Corewell Health - Monroe North Campus

[joeDowntown]

I think Mlive did pretty good reporting in this article. Sounds like the city is at least reluctant. What I don’t understand is Corewell is saying that they need to knock down the buildings to replace parking that will be lost by a residents building and market rate housing project. But the original plan showed liner buildings, etc with housing and east of Ottawa wasn’t even in the original plans. So what parking are they replacing? Now I’m feeling skeptical.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2023/10/corewell-health-wants-to-demolish-5-buildings-to-make-room-for-parking-for-new-downtown-campus.html

Joe

[Cookin_peacocks]

20 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

I think Mlive did pretty good reporting in this article. Sounds like the city is at least reluctant. What I don’t understand is Corewell is saying that they need to knock down the buildings to replace parking that will be lost by a residents building and market rate housing project. But the original plan showed liner buildings, etc with housing and east of Ottawa wasn’t even in the original plans. So what parking are they replacing? Now I’m feeling skeptical.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2023/10/corewell-health-wants-to-demolish-5-buildings-to-make-room-for-parking-for-new-downtown-campus.html

Joe

Maybe this is too simple, but grant permission for surface lots and make stipulations that half must be built out within 5 years, and the other half within 10.

[whitemice]

14 hours ago, Cookin_peacocks said:

Maybe this is too simple, but grant permission for surface lots and make stipulations that half must be built out within 5 years, and the other half within 10.

The Planning Commission / The City has no ability to make that kind of deal, practically.

1.) Corewell agrees

2.) Corewell doesn't follow through, for, of course, reasons: economic downturn, escalating costs, blah blah woof woof

3.) The city then does what?  Nothing, as there is nothing they can do.

Any corporation promising to The City to do something in the future is utterly completely totally absolutely meaningless. 

[Khorasaurus1]

2 hours ago, whitemice said:

The Planning Commission / The City has no ability to make that kind of deal, practically.

1.) Corewell agrees

2.) Corewell doesn't follow through, for, of course, reasons: economic downturn, escalating costs, blah blah woof woof

3.) The city then does what?  Nothing, as there is nothing they can do.

Any corporation promising to The City to do something in the future is utterly completely totally absolutely meaningless. 

Technically they could barricade the parking lots and forbid Corewell from using them. But there's no way they would actually follow through with that. 

[joeDowntown]

Unfortunately, it's going to be tough. They could tell them to bring concrete proposals forward before allowing them to demolish (and do it in stages if the 2 projects are multiple years apart). But then they could just let the buildings sit and rot while they wait. It'll be interesting to see what they do.

Joe

[GR_Urbanist]

I'm glad the city is expressing some doubts. I hope they have been hearing from a lot of concerned people. I know it took me 4 drafts to get a letter conveying my thoughts on it (without ranting).

If nothing else, the city should not allow any lots there to be paved. They have to be all gravel. That way they can be easily dug up at a moment's notice. That Corewell will either have to develop something on them or maintain the gravel. 

[demhem]

Strong Towns GR has taken a stance against the project: https://www.strongtownsgr.org/strongtowns-gr-journal/corewell-health-parking?fbclid=IwAR3HkD4lrqe-kZd10MkeZ-DgwRQx-vnZmeuyHdznki5VZSbxz8Gz5vmMu1w 

EDIT: I'm not affiliated with Strong Towns GR but this was shared with me and I found it relevant to the discussion. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by demhem
clarification

[GR_Urbanist]

Yes!  Let's go, everybody!

Still time to get a quick email in. You have nothing to lose from some civic participation.

[joeDowntown]

They tabled the request from Corewell to demolish 4 properties and build surface parking. I watched the entire Planning Commission meeting and have to say I was really impressed by all of the commissioners and the balancing act of rejecting a proposal from an organization that has dumped a ton of money into that area. Really impressed (they also had 60 letters in opposition). 

Sounds like Corewell didn't do enough outreach to the community. So they would like Corewell to engage with Neighborhood groups (NOBEL (Belknap), Creston, DowntownGR, Rapid, Mobile GR and residents in the area). They also want to understand the plans, potential for a phased approach, and overall more concrete information. They mentioned not following GRForward, or any of the other master plans that have been worked on over the years. 

All in all, really happy with the planning commission. I think we'll end up getting a much better project from Corewell that addresses many of the concerns voiced here. 

Joe

P.S. One of the commissioners basically confirmed the soccer stadium on the DASH lots three or four times during the conversation. Oops!

 

[joeDowntown]

A couple of interesting points I forgot to mention:

1. They talked about blighted buildings and that they wanted to demolish them before winter as they had to maintain them, remove graffiti, etc. I wanted to shout at the screen that they were occupied before Spectrum bought them. Then one commissioner (can't remember who) got on the mic and said "well, they may not have all been pretty, but I'm pretty sure they were all occupied before you bought them". You can't buy a building like the one that housed Eastern Kille, then call it blighted, when you are the one that emptied it.  Well done.

2. Corewell mentioned it in passing, but the commission didn't pick up on it (or didn't have time to discuss with the other objections), that it would be "easy" to park at one of the surface lots, and walk to the hospital. It was pushed as a benefit (not having to park one place for a meeting, then get in your car and go park in another, you could easily walk to the hospital. Nobody called them out as a potential overflow lot for people working at the hospital (which would make it much easier to keep them surface lots for the long-term instead of redevelopment). 

Hope that Corewell comes back with a solid plan that addresses the concerns, but that is something I would question at the next meeting if they still come back with a similar plan.

Joe

[GR_Urbanist]

Good job, team! We really made a statement and got the ear of the city for something really important to us.

It isnt over, but savor the win!

[Zads]

Here's a story from MLive on the decision to table it.

“I see this as a progression,” Shannon said. “I don’t see it as these are going to be surface parking lots forever.

However, planning commissioner Laurel Joseph — who described Corewell’s request as “extreme” — countered Shannon’s point, saying, “they could be if we approve this.”

 

Love that the commissioners stood up against Corewell and surface lots. Let's hope they come back with something better.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2023/10/this-request-is-extreme-corewell-health-proposal-to-demolish-buildings-for-parking-lots-tabled.html

[joeDowntown]

Yeah, at face value, I could understand what Susan Shannon was trying to say (basically, any surface lot should be seen as a prime location for development), where most of the others were saying don’t take long term plan and aspirations as gold. Show us, and even then, we can’t give you free rein. 

Again, I feel like it was a really good discussion, and good to see government in action. I don’t think a single commissioner was any development, but I got a real sense that they want it done right, and they aren’t going to rubber stamp the project just because developers have the best intentions of building something at some point. 

Im very pro-development (as are most of us), and this felt like a really intelligent decision to try and get it right  

Joe

[whitemice]

10 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

I could understand what Susan Shannon was trying to say (basically, any surface lot should be seen as a prime location for development), where most of the others were saying don’t take long term plan and aspirations as gold. Show us, and even then, we can’t give you free rein.

Yes.  These "blighted" buildings were emptied by Corewell Health.  Commissioner Shannon said more than once that we need to trust them.  She never referenced the plans which the complaints cited.

Buying buildings in a neighborhood, emptying them, calling them blighted, and then saying "well, they are obsolete and nothing will happen to them unless you let us do what we want" is not about trust; that's holding a neighborhood hostage.  And when you do it downtown you are holding the entire city hostage. Michigan government at every level has been whitewashing this kind of hostage taking as "economic development" for far too long.

Trust would be built by the City Commission taking all the plans that have been adopted in the last ~20+ years, following through on them with clear policy, and then we would have clear guidelines which apply to everyone.  The strategy of talking big about plans and then just dumping everything into Special Land Use is the antithesis of trust building process.  It's bad governance, it is a failure of leadership.

13 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

Corewell mentioned it in passing, but the commission didn't pick up on it (or didn't have time to discuss with the other objections), that it would be "easy" to park at one of the surface lots, and walk to the hospital

Funny.  I heard that and was: "What?" That's a terrible walk.  Crossing Plainfield, crossing Michigan, up and down the hill.  If someone has a car in that parking lot, they are going to drive to the hospital.

I say that as one of the least Motorist people I know.  Medical Mile is a pedestrian show.

11 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

It isnt over, but savor the win!

It is being savored.

[Cookin_peacocks]

If corewell was smart, they would include a concrete plan of a residential tower near its headquarters that would begin virtually immediately. Market it for their professionals that work next door and start from there. 

[joeDowntown]

1 hour ago, Cookin_peacocks said:

If corewell was smart, they would include a concrete plan of a residential tower near its headquarters that would begin virtually immediately. Market it for their professionals that work next door and start from there. 

I wouldn't be surprised if this does happen. They mentioned they were already in talks with developers (and any new building would have built in parking for the building, which further muddied the water on why they needed a bunch of surface lots). I think Corewell is going to have to come back (after chatting with associations, getting buy in, etc) and layout a solid master plan. Instead of the sort of "just trust us, we don't want a sea of surface lots (but in the interim, let us build a sea of surface lots)." 

Joe

[Cookin_peacocks]

1 hour ago, joeDowntown said:

I wouldn't be surprised if this does happen. They mentioned they were already in talks with developers (and any new building would have built in parking for the building, which further muddied the water on why they needed a bunch of surface lots). I think Corewell is going to have to come back (after chatting with associations, getting buy in, etc) and layout a solid master plan. Instead of the sort of "just trust us, we don't want a sea of surface lots (but in the interim, let us build a sea of surface lots)." 

Joe

Corewell has the chance to help build a really connected and vibrant neighborhood. In which their presence is a positive. They need to be made aware of this opportunity.

[joeDowntown]

1 hour ago, Cookin_peacocks said:

Corewell has the chance to help build a really connected and vibrant neighborhood. In which their presence is a positive. They need to be made aware of this opportunity.

Yep, the best thing they could do is build a vibrant, walkable neighborhood that their employees enjoy hanging out in (whether at lunch, or after work). That is 100% what makes downtown more interesting to workers than being in an office park.

Joe

[Jonesey]

On 10/27/2023 at 10:45 AM, Cookin_peacocks said:

If corewell was smart, they would include a concrete plan of a residential tower near its headquarters that would begin virtually immediately. Market it for their professionals that work next door and start from there. 

My thoughts exactly, especially with how difficult it is to recruit medical staff these days.  Downtown, walkable housing at cost would be a huge plus.  Go big too!  It will fill up immediately.

[GR_Urbanist]

After watching the full PC video on YouTube (because what else to do on a Saturday evening?). A few observations:

1) The multiple references to the "green space" as if it means something. It will be just a dirt lot with grass seed that will become more parking in short order. They make it seem like it is Central Park. Like who on Earth would use it for anything recreational?

2) The Commissioner that was hopelessly naive in thinking that these lots were totally going to be built on anytime soon. If Corewell did build on them, then where are all of their employee's cars going to go?

3) Why didnt Corewell not anticipate the number of people working at this facility early on and build their ramps to accommodate that?

4) The "fellow housing" component Corewell floated isn't even fully funded, a real red flag that to me just means it has a good chance of falling through and thus leading to them coming back asking to turn even that plot into yet another parking lot.

In fact there are no dates on any of the residential components, but they sure wanted to get the parking lots in by winter.

5) Corwell's people seriously not understanding that DT GR isnt the E. Beltline and seeming confused that parking lots =/= urban vibrancy.

5b) Are they seriously under the impression that people will walk from there to the top of the hill?

5c) I really wish they would stop referring to it as a "campus". Even calling it a "campus in an urban core"! Could have fooled me...

6) No one hates Corewell for being there, and this isnt some anti-car thing. Everyone just doesnt want to sacrifice a significant area for perpetual used car lots that are not even open to the public, and will be empty after 5 and on the weekends.

7) All the commissioners giving pushback were solid and it felt like they really read all of the oppositional points. Tabling it was a good end at this step, but it needs to come up with something far better than what is proposed.

 

[cstonesparty]

22 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

6) No one hates Corewell for being there, and this isnt some anti-car thing. Everyone just doesnt want to sacrifice a significant area for perpetual used car lots that are not even open to the public, and will be empty after 5 and on the weekends.

Definitely some anti-car dialogue in this thread and within Strong Towns advocacy.  I'm pro-transit but realistic that car usage has to be accommodated and there's  a significant component here who don't live within that reality...

[Zads]

1 hour ago, cstonesparty said:

Definitely some anti-car dialogue in this thread and within Strong Towns advocacy.  I'm pro-transit but realistic that car usage has to be accommodated and there's  a significant component here who don't live within that reality...

I think what I've gathered from this thread is that we are fully against parking lots, especially when it comes to tearing down buildings for parking lots. It's realistic to know that parking will need to be part of the project, but plan for it, build it so it's more cohesive to a neighborhood instead of an office park in the suburbs. In this case, it would make sense to put a parking garage on those lots but on top should be residential with ground floor retail.

[Khorasaurus1]

16 hours ago, Zads said:

I think what I've gathered from this thread is that we are fully against parking lots, especially when it comes to tearing down buildings for parking lots. It's realistic to know that parking will need to be part of the project, but plan for it, build it so it's more cohesive to a neighborhood instead of an office park in the suburbs. In this case, it would make sense to put a parking garage on those lots but on top should be residential with ground floor retail.

Hell, I don't think it would be the end of the world to put a parking garage without those things (or even two of them!) at Bond and Fairbanks, in order to free up space for housing and retail along Ottawa, Trowbridge, and Newberry.  It's OK to have A Streets and B Streets in a neighborhood. 

What is not OK is just completely eliminating blocks from the urban fabric with huge surface lots. 

[whitemice]

21 hours ago, cstonesparty said:

Definitely some anti-car dialogue in this thread and within Strong Towns advocacy.

As someone who has sat at a table with just about everyone involved: can you please provide citations of where you get that from?  Did you read the letters of opposition - and thus what they/we are objecting to?

21 hours ago, cstonesparty said:

I'm pro-transit but realistic that car usage has to be accommodated and there's  a significant component here who don't live within that reality...

I live in a reality where municipalities can be expected to follow through on the plans they have developed with community input and then formally adopted.

Funny thing is, I agree with Commissioner Shannon.  Yes, Surface Parking lots in an urban area should be viewed as potential future development sites.  Turn a truly blighted block into a parking lot, sure. Going from that statement to knocking down buildings to build block after block of surface parking lots requires some significant cognitive travel.  And not seeing that distance is just being thick headed.

Also, again, the city adopted plans which specified standards concerning these things.   The Strongtowns letter did nothing but ask the city to do what it said it was going to do.

[WMrapids]

If Corewell really wanted to contribute to the vibrancy of the neighborhood, they could just look  to their neighbor at 601 Bond (ground level retail, parking above that and at the top whatever else they want to include).