Wealthy Street Mega Thread

[x99]

4 hours ago, Raildudes dad said:

The east wall didn't look to bad before they started. Now we know who the architect was.. i looked for an engineer in the packet but couldn't find one. That might be the problem (rolls eyes). I can't believe they didn't get a demo permit but maybe the building dept said take it down, it's unsafe.

Engineer?  Going from the look of things, I'm guessing the person in charge was a blind guy sitting in a lawn chair while triple-tasking smoking a Camel, drinking a Keystone Light, and barking out directions.  

[walker]

Took this photo today, looks like they might be trying to save the facade:

Here's looking through the doorway:

[GR_Urbanist]

There isnt really any point in trying to save the facade either. The whole effort looks like one big sad joke. Just make whatever building that goes up now pay some homage to the one they wrecked.

Honestly in the stiff wind we have today, I wont be shocked if it all is a pile of kindling tomorrow.

[Raildudes dad]

According to the City Building Dept, there has been a demo order issued. Good one X99, LOL

[GRDadof3]

Not joking, there's an item on the HPC agenda tomorrow for a demolition permit. Nothing like retroactively seeking these things. 

http://grandrapidscitymi.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2557&Inline=True

[x99]

10 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Not joking, there's an item on the HPC agenda tomorrow for a demolition permit. Nothing like retroactively seeking these things. 

http://grandrapidscitymi.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2557&Inline=True

The demo app does not appear to include the facade.  Given that it is currently standing up and is the most prominent feature of the structure, they will (or at least should be) required to save it.  I wouldn't feel too bad about shoving that down their throat, since this was most likely a demolition by neglect and/or negligence, and not necessarily one that was necessary.  You would have a hard time convincing me that a very simple wood-frame building with (judging from the photos) only two exterior bearing walls and a center bearing beam absolutely had to be demolished.  Structurally, it appears to have been no more--and probably less--complex than a barn or a garage, and far more crooked barns and garages than this have been righted with proper use of cables, bracing, and jacking.  

[Chester Cheeto]

15 hours ago, walker said:

Took this photo today, looks like they might be trying to save the facade:

 

I shouldn't think it would be an issue saving the facade. This picture brings back some memories of Christchurch, New Zealand after the earthquake in 2011. They had quite a few buildings fall (granted it wasn't because of somebody's dumbassery), but were able to maintain the original use and look of the building after getting somewhat creative in saving the facade of the building.

The building above was able to be restored (plenty of pictures in link below). I should think rebuilding a much simpler wooden structure with an existing facade would be a piece of cake, just hope the owner has some deep pockets.

http://isaactheatreroyal.co.nz/our-history/2011-earthquake/earthquake-photo-gallery/#1046prettyPhoto[gallery]/30/

[GRCentro]

On 3/1/2017 at 10:23 PM, GRDadof3 said:

Not joking, there's an item on the HPC agenda tomorrow for a demolition permit. Nothing like retroactively seeking these things. 

http://grandrapidscitymi.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2557&Inline=True

Here’s the scoop from the meeting. The building owner, contractor, architect and City staff were present, plus written testimony from the engineer. City staff presented a detailed history of the property complete with images, court docs and building inspection reports. Here’s a rough timeline of events for those who enjoy the post-mortem details of the death of building:

Building has been vacant since early-to-mid 1980s.

 Code violations begin appearing in 1992, escalating from notices and fines to multiple criminal misdemeanor charges and a demolition by neglect proceeding. The previous building owner slowly began addressing the exterior code violations but consistently refused City officials entry to examine the interior. As the building was uninhabited, the building owner was completely within his legal right to do so. By 2003 the exterior was brought to code and all pending cases against the property were closed.

Routine exterior inspections by City staff show clear deflection and bowing of the east wall by 2006. Timeline photos of subsequent inspections demonstrate continuing movement over the course of the next 10 years.

In early 2016 the new building owner receives permission to demolition the unstable the southern portion of the structure, rebuild the east wall, including the foundation, and rehabilitate the entire exterior.

The structural plan was bizarre.  Floor joists of various sizes and spacing ran in different load patterns in different rooms. Charred beams showed evidence of a fire at some point in time. The steel beams and posts were clearly salvaged from a different structure (installed after the fire?) and the primary beam extended straight through the exterior west wall into the sunlight alley, with the post bearing on its own footing beyond the main foundation

Here's where it gets interesting: in late 2016, as the building is gutted, it is discovered that the majority of the east wall studs had previously been spliced with as much as a 4 inch space between them. The wall was essentially held intact by the sheathing. Compounding this problem, the roof had a major pre-existing leak that had been funneling water down the east wall and into the basement. City building inspectors refuse to enter the building until it is stabilized.

The problem accelerates in early January when concentrated winter thaw and rainwater from both the roof and the alley erode the soil beneath the east wall foundation. The conclusion from an emergency inspection by the architect, engineer and City staff recommends a greater scope of demolition. The building owner is given permission for structural demolition as necessary to stabilize the structure.

Fast-forward to late February: to the horror of all, the building is almost entirely demolished. City staff acknowledge that the demolition is more than they anticipated. The building owner and contractor testify there was no safe way to stabilize the building without removing all the interior floors, the roof and the much-maligned steel beam. The architect, engineer and City staff support this opinion. 

HPC grants a notice to proceed in demolition retroactively citing the obvious safety risk. Conditions require that the front façade remain and that the building be reconstructed to exactly as it previously stood...well, minus any historic sagging, of course.

Edited March 4, 2017 by GRCentro

[Prankster]

Serious question - Is the facade that historically significant to warrant the trouble saving it?  I remember when they accidentally demolished the Durfee Building on Commerce when renovating for Cooley Law School. They agreed to rebuild its replacement in much of the same standards that was originally there prior to the building falling down. 

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, GRCentro said:

Here’s the scoop from the meeting. The building owner, contractor, architect and City staff were present, plus written testimony from the engineer. City staff presented a detailed history of the property complete with images, court docs and building inspection reports. Here’s a rough timeline of events for those who enjoy the post-mortem details of the death of building:

Building has been vacant since early-to-mid 1980s.

 Code violations begin appearing in 1992, escalating from notices and fines to multiple criminal misdemeanor charges and a demolition by neglect proceeding. The previous building owner slowly began addressing the exterior code violations but consistently refused City officials entry to examine the interior. As the building was uninhabited, the building owner was completely within his legal right to do so. By 2003 the exterior was brought to code and all pending cases against the property were closed.

Routine exterior inspections by City staff show clear deflection and bowing of the east wall by 2006. Timeline photos of subsequent inspections demonstrate continuing movement over the course of the next 10 years.

In early 2016 the new building owner receives permission to demolition the unstable the southern portion of the structure, rebuild the east wall, including the foundation, and rehabilitate the entire exterior.

The structural plan was bizarre.  Floor joists of various sizes and spacing ran in different load patterns in different rooms. Charred beams showed evidence of a fire at some point in time. The steel beams and posts were clearly salvaged from a different structure (installed after the fire?) and the primary beam extended straight through the exterior west wall into the sunlight alley, with the post bearing on its own footing beyond the main foundation

Here where it gets interesting: in late 2016, as the building is gutted, it is discovered that the majority of the east wall studs had previously been spliced with as much as a 4 inch space between them. The wall was essentially held intact by the sheeting. Compounding this problem, the roof had a major pre-existing leak that had been funneling water down the east wall and into the basement. City building inspectors refuse to enter the building until it is stabilized.

The problem accelerates in early January when concentrated winter thaw and rainwater from both the roof and the alley erode the soil beneath the east wall foundation. The conclusion from an emergency inspection by the architect, engineer and City staff recommends a greater scope of demolition. The building owner is given permission for structural demolition as necessary to stabilize the structure.

Fast-forward to late February: to the horror of all, the building is almost entirely demolished. City staff acknowledge that the demolition is more than they anticipated. The building owner and contractor testify there was no safe way to stabilize the building without removing all the interior floors, the roof and the much-maligned steel beam. The architect, engineer and City staff support this opinion. 

HPC grants a notice to proceed in demolition retroactively citing the obvious safety risk. Conditions require that the front façade remain and that the building be reconstructed to exactly as it previously stood...well, minus any historic sagging, of course.

Tough spot to be in, but it sounds like demolition was probably the right thing to do. The neighboring building owner is probably breathing a sigh of relief as well. Thanks for the on-the-ground report. 

 

[GRCentro]

1 hour ago, Prankster said:

Serious question - Is the facade that historically significant to warrant the trouble saving it?  I remember when they accidentally demolished the Durfee Building on Commerce when renovating for Cooley Law School. They agreed to rebuild its replacement in much of the same standards that was originally there prior to the building falling down. 

A very good question. I asked exactly the same thing at the meeting. Part of HPC’s mandate is to protect historic materials. Given that 99% of the building is gone and none of the exterior materials are original – the siding, trim, windows, the odd little brackets – what are we aiming to protect by keeping the façade? Only a few sticks of framing and sheathing that still stand are original to the building. And reconstruction would certainly be easier without it.

The majority HPC opinion was that even if the materials themselves don’t warrant a particular protection, the streetscape and pattern of fenestration they hold does. That is, the façade preserves the original window and door sizes/locations, the composition of solids/voids and the relationship of this building to its neighbors. The façade is a placeholder.

Even more interesting, the building owner wants to keep the façade for more pragmatic reasons. As silly as it may seem, the reconstruction project is legally viewed as an addition/renovation of an existing structure as long as the façade still stands. Were the façade to be removed, the building project would be considered new construction, immediately requiring a whole different process of permitting and review, including a few hurdles that could prove difficult, such as parking requirements in a commercial site plan review.

Edited March 4, 2017 by GRCentro

[walker]

746 Wealthy - What it looked like in 1936 - Assessor Photo:

[jthrasher]

I understand the need for the HPC but sometimes, in special cases like this, I find them to be a huge hindrance to something that could be really great.  What would be wrong with a completely modern building in this space?  Yeah, it would stand out like a sore thumb but that's the point!  Sometimes a contrast of old with new can be really beautiful.  I think something modern could be a big boost to the neighborhood.  Most of the time rebuilt structures made to look original do anything but look original and typically look horrible and stand out in a bad way.  

[GRCentro]

16 hours ago, jthrasher said:

I understand the need for the HPC but sometimes, in special cases like this, I find them to be a huge hindrance to something that could be really great.  What would be wrong with a completely modern building in this space?  Yeah, it would stand out like a sore thumb but that's the point!  Sometimes a contrast of old with new can be really beautiful.  I think something modern could be a big boost to the neighborhood.  Most of the time rebuilt structures made to look original do anything but look original and typically look horrible and stand out in a bad way.  

Had the owner requested full demolition in advance, I would guess that it would have been approved given the overwhelming evidence that demonstrated a public safety risk. In such an instance, any new construction would be evaluated separately and it could very well be contemporary in style, a la 12 Weston, for example. In this case, the owner of 746 wants to keep the existing facade and requested to rebuild like for like. The "building" is already fully leased and I'm sure he is eager to get this thing rebuilt asap.

The greater concern that this story has revealed is how easily a less-than-scrupulous building owner might succeed in demolishing a structure in a historic district. Find a few apparent structural problems, get a convincing letter from an engineer, over-zealously misinterpret verbal permission from the City and then ask forgiveness later when the physical evidence is gone. Penalties for preservation violations are currently one-size fits all. As is, demolition of an entire building would be treated no differently than, say, a homeowner removing a door or installing a fence without permission – a puny fine and notice of correction.

City staff and attorneys are working to develop an enforcement system with penalties more commensurate to the scale of the violation. Hopefully, the penalties for an unauthorized demolition will soon be so severe as to dissuade any “misunderstandings”.

[GRCentro]

I'm surprised no one dug this up yet. Concept images for 1157 Wealthy.

[EastownLeo]

20 hours ago, GRCentro said:

I'm surprised no one dug this up yet. Concept images for 1157 Wealthy.

 

Just now, EastownLeo said:

 

I do like the canopy and its throwback look to the service station.  With no shielding from road noise, especially fuller, I think this would be a loud place to eat but would really change this corner.

[joshleo]

I would encourage everyone to go back to my first post that started this thread. It is crazy how many of the buildings I posted are now something completely different.

[MJLO]

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 9:42 AM, EastownLeo said:

 

I do like the canopy and its throwback look to the service station.  With no shielding from road noise, especially fuller, I think this would be a loud place to eat but would really change this corner.

The corner of Wealthy and Fuller will look completely different in a year or two!  The rapid transformation of this neighborhood never ceases to amaze me.  I wonder what the chances of it being completely transformed from 131 all the way to Eastown are.

[x99]

On 3/5/2017 at 0:56 PM, GRCentro said:

I'm surprised no one dug this up yet. Concept images for 1157 Wealthy.

Eh, I dug it up and then promptly hit the "ignore" button to avoid commenting about the "historic" 1950s gas station...   But in brief (and this will probably surprise more than a few people) mandated preservation of stuff like this bothers me.  This is not a historic building, but my understanding from discussions with the prior owner is that they were told it was, and they had to spend a lot to repair it to HPC standards.  Maybe that info was wrong, but ... seriously, a 1950s gas station?  Historic regs were not intended to create "no demo zones" where nothing can be demolished just because it is old.  They were created to preserve the specific intact architectural character of a specific, significant period.  Old ≠ automatically equal historic! Now, perhaps those behind this project would not have wanted to fix this hole in the historic fabric, but my guess is they likely would have been told they could not do so, had they even wanted to.  So, it's nice to see the pictures, but my guess is that it could have been better had the gas station been allowed to rest in pieces.  

On 3/3/2017 at 8:52 PM, GRCentro said:

The majority HPC opinion was that even if the materials themselves don’t warrant a particular protection, the streetscape and pattern of fenestration they hold does. That is, the façade preserves the original window and door sizes/locations, the composition of solids/voids and the relationship of this building to its neighbors. The façade is a placeholder.

This is a good segue from my last comment.  Historic districts are all about preserving intact character.  Virtually every last one of the NPS Standards either expressly mentions "character" or "character defining" or is directly aimed at avoiding things that would detract from or damage historic character.  The front elevation is the most--if not only--prominent and visible facade of the building in this instance. It remains intact.  Accordingly, while the structure behind the facade is gone, 99% of what the NPS regs are concerned with remains intact, "solids to voids" and "door sizes" minutiae aside.  Honestly, while I might find it appalling, I don't know that there is much in the NPS guidelines to prevent wholesale demolition of urban side-by-side buildings like this and replacement with a new structure so long as the facade remains in place.  Your HPC cohorts were right, even if it sounds like they sort of got there through a sidedoor.  

 

On 3/5/2017 at 0:47 PM, GRCentro said:

City staff and attorneys are working to develop an enforcement system with penalties more commensurate to the scale of the violation. Hopefully, the penalties for an unauthorized demolition will soon be so severe as to dissuade any “misunderstandings”.

Why bother?  You just highlighted the remedy--notice of correction.  Since there are photos of the building, you're stuck putting back exactly what you ripped down.  That's a pretty big way to dissuade people.  Here, they left standing the only character defining part of the whole thing, so the violation was (arguably) fairly minor, really.  Had they left the walls standing and ripped down every other stick of the building, I don't think there would have been any violation (building code or permitting issues aside).

Edited March 7, 2017 by x99

[x99]

16 minutes ago, MJLO said:

The corner of Wealthy and Fuller will look completely different in a year or two!  The rapid transformation of this neighborhood never ceases to amaze me.  I wonder what the chances of it being completely transformed from 131 all the way to Eastown are.

Thin, with the hospital and ICCF owning everything west of Heritage Hill.  ICCF project seems permastalled and the hospital giving up parking lots?  Yeah, okay... 

[MJLO]

2 hours ago, x99 said:

Thin, with the hospital and ICCF owning everything west of Heritage Hill.  ICCF project seems permastalled and the hospital giving up parking lots?  Yeah, okay... 

[GRDadof3]

4 hours ago, x99 said:

Thin, with the hospital and ICCF owning everything west of Heritage Hill.  ICCF project seems permastalled and the hospital giving up parking lots?  Yeah, okay... 

Permastalled? You know they're building several parts of it right now, correct? Not just the townhomes but more of the mixed-use portion? 

[joeDowntown]

11 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Permastalled? You know they're building several parts of it right now, correct? Not just the townhomes but more of the mixed-use portion? 

I was going to say, didn't we just see construction photos with pretty rapid progress on the site?

Joe

[x99]

15 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Permastalled? You know they're building several parts of it right now, correct? Not just the townhomes but more of the mixed-use portion? 

Sorry.. Not that project.  That segment is basically done (on Wealthy).  They also own the site of the old Jack's party store, the vacant lot, and both houses on the corner b/t Prospect and Lafayette.  There were drawing put out years ago and nothing ever came to fruition.  If that along with the hospital's parking lot were developed, it would make a huge difference and there could be tons of parking since the parking lot is emptied out at night.  Perfect for a multi-use situation.

Edited March 8, 2017 by x99

[GRDadof3]

3 hours ago, x99 said:

Sorry.. Not that project.  That segment is basically done (on Wealthy).  They also own the site of the old Jack's party store, the vacant lot, and both houses on the corner b/t Prospect and Lafayette.  There were drawing put out years ago and nothing ever came to fruition.  If that along with the hospital's parking lot were developed, it would make a huge difference and there could be tons of parking since the parking lot is emptied out at night.  Perfect for a multi-use situation.

Oh yeah, I asked them if they'd sell those properties years ago and they flat out said no.