Why does the city have such low height restrictions?

[arcturus]

Is the airport too close?  The helipad?  Views of our hills  or the 'castle?'

[whitemice]

There is no "reason".  The zoning code exists primarily to codify the cultural preferences of a fading generation; the elite's term for this is "neighborhood character". 

I don't believe our height limitations are in the least bit unusual.  You will find roughly the same arbitrary copy-n-pasted regulatory slop in most American cities.

Edited February 26 by whitemice

[GR_Urbanist]

I recall back in the early 2000s, with regards to north Monroe, One of the city commissioners was afraid of that area becoming filled with "concrete canyons" without these height restrictions. Didn't make sense then, and still makes no sense. 
 

If only we had that issue because of all of the development we were apparently expecting to be raining on us. Right now we seem to have a height restriction of about the thickness of parking lot asphalt in too many places.

[Cookin_peacocks]

What is the current height restrictions? Where are they in place? What have they affected? 

 

This city needs some height to it. 

[whitemice]

32 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

Right now we seem to have a height restriction of about the thickness of parking lot asphalt in too many places.

Yep, the majority of the city is limited to 35ft without special dispensation.  All LDR zones are 35ft, or 45ft with SLU or commercial use.

38 minutes ago, GR_Urbanist said:

If only we had that issue because of all of the development we were apparently expecting to be raining on us

Perhaps the failure of these policies is sinking in; as it is one of the reasons development has not happened. 

[walker]

Back in the early seventies when I was still a mail carrier, I took a night class in urban planning at Grand Valley's Thomas Jefferson College through a community outreach program  called the Urban Institute.  Neither Thomas Jefferson College or the Urban Institute exist anymore.  Anyway, what the class mostly consisted of was going and visiting various architects and people active in city planning.  The class only had six or seven students, all non-traditional like myself.  One night we went to city hall and visited with someone from the city planning office, don't remember who.  Someone asked this same question about the height  restrictions.

The planner we talked to somewhat despairingly blamed it on the former city planner and architect of the sixties urban renewal, John Paul Jones.  He said that Jones believed in this idea that Grand Rapids was something called a prairie city and shouldn't have tall buildings.   Whatever a prairie city might be, it is hard to think of Grand Rapids with its valley and hills as being on a prairie.    I don't know if Jones was really the source of the height restriction or not, or if this was just his idea or  if this prairie idea  was just something fashionable  then in city planning circles.

Jones came to town as an expensive consultant from New York on urban planning and then got himself the job as the city planner and moved here.  I went to high school with his daughter, Paula Jones, although I didn't know her well.

Garrett Ellison almost ten years ago wrote a long article about Jones and his part in the sixties urban renewal.  Nothing about the prairie restrictions though:

MLIVE: Urban Renewal - John Paul Jones

         

Edited February 26 by walker
fixed typo

[arcturus]

1 hour ago, whitemice said:

I don't believe our height limitations are in the least bit unusual.  You will find roughly the same arbitrary copy-n-pasted regulatory slop in most American cities.

It doesn't seem to be an impediment to cities half our metro size with much taller skylines.

[Khorasaurus1]

19 hours ago, arcturus said:

It doesn't seem to be an impediment to cities half our metro size with much taller skylines.

There's no height restriction downtown, though. The 12 story muddle is caused by the market, not zoning.

I agree with your point when it comes to neighborhood infill and the housing crisis, though. There should be more opportunity for 3-4 story buildings in outlying areas (as well as a larger area in the core with no height limit).

[whitemice]

8 minutes ago, Khorasaurus1 said:

There's no height restriction downtown, though.

There is a, rather complicated, Height Overlay District which covers much of the CC zoning (Section 5.8.02); so there is kinda-sorta no height restriction downtown.  The overlay district covers much of what would be included in many definitions of downtown. 

What happens now in the Front St area [recently rezoned], if anything, will be interesting.  Monroe North is no longer much of a bell weather as Corewell has hoovered up the best parts. 

I don't understand how 3 - 4 story buildings would create any kind of issue [other than sufficient density to support neighborhood businesses].  There are no shortage of grand old houses with 2.5 stories; 3 - 4 stories really isn't much taller from the street.   Chicago neighborhoods have their main corridors lined with 3 - 4 story buildings and two store behind, it is a classic development pattern.

[MJLO]

On 2/27/2024 at 7:39 AM, Khorasaurus1 said:

There's no height restriction downtown, though. The 12 story muddle is caused by the market, not zoning.

Agreed.  In terms of tall "tall" buildings I think the city needs to have multiple 400 footers actually make it to market before we worry about height restrictions not being adequate.  In fairness to GR there's just not a whole lot of height happening in general, in cities relative to its market size right now.  I actually think Grand Rapids does ok in this department, especially in terms of density.    Down here in Louisville there's quite a bit of construction happening, but almost nothing over 5 stories, and almost all outside of downtown.  Downtown GR has more activity by comparison.   I think we are about to enter a period where cities aren't going to see a whole lot of ambitious high rises.   We may be looking at a bunch of 4-7 story infill for a while.

[GRLaker]

If OKC can have the tallest building in America, there’s no reason we can’t have taller than 12 stories 

[whitemice]

12 hours ago, MJLO said:

I actually think Grand Rapids does ok in this department, especially in terms of density

Agree.  Also the amphitheater and stadium being built without on-site parking also increases amenity density.

12 hours ago, MJLO said:

I think we are about to enter a period where cities aren't going to see a whole lot of ambitious high rises

Agree. Both economic narrative [regardless of its veracity], costs, labor shortages, and high interest rates all lean against height.

12 hours ago, MJLO said:

 We may be looking at a bunch of 4-7 story infill for a while.

I am completely totally OK with 4 - 7 story infill.   Four story buildings are sufficient to create a robust urban environment, support urban infrastructure, and local/neighborhood businesses.  While neighborhoods of Chicago are corridors lined with 4 - 7 story buildings and otherwise 2 - 3 story structures.  And those neighborhoods (generally) have all the stuff outlined in a 15-minute city.

[MJLO]

13 hours ago, GRLaker said:

If OKC can have the tallest building in America, there’s no reason we can’t have taller than 12 stories 

OMG No other city in the country has a napoleonic complex like OKC.  That skyline already looks ridiculously off balance with the 800ft Devon tower dwarfing everything around it.  Add a 2000 footer and there will be no denying that the entire state has phallic compensation issues.  

I pray Grand Rapids keep its pragmatic approach with mid rise infill which does wonders for the cities character, vs employ the OKC “we’re not insecure at all” model lol. 

[arcturus]

14 hours ago, GRLaker said:

If OKC can have the tallest building in America, there’s no reason we can’t have taller than 12 stories 

There's dozens if not more suburbs that exceed anything downtown GR has.  

[Jonesey]

21 hours ago, GRLaker said:

If OKC can have the tallest building in America, there’s no reason we can’t have taller than 12 stories 

That sounds like fun during a tornado

[Jonesey]

28 minutes ago, Jonesey said:

That sounds like fun during a tornado

Could also be a phallus complex lol

[GRLaker]

13 hours ago, MJLO said:

OMG No other city in the country has a napoleonic complex like OKC.  That skyline already looks ridiculously off balance with the 800ft Devon tower dwarfing everything around it.  Add a 2000 footer and there will be no denying that the entire state has phallic compensation issues.  

I pray Grand Rapids keep its pragmatic approach with mid rise infill which does wonders for the cities character, vs employ the OKC “we’re not insecure at all” model lol. 

OKC looks like a sprinkling of buildings in a parking lot. I’d never want to model GR after them. To make their city even more off balance, that 2,000 foot Johnson isn’t even going to be in the city core. There will be like a half a dozen parking lots between it and the rest of downtown. So weird.