do wish they connected the building (or made a new one to do so more visually) to the Lee & Birch store to fill out the street wall though. And I also hope that the land fronting Eastern, which I'm not 100% sure is theirs, doesn't just become one gigantic parking lot. That would be a huge lost opportunity. Maybe a little park right along the street?

Also, the upper story windows are essential or else no one will want to live/work up there in a windowless box. This is just too rational and reasonable of a plan to not approve.

[joeDowntown]

2 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

I like it!

I do wish they connected the building (or made a new one to do so more visually) to the Lee & Birch store to fill out the street wall though. And I also hope that the land fronting Eastern, which I'm not 100% sure is theirs, doesn't just become one gigantic parking lot. That would be a huge lost opportunity. Maybe a little park right along the street?

Also, the upper story windows are essential or else no one will want to live/work up there in a windowless box. This is just too rational and reasonable of a plan to not approve.

I agree. But last time, they said no to windows in the front. I believe they switched plans to try to make them live/work spaces with the front being the work space (with now windows). Obviously, that didn't go to well. Hope they don't reject putting windows in the time. 

Also agree on the lot between lee and Birch. The last proposal had a building that spanned from the Easton Richards building to the Lee and Birch building. With the stairwell, looks like that is not in the cards this go around. 

Joe

[GRDadof3]

Hopcat keeps expanding. I wonder if they're adding "corporate HQ" staff here? 

https://mibiz.com/news/design-build/item/23977-barfly-completes-

[GRLaker]

12 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

Hopcat keeps expanding. I wonder if they're adding "corporate HQ" staff here? 

https://mibiz.com/news/design-build/item/23977-barfly-completes-

I wish they'd take over the space above them and add a 2nd floor. The first is always packed at night and I have no doubt they'd fill a second floor as well. 

[joeDowntown]

11 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Hopcat keeps expanding. I wonder if they're adding "corporate HQ" staff here? 

https://mibiz.com/news/design-build/item/23977-barfly-completes-

They're in Blue 35. They were in the space above GR Brewing Co. but outgrew the space prettty quickly. 

Joe

[x99]

On 9/3/2016 at 2:39 PM, joeDowntown said:

I agree. But last time, they said no to windows in the front. I believe they switched plans to try to make them live/work spaces with the front being the work space (with now windows). Obviously, that didn't go to well. Hope they don't reject putting windows in the time. 

Nice photos.  Some of the designs look really nice.  So I found the link to the photos GRDad posted along with the app packet.. I found it kinda weird that they never talked about why this ought to be approved now after they said no before, like you said. I'm pretty sure (like 99.99% sure) the rules they have to follow do not allow cutting up the front of a building like that to add boatloads of windows.. unless breaking the rules is necessary to allow some sort of major public improvement project to go forward. That gives 616 what, oh, 5 hours to figure out how that whole thing works and to try to put a good argument together.  But, you know, maybe they were already on top of that and just forgot to mention it...   Figured it was finally time to throw out a tiny little bone just in case.

Edited September 7, 2016 by x99

[GRDadof3]

41 minutes ago, x99 said:

Nice photos.  Some of the designs look really nice.  So I found the link to the photos GRDad posted along with the app packet.. I found it kinda weird that they never talked about why this ought to be approved now after they said no before, like you said. I'm pretty sure (like 99.99% sure) the rules they have to follow do not allow cutting up the front of a building like that to add boatloads of windows.. unless breaking the rules is necessary to allow some sort of major public improvement project to go forward. That gives 616 what, oh, 5 hours to figure out how that whole thing works and to try to put a good argument together.  But, you know, maybe they were already on top of that and just forgot to mention it...   Figured it was finally time to throw out a tiny little bone just in case.

It's quite a beefy application packet, with 3 different variations of windows (?). But I'm not on the HPC so I don't know what needs to be included. 

[x99]

1 hour ago, GRDadof3 said:

It's quite a beefy application packet, with 3 different variations of windows (?). But I'm not on the HPC so I don't know what needs to be included. 

Yeah I just skimmed it... But I didn't see anything about why any of the windows could be approved this time when the ruling last time was apparently that you couldn't cut any windows into it. I guess I just don't understand why you would choose not to talk about why something should be approved that was not approved before?  But the major public improvement exception does exist, and I think if 616 wants this to fly, they're going to have to do some major explaining to thread their dozens and dozens of windows through that needle.  Hopefully they already figured all of this out though...

[GR_Urbanist]

Tell the HPC that you either are ok with an eyesore that has been underutilized and undeveloped for half a decade in the middle of a growing business district, and they can explain to the people why a big blank upper-story wall is so precious and essential for the integrity of the area, that they will block any proposal that puts windows in it.

Or they can stop defending a blank wall and let these people put money into resorting this building and have it contribute to the tax base.

Then tell them that they will take it to court if necessary.

 

These guys dont need a big speech. The HPC looks absolutely foolish on this, and needlessly blocking this would further isolate them in public opinion.

 

[x99]

27 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

Then tell them that they will take it to court if necessary.

These guys dont need a big speech. The HPC looks absolutely foolish on this, and needlessly blocking this would further isolate them in public opinion.

You do realize threatening to take a loser of a case to court isn't much of a threat, right?   HPC is just trying to follow the rules (and I assume will follow the same rules they followed last time) even if you don't like them.  Which is why I suggested 616 needs to do some research and laser in on the major improvement exception.  Then you at least have an argument that isn't necessarily doomed to fail.  If the idea that the big, blank windowless wall stands in the way of a major improvement does not come up, I would not be surprised if this went down in flames... A big speech about this might not hurt..

[wingbert]

19 hours ago, x99 said:

HPC is just trying to follow the rules (and I assume will follow the same rules they followed last time) even if you don't like them.

Thumbs up to the HPC then.  History is jam-packed with examples of how great things were achieved by people who kept their heads down, kept their minds closed and just followed the rules.

[MJLO]

1 hour ago, wingbert said:

Thumbs up to the HPC then.  History is jam-packed with examples of how great things were achieved by people who kept their heads down, kept their minds closed and just followed the rules.

Again I say we don't need the HPC since they exhibit the same discretion a spreadsheet does.  This building will never again be utilized the way it was originally intended.  If they do not allow it to be adapted to modern use, it will remain an impediment to the neighborhood and hinder further progress.  I understand why they were created.  I understand they are there to prevent some of the tragic wastes that happened in the past.  This proposal allows a building to be adapted to a modern useable state, while preserving historic character.  If they deny this I see no better example to advance the argument that their charter needs to be modified, or their power needs to not be absolute. (And there are more than a few)  The city should have the ability to override their decisions in some cases.  Over the past couple years the city has pretty much neutered the rigidity SWAN was notorious for,  why can't they intervene here?

[thebeerqueer]

37 minutes ago, MJLO said:

Over the past couple years the city has pretty much neutered the rigidity SWAN was notorious for,  why can't they intervene here?

Comparing the HPC to a neighborhood association is inaccurate to say the least. I know that SWAN has been everyone's favorite whipping post on this forum for years but in the past half decade we overwhelmingly didn't object to proposals in our neighborhood. However, when we have objected or advocated for changes the city rolls right over us anyway. I feel like the the PC is hanging us out to dry most of the time; they tell developers to meet with the neighborhoods, then completely ignore any of our input.

It's off-topic, I know, just defending my hood. 

[MJLO]

1 minute ago, thebeerqueer said:

Comparing the HPC to a neighborhood association is inaccurate to say the least. I know that SWAN has been everyone's favorite whipping post on this forum for years but in the past half decade we overwhelmingly didn't object to proposals in our neighborhood. However, when we have objected or advocated for changes the city rolls right over us anyway. I feel like the the PC is hanging us out to dry most of the time; they tell developers to meet with the neighborhoods, then completely ignore any of our input.

It's off-topic, I know, just defending my hood. 

Sorry Dave didn't mean to put you in that position.  I just meant I have heard very little about SWAN since the city over-rode its decision for the Lexington project, and does it have the power to do the same to the HPC?

[Telecaster Rex]

Does anyone know what was decided RE: 733 Wealthy at the HPC meeting last night?

[thebeerqueer]

18 minutes ago, MJLO said:

Sorry Dave didn't mean to put you in that position.  I just meant I have heard very little about SWAN since the city over-rode its decision for the Lexington project, and does it have the power to do the same to the HPC?

No harm, no foul. 

I wonder if the HPC can overrule the PC, or vice-versa? Like who gets final say?

[GRDadof3]

41 minutes ago, Telecaster Rex said:

Does anyone know what was decided RE: 733 Wealthy at the HPC meeting last night?

The Summary says it was "approved with conditions." 

http://grandrapidscitymi.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=2401&Inline=True

I don't know what that means, but can someone follow up with Rhonda Baker or someone else on the HPC? I'm curious to hear how it went. Twelve Weston was also "approved with conditions."