Wealthy Street Mega Thread

[Telecaster Rex]

1 hour ago, KCLBADave said:

 

Right now at the KCLBA, we are seeing some pretty darn cool efficiently designed homes that builders are proposing on some of our empty lots.  I am hoping this housing shortage/crisis we are seeing will bring out more creativity to get more units per site.  If I get permission from the developers, I will share them.

Notwithstanding what's being built south of the city parking lot on Barth SE?  Because that's a stretch for "pretty darn cool"...

[ModSquad]

9 hours ago, Telecaster Rex said:

Notwithstanding what's being built south of the city parking lot on Barth SE?  Because that's a stretch for "pretty darn cool"...

That is a rental being built by the same developer that did the new construction mixed use building on Weathly next to the Old Striders/Judes/Spoonlickers building.  I will have to agree with you, not only does that look incredibly odd, I am not sure how its going to cash flow because that beast could not be cheap to build...

[x99]

15 hours ago, KCLBADave said:

I'm not so sure the modern design would not receive HPC approval.  Look at Ted Lott's place on Diamond, or the new construction home on the corner of Madison and Pleasant. Maybe not this exact design but with a few modifications to the materials choice, it might fly.

Right now at the KCLBA, we are seeing some pretty darn cool efficiently designed homes that builders are proposing on some of our empty lots.  I am hoping this housing shortage/crisis we are seeing will bring out more creativity to get more units per site.  If I get permission from the developers, I will share them.

It wouldn't.  The eyesore on Diamond (with due apologies to Ted Lott) was approved in a different era, before the Secretary's Standards were substantially revised with an aim toward providing guidance that would prohibit intrusive modernist buildings into historic districts.  The house on Madison is fairly traditional except for the horrible siding choice.  I will say this:  It's polarizing, and very few people in the neighborhood like it.  Visitors not infrequently ask how and why such a thing is present in a historic district.  I think those few bad miscues by HPC made neighbors wise to the need to stand up for their neighborhoods to stop them from being littered with eyesores.  I hope.

[x99]

16 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I think x99 was being facetious. I hope so anyway.

Partially.  Many small ranch houses are scarcely distinguishable from a doublewide anyway.  I suspect you could work with the manufacturers to come up with something that has a hinged roof design that looks very nice, at half the cost of a stick build.  Modern manufactured housing really is very nice first rate housing on the inside, and that's 90% of what counts when we're talking about providing affordable housing.  

[Ted]

21 hours ago, x99 said:

It wouldn't.  The eyesore on Diamond (with due apologies to Ted Lott) was approved in a different era, before the Secretary's Standards were substantially revised with an aim toward providing guidance that would prohibit intrusive modernist buildings into historic districts.  

Hey, Ryan!

We've been through this before, haven't we?

There have been no changes to the Secretary's Standards since we did our project. You're wrong. 

 

[GR_Urbanist]

I personally love the house on Diamond. And yes I live in the neighborhood. I honestly would loved to see a few houses, empty lots, and boarded-up building on Wealthy be demolished and replaced with similar structures. Better to have modern homes with lots of on-street transparency than the real run-down eyesores that continue to fester throughout the district.

Also, I have to seriously ask what bored person actually was offended by this home? Did they by any chance ask about the poorly-kept "historical" homes next door to it? Were they appalled by the nasty structures that line Wealthy that are all but abandoned because the owners are either too broke or incompetent to utilize them as anything other than to store trash?

i certainly hope that any energy in the area is focused on cleaning up buildings, and cleaning out slumlords as fast as possible, because that is why we have this historical district, not to drive out people with the money and want to build something in a place that 15 years ago had nothing going for it.

And they better get their priorities straight because we have 2 years before all of the money, energy and attention is going to get sucked over to Bridge St. where they arent going to nit-pick over how historical the siding looks.

[thebeerqueer]

16 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

I personally love the house on Diamond. And yes I live in the neighborhood. I honestly would loved to see a few houses, empty lots, and boarded-up building on Wealthy be demolished and replaced with similar structures. Better to have modern homes with lots of on-street transparency than the real run-down eyesores that continue to fester throughout the district.

I couldn't agree more. 

18 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

And they better get their priorities straight because we have 2 years before all of the money, energy and attention is going to get sucked over to Bridge St. where they arent going to nit-pick over how historical the siding looks.

I couldn't agree less.

[GR_Urbanist]

Not saying that because I hope I'm right. I'm saying that because I'm afraid I may be.

 

Uptown just happen to be the only "it" area in GR for the past few years due to no one else really rivaling the energy, investment, and demographic influx.

Bridge St. is about to upend that without the weight of the pesky red tape of an HPC mucking things up for developers.

Hope I'm wrong.

[Telecaster Rex]

20 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

Not saying that because I hope I'm right. I'm saying that because I'm afraid I may be.

 

Uptown just happen to be the only "it" area in GR for the past few years due to no one else really rivaling the energy, investment, and demographic influx.

Bridge St. is about to upend that without the weight of the pesky red tape of an HPC mucking things up for developers.

Hope I'm wrong.

With all due respect, I'm getting kind of tired of this old argument that Grand Rapids can only have one "it" area.  Investment continues in Uptown, with plenty still in the pipeline; and demand for commercial lease space in Uptown remains incredibly strong, even as more and more comes on line along Bridge Street and other nearby parts of the Westside.

Plus, Uptown and Bridge St. are not even the only potential "it" areas in town (see: Creston, North Monroe, etc.).  

This isn't two regional malls competing for national chains - for the most part investment in Uptown and Bridge Street have been local dollars, and it's not like everyone's just going to close up shop in Uptown and move to the new "it" area.  Things aren't that portable.  

Not to mention that the customer demographics in Uptown will likely remain somewhat different than those on Bridge Street, with Bridge being closer to the college and drawing a somewhat younger, less family-oriented demo.  Plus, it's my personal belief that people vastly underestimate the size of the customer base for ALL of urban Grand Rapids, and have for quite some time.  

And finally, this all has NOTHING to do with HPC mucking things up.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Telecaster Rex

[GR_Urbanist]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster Rex said:

With all due respect, I'm getting kind of tired of this old argument that Grand Rapids can only have one "it" area.

I didnt say it can only have one, only that it did. That's just how it was for several years.

Now investment is happening in multiple areas where they were not 4 yeas ago.

4 minutes ago, Telecaster Rex said:

Plus, Uptown and Bridge St. are not even the only potential "it" areas in town (see: Creston, North Monroe, etc.). 

Well, ok. But major attention is heading to Bridge thanks to Rockford's major push there including landing Meijer, which will lead to even more spin-off developments. No one said that these other areas have nothing going for them, but Bridge (which includes W. Fulton + GVSU) is obviously where the vast majority of the non-DT neighborhood development is heading the next few years. They have room and more options as to what they can build compared to Uptown. It will at best put a number of plans over here on the back burner for sure.

9 minutes ago, Telecaster Rex said:

Not to mention that the customer demographics in Uptown will likely remain somewhat different than those on Bridge Street, with Bridge being closer to the college and drawing a somewhat younger, less family-oriented demo.

Well now it is since home prices are now sky-high. Few Gen-Ys can afford to live over here these days. Hopefully developer's dollars, or some of the retail, dont leave the area to chase after them. I wouldn't blame them if they did though.

12 minutes ago, Telecaster Rex said:

And finally, this all has NOTHING to do with HPC mucking things up.

The original plans for the Kregel building were scrapped because they refused the developers permission to put windows (they thankfully relented) in the blank upper 3rd of the building, the old Project Rehab property is still undeveloped because the HPC rejected the perfectly reasonable plans for both corners, leaving an empty field and 2 unused buildings. The Lee & Birch store were severly restricted on altering the exterior of a building that only a nut would call historic. The old D&G building is virtually stuck because redeveloping it to HPC standards is almost impossible without spending a fortune, and a number of buildings and homes along Wealthy that really should be torn down are "protected" and will likely languish for a long time because few developers will waste time or money just to rehab something that is little better than a windowless shack.

[Telecaster Rex]

29 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

 

Well now it is since home prices are now sky-high. Few Gen-Ys can afford to live over here these days. Hopefully developer's dollars, or some of the retail, dont leave the area to chase after them. I wouldn't blame them if they did though.

 

Agreed.  However the customer demographic includes quite a bit more than just those living in the neighborhood.  If it just included neighborhood residents, most commercial districts GR would still be lacking for customers.

30 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

The original plans for the Kregel building were scrapped because they refused the developers permission to put windows (they thankfully relented) in the blank upper 3rd of the building, the old Project Rehab property is still undeveloped because the HPC rejected the perfectly reasonable plans for both corners, leaving an empty field and 2 unused buildings. The Lee & Birch store were severly restricted on altering the exterior of a building that only a nut would call historic. The old D&G building is virtually stuck because redeveloping it to HPC standards is almost impossible without spending a fortune, and a number of buildings and homes along Wealthy that really should be torn down are "protected" and will likely languish for a long time because few developers will waste time or money just to rehab something that is little better than a windowless shack.

Again, agreed on a lot of these points - especially about the homes along the north side of Wealthy between James and Charles.  These properties are in significant need of investment that they likely won't receive; and residential use is no longer the "highest and best" use for these properties.  Despite all the good about how we use historic preservation in Grand Rapids, I think there's a lot we do wrong as well - like using historic preservation regulations to stop any and all demolition in historic districts despite evidence that historic district/neighborhood designations were never intended to be a handicap to new development.  There are a lot of places throughout the US that prove that historic regulations don't have to be hinderance to new development and/or reuse of existing commercial structures - we just need to follow some of those examples.

My point was that development and demand for commercial space in Uptown continues in spite of the HPC requirements, because people and paying customers WANT to be in Uptown.  Admittedly, as a resident of Uptown I'm biased but you can find objective proof of all of this as well - increased property values, increasing rental rates, etc.  Again, not all of these are good things, but they do have some objective value.

[x99]

6 hours ago, Ted said:

There have been no changes to the Secretary's Standards since we did our project. You're wrong. 

You're right. It was the  the interpretive guidance. They changed the photos and replaced almost all of them with stuff that basically looks like buildings around them.  There was an explanation they published on the side about how they didn't have to change the Standards since they were simply being misinterpreted, and they hoped the new pictures would help.  But I'm probably preaching to the choir given the recent and refreshing conservatism of the proposals around Wealthy and Heritage Hill.  

[x99]

4 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

IThe original plans for the Kregel building were scrapped because they refused the developers permission to put windows (they thankfully relented) in the blank upper 3rd of the building, the old Project Rehab property is still undeveloped because the HPC rejected the perfectly reasonable plans for both corners, leaving an empty field and 2 unused buildings. The Lee & Birch store were severly restricted on altering the exterior of a building that only a nut would call historic. The old D&G building is virtually stuck because redeveloping it to HPC standards is almost impossible without spending a fortune, and a number of buildings and homes along Wealthy that really should be torn down are "protected" and will likely languish for a long time because few developers will waste time or money just to rehab something that is little better than a windowless shack.

I mostly agree with you, although some of your facts are a little off.  The old Project Rehab site was approved on the second try, and the D&G dump across from Wealthy is not stalled due to HPC.  That also was approved.  Was it approved in a way that makes sense?  No. But the way NPS wants people to deal with roof additions is bizarre.  It's hard for HPC to say the Park Service is wrong.  That could open Pandora's box.  That said, they basically did that on Kregel.  There's not a snowball's chance that what they allowed there was "technically" correct.  As for the "protected" tear downs?  Arguably, they could be torn down.  You just need to know the right magic buttons to push, have a plan to replace them with something better, and be prepared to burn up some cash on appeals since I doubt you could jam it through HPC.  But I may be wrong.  Maybe they would let a bunch of dumpy old houses go if someone came up with the right project.  The unfortunate thing is you need to thread a bit of a needle, since historic rules are very bad at making value judgments about what is worth preserving and what is not, and ripping stuff down is a delicate issue.  Nothing's perfect.

[MJLO]

4 hours ago, x99 said:

  The unfortunate thing is you need to thread a bit of a needle, since historic rules are very bad at making value judgments about what is worth preserving and what is not, and ripping stuff down is a delicate issue.  Nothing's perfect.

The point of Historic preservation is to "preserve" the past, not lock us in it.  I have been beating this drum for the 12 years I have been on this website.  There needs to be a modification to the HPC's charter that gives more leeway for discretion and common sense.   The example of keeping a windowless building windowless for the sake of historic preservation hurts the city and it's neighborhoods more than it helps to preserve anything.

[x99]

11 hours ago, MJLO said:

The point of Historic preservation is to "preserve" the past, not lock us in it.  I have been beating this drum for the 12 years I have been on this website.  There needs to be a modification to the HPC's charter that gives more leeway for discretion and common sense.   The example of keeping a windowless building windowless for the sake of historic preservation hurts the city and it's neighborhoods more than it helps to preserve anything.

Originally, the point actually was to lock in stuff of actual historic significance.  The problem is 1) that communities rather openly and brazenly designated all sorts junk of buildings in order to co-opt historic preservation as a tax credit driven economic development program, 2) the NPS went along with this, and now 3) districts are gummed up by rules at the state and federal level. Here's a good explanation of why there is no room for discretion or common sense:  http://www.keepeastmorelandfree.org/property-reclassification-correction-of-details/.  The short summary is that once you have a historic district, everything is covered and locked into perpetual stasis as long as it is old enough and original enough.  What can you do about it?  Not much, other than pare down a district.  Whether that could/should be done on Wealthy, I don't know.  Maybe.

Edited April 21, 2017 by x99

[mpchicago]

I know it's not beer, but this probably came about because of GR Beer.  GR lands on another top 10 ten list, with some pretty big hitters.

GR - Top 10 Craft Spirit Destinations

 

 

Edited April 24, 2017 by mpchicago

[EastownLeo]

Founders opening Detroit taproom?

http://www.wzzm13.com/mb/amp/money/business/report-founders-brewing-co-plans-detroit-expansion/433817383

[Pattmost20]

1 hour ago, EastownLeo said:

Founders opening Detroit taproom?

http://www.wzzm13.com/mb/amp/money/business/report-founders-brewing-co-plans-detroit-expansion/433817383

It's a smart move on their part. But it was always kind of a bragging point for GR.

[scottythe1nonly]

there will finally be drinkable beer in that sad city!

[EastownLeo]

52 minutes ago, Pattmost20 said:

It's a smart move on their part. But it was always kind of a bragging point for GR.

 

Are taprooms, in this situation, a good profit driver?

Or is it mainly the marketing element that adds the value.

I mean GR has its share of outside breweries coming in, but where does the money flow in relation to cost?

[ctpgr34]

Another article with pics of the building- http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2017/04/founders_brewing_company_repor.html#incart_river_home

 

[thebeerqueer]

14 minutes ago, EastownLeo said:

 

Are taprooms, in this situation, a good profit driver?

Or is it mainly the marketing element that adds the value.

I feel in this situation, it's both but we can't be sure until the full plans and scale (capacity, food service, music, etc ...) are announced. 

In a purely selfish way, I kinda' loved that the only taproom was in GR. I know it won't detract from the awesomeness of the main taproom but has me feeling slightly conflicted. 

[EastownLeo]

14 minutes ago, thebeerqueer said:

I feel in this situation, it's both but we can't be sure until the full plans and scale (capacity, food service, music, etc ...) are announced. 

In a purely selfish way, I kinda' loved that the only taproom was in GR. I know it won't detract from the awesomeness of the main taproom but has me feeling slightly conflicted. 

When there is only one. People come to GR to experience it.  If there is another location, do they just go to the closest one?

I feel this way with Hopcat.  Before we used to have people coming to see "The Best Beer Bar in the USA" Now they just visit the local one.

Edited April 25, 2017 by EastownLeo

[GR_Urbanist]

It's a cath-22.

The more they expand, the more they make, and then that's more they pour (pun) back into GR. Maybe a real DT corporate HQ building? Maybe lots of donations for local projects like Amway and Meijer has?

But the more they expand in other cities, it could mean they have less loyalty to GR. We have a number of big companies, with business all over the region and planet, whose corporate HQs are located in some out of the way suburban/rural place, and Founder's could easily do the same if they outgrow their DT location.

Edited April 25, 2017 by GR_Urbanist

[localtalent]

On 4/25/2017 at 9:13 AM, EastownLeo said:

 

Are taprooms, in this situation, a good profit driver?

Or is it mainly the marketing element that adds the value.

I mean GR has its share of outside breweries coming in, but where does the money flow in relation to cost?

When you make the beer and sell it in your own facility, it's WAY more profitable than moving it through a distributor.

Also, Founders doesn't have a very ambitious food menu, so the taproom will be quite inexpensive to operate.