Proposed Downtown Amphitheater

[joeDowntown]

Love all the negative nancy's over here. I'm sure as they got into the actual survey, site planning, etc. there were probably very good reasons for the change in orientation. Just because you want it to fit a certain way, or have "more" seats, doesn't mean it's feasible (seems like a pretty complex site with the river, flood plains, etc).

As far as the 118 spot parking lot. I can imagine with buses, trucks, security, handicap accessible parking, etc. it is necessary and probably not a huge parking lot (it literally could be five rows of parking). 

Joe

[Khorasaurus1]

44 minutes ago, Cookin_peacocks said:

What I had always heard was that was going to come after the amphitheater. How long, I don't know. 

 

But that lot isnt going to remain a lot forever. 

Every amphitheater rendering (including this one) has shown high rises on that site, though with very little detail. Presumably there are plans in the works that build something of that scale - which would mean at least two towers between 131 and Fulton along the riverfront, possibly 3-4. 

Relatedly, I actually really like the way the amphitheater sits amongst green space and doesn't try to be "urban." it's designed to be a waterfront park that can host concerts.  The sites that need good urban design are Charlie's Crab, the Fulton-Market parking lot, the southern portion of 201 Market, and nearby infill sites (like the Ellis lots at Market and Weston).  If those are urban, then the amphitheater can be a green respite along the water when not in use. 

The keys with the surrounding sites are:

• A high quality and continuous waterfront walking path, enhanced by the buildings along it. 
• Public connections between Market and the waterfront - at least two north of 131, and at least two more between the amphitheater and the railroad tracks.  They don't need to be streets, but they do need to be safe, attractive, and clearly open to the public. No superblocks.
• An active street wall along market, though that's a lot of retail to fill, so they may need to get creative. Could even be first floor residential, at least south of the amphitheater.
• Do something to mitigate the impact of 131. Is is possible to develop the park and ride lot?

Do that, and include the height that has been repeatedly included in the renderings, and this will be a city-defining redevelopment, in a good way. 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Khorasaurus1

[RiversideGR]

18 minutes ago, joeDowntown said:

Love all the negative nancy's over here. I'm sure as they got into the actual survey, site planning, etc. there were probably very good reasons for the change in orientation. Just because you want it to fit a certain way, or have "more" seats, doesn't mean it's feasible (seems like a pretty complex site with the river, flood plains, etc).

As far as the 118 spot parking lot. I can imagine with buses, trucks, security, handicap accessible parking, etc. it is necessary and probably not a huge parking lot (it literally could be five rows of parking). 

Joe

People on reddit were mad about the previous design because it faced the highway. Now people are unhappy because they cant see downtown.  I'm with you in that the people making decisions on this are looking at all of the available options and trying to optimize the design accordingly....but i am an optimist (sometimes to a fault)

[Jonesey]

1 hour ago, Khorasaurus1 said:

Every amphitheater rendering (including this one) has shown high rises on that site, though with very little detail. Presumably there are plans in the works that build something of that scale - which would mean at least two towers between 131 and Fulton along the riverfront, possibly 3-4. 

Relatedly, I actually really like the way the amphitheater sits amongst green space and doesn't try to be "urban." it's designed to be a waterfront park that can host concerts.  The sites that need good urban design are Charlie's Crab, the Fulton-Market parking lot, the southern portion of 201 Market, and nearby infill sites (like the Ellis lots at Market and Weston).  If those are urban, then the amphitheater can be a green respite along the water when not in use. 

The keys with the surrounding sites are:

• A high quality and continuous waterfront walking path, enhanced by the buildings along it. 
• Public connections between Market and the waterfront - at least two north of 131, and at least two more between the amphitheater and the railroad tracks.  They don't need to be streets, but they do need to be safe, attractive, and clearly open to the public. No superblocks.
• An active street wall along market, though that's a lot of retail to fill, so they may need to get creative. Could even be first floor residential, at least south of the amphitheater.
• Do something to mitigate the impact of 131. Is is possible to develop the park and ride lot?

Do that, and include the height that has been repeatedly included in the renderings, and this will be a city-defining redevelopment, in a good way. 

 

I noticed those building were very similar in the renderings.  People keep teasing that something is coming there.  Maybe the CAA has some kind of idea what's planned there in the future, the Devos' are involved in Grand Action 2.0 and the CAA.  Maybe those buildings  just completely speculative

If I had to guess (and dream) it would be a new tower for Accrisure HQ and a new hotel tower with lots of mixed use/parking on the first five floors (similar to the Hudson site). The rendering below almost shows more details of the towers than the amphitheater.  If AHC has plans for the area, of course they  would want an amphitheater right next to it.  Again maybe those building are just a concept. The tower looks to be taller than River House and people having been using the phrase "skyline changing" when they mention the Fulton/Market project

Overall I like it.  As far as orientation goes, I'm sure they've thought about that.  I don't think the sun will be an issue for performers with the shell and raised seating areas.  The sun is also always slightly south.  Maybe not the best view for concert goers, but at least it directs the sound toward the highway

 

 

 

Here's the site plans

Also regarding the parking it was noted in the packet of documents that future plans were to cover it

Edited May 31, 2023 by Jonesey

[GR_Urbanist]

4 hours ago, Zads said:

Huh? Look I'm not a fan of parking lots in a downtown area AT ALL. I prefer parking garages to lots. I prefer people using public transit or other means of transportation, but you can't just eliminate parking altogether. It's not logical.

Did you read the paragraph about parking?

"Developers note in the planning documents that the majority of parking needs could be met by the approximately 18,500 parking spaces located within a 15-minute walk of the amphitheater."

Adding a 116-space lot seems like a speck for a 12,000 seat amphitheater.

I guess I dont really care if it is a speck, a fresh 116 space parking lot for this in DT GR in 2023 is absurd. And when we were teased with renderings like this:

to this:

 

And now we are looking at this:

People will have to forgive me for not being a cheerleader nor give these people the "benefit of the doubt". I'd rather be "negative", and wrong, then be excited and then shocked when you go from the above to a what is being shown now and a brand new parking lot. This is what I said just a year ago:

Quote

We all are really just in the speculation phase, and this whole saga has been rife with big plans, fall-throughs, scale-ups and scale-backs, so at this point I'm cautiously optimistic that the big plans come through, but acutely aware that this is Grand Rapids, and we could just end up with a pavilion and a parking lot.

Well we now have the pavilion....and the parking lot. I hope that isnt all at this point.

Edited May 31, 2023 by GR_Urbanist

[RiversideGR]

1 hour ago, Jonesey said:

I noticed those building were very similar in the renderings.  People keep teasing that something is coming there.  Maybe the CAA has some kind of idea what's planned there in the future, the Devos' are involved in Grand Action 2.0 and the CAA.  Maybe those buildings  just completely speculative

If I had to guess (and dream) it would be a new tower for Accrisure HQ and a new hotel tower with lots of mixed use/parking on the first five floors (similar to the Hudson site). The rendering below almost shows more details of the towers than the amphitheater.  If AHC has plans for the area, of course they  would want an amphitheater right next to it.  Again maybe those building are just a concept. The tower looks to be taller than River House and people having been using the phrase "skyline changing" when they mention the Fulton/Market project

Overall I like it.  As far as orientation goes, I'm sure they've thought about that.  I don't think the sun will be an issue for performers with the shell and raised seating areas.  The sun is also always slightly south.  Maybe not the best view for concert goers, but at least it directs the sound toward the highway

 

 

 

Here's the site plans

Also regarding the parking it was noted in the packet of documents that future plans were to cover it

I’m guessing the rounded part on the southern portion of the parking area is meant to be a bus turnaround?

[Jonesey]

I guess I don't understand all of the speculation around this.  It's going to be built. I don't think the city, county and state are just going to shrug their shoulders and say "welp, never mind" after putting millions into it.  They did change the plans and they aren't going with office along Market right now, but office space is not in demand postcovid 

[cstonesparty]

2 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

I guess I dont really care if it is a speck, a fresh 116 space parking lot for this in DT GR in 2023 is absurd.

 

 

If you honestly imagine all the people working an event like that are going to park someplace else, you’re deluded.

[GR_Urbanist]

24 minutes ago, cstonesparty said:

If you honestly imagine all the people working an event like that are going to park someplace else, you’re deluded.

Well then there is no point of expecting different anywhere else DT from anyone else. Why shouldn't Walburgers not have a surface lot? or Spectrum Health? Bridge Street Market? Why cant St. Mary's not plow under some more of the surrounding neighborhood for more surface lots?
 

It isnt about them parking someplace else. It is about them realizing they are not on the E. Beltline, and not thinking that a surface lot is something you should just expect to be part of a DT project especially to the tune over over 100.

[GRLaker]

I’m not trying to be negative. I just truly believe this is a better design and fits better in an urban environment. 

[Cookin_peacocks]

I suppose I'd want to see a parking garage attached to this project. Underground garage would be awesome. 

 

The Phoenix Plaza Amphitheater is built on top of ramps and is half the size of this. Id like to think it could be done in a good way with ground floor retail and such.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Cookin_peacocks

[Khorasaurus1]

7 hours ago, Cookin_peacocks said:

I suppose I'd want to see a parking garage attached to this project. Underground garage would be awesome. 

 

The Phoenix Plaza Amphitheater is built on top of ramps and is half the size of this. Id like to think it could be done in a good way with ground floor retail and such.

I've never seen the Phoenix Center used as a positive example before. That place was an epic fail of planning and design.

I agree that there are ways to include more parking spaces on the amphitheater site that are less impactful than the proposed parkomg lot, though they're all pretty expensive and that cost would probably be passed on to taxpayers.

Ellis building a ramp at Market and Weston with ground floor retail and housing on top would provide plenty of amphitheater parking a short walk away.

[Zads]

12 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

I guess I dont really care if it is a speck, a fresh 116 space parking lot for this in DT GR in 2023 is absurd. And when we were teased with renderings like this:

to this:

 

And now we are looking at this:

People will have to forgive me for not being a cheerleader nor give these people the "benefit of the doubt". I'd rather be "negative", and wrong, then be excited and then shocked when you go from the above to a what is being shown now and a brand new parking lot. This is what I said just a year ago:

Well we now have the pavilion....and the parking lot. I hope that isnt all at this point.

You're giving off a completely different project in the top rendering. There's no amphitheater there.

Yes, you're negative about 116 spaces. Again, I don't like parking lots either, I don't want to see LOTS. But go ahead and complain, I won't stop you. I'll just harp on the negative nancy talk for you. I'm not asking to be a cheerleader for any project, just be realistic about what the market brings. To me, the fact that it's 116 spaces and not more is  BIG WIN. 

[Cookin_peacocks]

2 hours ago, Khorasaurus1 said:

I've never seen the Phoenix Center used as a positive example before. That place was an epic fail of planning and design.

I agree that there are ways to include more parking spaces on the amphitheater site that are less impactful than the proposed parkomg lot, though they're all pretty expensive and that cost would probably be passed on to taxpayers.

Ellis building a ramp at Market and Weston with ground floor retail and housing on top would provide plenty of amphitheater parking a short walk away.

I'm only using it as an example of that it could be done. Not how. Because you're right, it is a huge failure. But I wonder how much of that is location and demand. 

 

Another example is the old Market Square Arena. It spanned Market St on top of two parking garages. 

 

Again, I'm not suggesting they copy these old projects (MSA is long gone) but rather a template of the Amphitheater on top of a large, but hidden garage.

 

And if that's not possible, and it appears it's never even been a thought, instead of the surface lot, just build a ramp that wraps around the lawn, and at lawn level, add concessions and bathrooms, and maybe even luxury boxes and private clubs above that overlooking the venue.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Cookin_peacocks

[Khorasaurus1]

3 hours ago, Cookin_peacocks said:

I'm only using it as an example of that it could be done. Not how. Because you're right, it is a huge failure. But I wonder how much of that is location and demand. 

 

Another example is the old Market Square Arena. It spanned Market St on top of two parking garages. 

 

Again, I'm not suggesting they copy these old projects (MSA is long gone) but rather a template of the Amphitheater on top of a large, but hidden garage.

 

And if that's not possible, and it appears it's never even been a thought, instead of the surface lot, just build a ramp that wraps around the lawn, and at lawn level, add concessions and bathrooms, and maybe even luxury boxes and private clubs above that overlooking the venue.

Agree, those would be better parking designs. 

Though frankly I'm less concerned about the parking lot as proposed, and more concerned about the area south of the amphitheater becoming  a  huge surface lot. That land is going to be transferred from the City to the CAA, correct? And then an RFP for developers? I could see the land being triaged in the meantime by tearing down the buildings and using it as parking.  Which will then be very hard to dislodge.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Khorasaurus1

[GR8scott]

A healthy dose of constructive criticisms can go a long way. You never know who is lurking and paying attention to what people are saying to get new ideas and rethink things. I cant tell you how many times a 'glass half empty" comment made the glass fuller!

[demhem]

There are some on here that may not have been through a development design process before. Changing a design does not necessarily mean that they do not know what they are going for or that they are out of touch with the urban context. It is likely that the reality of soils, space planning, EGLE, FEMA, costs, etc. came into play when they got further into engineering and designing the site. It's easy to plop a speculative design that fits for renderings, but much of the time those designs change as physical constraints and needs are considered and explored. You don't spend a ton of money doing full engineering and design up front when you don't know if something will be funded, land will be sold, etc. It is also possible that this thing is being phased. The City might not be moving all of its facilities at once. Some of the surrounding amenities might not be built right away. Incrementalism is a part of city building. I don't want to see a surface parking lot either, but maybe that is necessary to get this going and it will be upgraded later. I'd love to ask some questions. 

[GR_Urbanist]

6 minutes ago, demhem said:

I don't want to see a surface parking lot either, but maybe that is necessary to get this going and it will be upgraded later. 

I have to remind people that parking lots in DTGR are there for a minimum of 20 years. Not one has gone in and then come out before that. Some have been there for 50-60 years The one behind the VAA has been there for almost 30. They cost too much to rip up a couple of years after. So once that goes in, that's it. So later will not be until (at least) around 2040.

[Jonesey]

Does anyone know if this is from Rosetti?

I'm just a little disappointed that there's not 3-4 stories on the street level, they mentioned that as a priority

[droonus2000]

I wonder how much the parking area is necessitated by the trucks and busses that go along with this type of entity. Most large venues have banks of trucks adjacent to the venue during events, very seldom have I seen those areas fit well into an urban fabric. Trucks are large, maybe it just makes more sense to put parking around it than a plaza? I would prefer it underground. With just the entrance ramp showing, but maybe engineering wise, it’s just not feasible? This is adjacent to a river. 

As much as I would love to see a Barclays Center style truck elevator, it would be massively costly. And quite frankly, I’m not sure it works out that well for Barclays time and cost wise. 

[whitemice]

18 hours ago, Khorasaurus1 said:

I'm less concerned about the parking lot as proposed, and more concerned about the area south of the amphitheater becoming  a  huge surface lot

This.   That parking lot is insignificant; and possibly required for various reasons (handicap parking, logistics, some arcane rules somewhere, or even a grumpy fire marshall).

The amphitheater ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, having another venue is always nice.  The river side park/trail will be very much appreciated by myself.  I'm mostly interested in what happens 'next'; what development happens around it, as this feels like it pulls the gravity of downtown to the south.

With the [finally] development in south Creston, the filling in of Monroe North, the 'old' downtown, the arena district, now Boxboard / Factory Lofts / the amphitheter / redevelopment of The Sligh ... it will no longer be a downtown one can walk across in 15 minutes.  Not to mention the growth along Bridge St, down Seward, and now [finally] on West Leonard.  That's a whole lot of development. 

I'm looking forward to the city growing again [census/population].  That means more potential stuff for everyone.   The amphitheater creates yet another district for growth to happen in [as the city is still holding a regulatory shield over the neighborhoods].

As to if people will park elsewhere .... what?   They do that today, and have been doing it for years.  Meh.

[Khorasaurus1]

2 hours ago, whitemice said:

With the [finally] development in south Creston, the filling in of Monroe North, the 'old' downtown, the arena district, now Boxboard / Factory Lofts / the amphitheter / redevelopment of The Sligh ... it will no longer be a downtown one can walk across in 15 minutes.  Not to mention the growth along Bridge St, down Seward, and now [finally] on West Leonard.  That's a whole lot of development. 

Downtown GR is becoming so physically large that I agree - soon it will be hard to call it a single downtown. It will be more of a connected network of activity nodes spread over 2+ square miles. Which is a good thing! That's what vibrant cities have. 

It's amazing to think that 50 years ago GR was content to have a "downtown" that was basically just Monroe Mall and Calder Plaza. 

[RegalTDP]

7 hours ago, droonus2000 said:

I wonder how much the parking area is necessitated by the trucks and busses that go along with this type of entity. Most large venues have banks of trucks adjacent to the venue during events, very seldom have I seen those areas fit well into an urban fabric. Trucks are large, maybe it just makes more sense to put parking around it than a plaza? I would prefer it underground. With just the entrance ramp showing, but maybe engineering wise, it’s just not feasible? This is adjacent to a river. 

As much as I would love to see a Barclays Center style truck elevator, it would be massively costly. And quite frankly, I’m not sure it works out that well for Barclays time and cost wise. 

If you look at the site plan, there are truck docks just to the right of the parking lot that will be concealed by a screen wall.  So it seems the parking lot will be separate from all that.

I really don't get the hand-wringing about the new design; I don't know what people are seeing in the old design that's missing now.  All the tall buildings in the old designs were clearly speculative.  The surface parking lot is a small footprint compared to the whole site, and they've minimized its frontage toward both the street and the river.  I definitely share the concern that surrounding lots will be converted to parking but having some on-site parking, if anything, helps alleviate that.

One question I have:  Will there still be a footbridge across the river?  The new rendering seems to show it on the bottom but it's not in the site plan.

2 hours ago, Khorasaurus1 said:

Downtown GR is becoming so physically large that I agree - soon it will be hard to call it a single downtown. It will be more of a connected network of activity nodes spread over 2+ square miles. Which is a good thing! That's what vibrant cities have. 

It's amazing to think that 50 years ago GR was content to have a "downtown" that was basically just Monroe Mall and Calder Plaza. 

YAASSS I love that about how GR is growing.  It truly is exceptional compared to how other mid-size cities are developing.  Out here in Southern California you have cities like Bakersfield, Fresno, and Riverside with populations that are growing at insane rates, but their downtowns are still basically situated around a single pair of cross-streets.  Those cities are boring AF... and no cool neighborhoods like Eastown or Midtown or Roosevelt Park outside of downtown either.

[discgrab21]

9 minutes ago, RegalTDP said:

One question I have:  Will there still be a footbridge across the river?  The new rendering seems to show it on the bottom but it's not in the site plan.

The only thing for me that is missing is what appears to be suites in the previous renderings. I think that would be a cool feature for an amphitheater.  

As to the parking lot. Okay, suppose it is there a minimum of 20 years. Do we really think that entire area will be built out by then?  Given the general pace of development and population growth in these parts, color me skeptical that such a small surface lot is going to hinder any future development or urban aesthetic for the area. .

[GR_Urbanist]

2 hours ago, RegalTDP said:

One question I have:  Will there still be a footbridge across the river?  The new rendering seems to show it on the bottom but it's not in the site plan.

LOL! I think that also falls under it's "clearly speculative". It would be best to expect it to vanish by the release of the next renderings. I mean, if they are clearly watering-down all of the other relatively easy stuff, do we seriously expect them to construct a pedestrian bridge? That part actually takes serious effort, and it hasnt been done in GR in decades. Maybe during Phase 6, 30 years from now?