The Grand River?! You mean GR has a River?

[jonathan.jam]

You could even extend building C so that it makes an L-shape along I-196. Put a parking ramp on the lower floors and residential on the floors that extend above the highway.

[Allison Slater]

With retail esablishments in Dad's plan on the ground floor that can face both the street and the park, this could become an incredible space.

[GRDadof3]

City said they plan to buy the whole thing for park land, so you might want to attend the hearing if you'd like to see something like this in the plans. March 10th, 7pm at Innovation Central HS on Fountain Street.

[Quercus]

If the Grand River is to be a destination, the existing sheer flood walls need to come out; this would be a great area to demonstrate how to do so. A more accessible river was an important component of the City's updated Master Plan, but it has yet to be implemented.

If I had to choose between completely building out the parcel or creating green space by way of the acquisition outlined above, I'd take the latter. But I agree with those saying there could be a happy medium.

I like the idea of smaller-scale buildings lining Monroe. Seems like there would be plenty of space to do so. What's the flood wall height that FEMA is pushing? 15 feet? The parcel is 250-320 ft wide east to west. Should be plenty of space to tier / grade down to the water with 75-100 ft of developable space to the east like GRDad mentioned. Liner buildings along Monroe would also likely give some folks "ownership" of the park in their backyard, which is usually a good thing.

[GRDadof3]

If the Grand River is to be a destination, the existing sheer flood walls need to come out; this would be a great area to demonstrate how to do so. A more accessible river was an important component of the City's updated Master Plan, but it has yet to be implemented.

If I had to choose between completely building out the parcel or creating green space by way of the acquisition outlined above, I'd take the latter. But I agree with those saying there could be a happy medium.

I like the idea of smaller-scale buildings lining Monroe. Seems like there would be plenty of space to do so. What's the flood wall height that FEMA is pushing? 15 feet? The parcel is 250-320 ft wide east to west. Should be plenty of space to tier / grade down to the water with 75-100 ft of developable space to the east like GRDad mentioned. Liner buildings along Monroe would also likely give some folks "ownership" of the park in their backyard, which is usually a good thing.

 

 

This article today got me thinking about this again.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/02/10_million_land_buy_for_grand.html

 

Going back to this, assuming developers would construct three buildings of 5 - 7 stories, or about 150,000 sf total.

 

Assuming mostly residential with ground floor retail, the numbers would look like:

 

About $2.5 Million in land sale revenue

Converting that $2.5 Million into at least $30,000,000 in appreciated property value

$15,000,000 in assessed value/TV = $450,000 in annual property tax

Avg 150 new households at $80,000/each = $180,000/year in city income tax

300 new residents spending at least $3000/year downtown = $900,000 in retail spending

 

Over 10 years that's a cash infusion of $16 million into the city's economy, vs $0 for a park alone.

 

And it would still give the city a new 2.5 acre park on the riverfront. I know the city is probably hesitant to enter into more developer partnerships, but they could actually just structure it so the city doesn't have any financial risk. Have the land buyers lined up before they even close on the property with the current owners and just flip it. They could even add on a small profit for doing the dirty work of splitting the parcels.

 

 

 

 

Something similar was proposed on the Streetcar Study. The architects that did the study thought it was a perfect opportunity to mix public green space on the river with a "neighborhood" bordering it.

 

It wouldn't even have to be this large.

 

 

If you build a park with very few people who "live" near it, it becomes a park that nobody uses.

 

[mpchicago]

I understand how the county would like to make a huge profit on this property, but it seems that it would be in the public interest to sell the property to the city for what the county paid for it. Especially if they just plan on making it a park, accessible not only to city residence, but county residence as well. Maybe MSU would consider donating their property as a gesture of good will.   

 

But I agree, why not at least develop the property that abuts the street, with public access points. Generate some tax dollars, while opening up more public waterfront space. Seems like a huge lost opportunity if they don't consider it. 

[GRDadof3]

I understand how the county would like to make a huge profit on this property, but it seems that it would be in the public interest to sell the property to the city for what the county paid for it. Especially if they just plan on making it a park, accessible not only to city residence, but county residence as well. Maybe MSU would consider donating their property as a gesture of good will.   

 

But I agree, why not at least develop the property that abuts the street, with public access points. Generate some tax dollars, while opening up more public waterfront space. Seems like a huge lost opportunity if they don't consider it. 

 

 

I read that too. The county should figure out what their carrying costs were, add it to what they spent, and sell it for that price, at most. They shouldn't be looking to make a "profit" off the city.

[wingbert]

What will probably happen is that the parking commission will lobby for control then turn around and unload it at cost to Ellis Parking and parking commissioner Mike Ellis will shrug and say, "what conflict of interest???"

[GRDadof3]

Well this is interesting. I've been keeping my eye on the old Ryder Truck facility on the West Side (of the river) after that LIHTC project fell through and it appears to have just gone under contract a day ago. Wonder what the plans are? It was listed at a pretty decent price ($1.45 Million for 3.1 acres). I also have wondered if this falls in the FEMA flood wall enhancement area? Will there have to be a berm/higher flood wall added to the property?

 

There's a really cool project in Denver that I stumbled upon clicking through articles, and it would be a cool concept for this site. It's called "Taxi" and it's in a very remote industrial area but not far from downtown Denver. It used to be the corporate HQ of Yellow Taxi, and they took the old mechanics garage (that looks like Founders Brewery used to look) and made it into office space, as well as build 5 additional mixed-use buildings and a community pool.

 

http://www.taxibyzeppelin.com/

http://www.zeppelinplaces.com/#projects

 

Leave the Ryder truck depot in place and turn it into a restaurant, commercial space, community center and build around it. It even has an area that could be a covered patio. The views of the Boardwalk across the river are spectacular.

[ModSquad]

There has been a group of us that have wanted to purchase this site for years.  Our vision was to put in a commercial kitchen and build in some flexible some flexible space for out door concerts and events.  The real kicker to our plan was to develop the site as a food truck park.  There are a ton of cities across the US that have really successful models for this.  The park would include a partnership with a local micro brewery so beer and wine could be served there and enjoyed while patronizing the food trucks.  Alas, we were long on ideas and extremely short on funds...

[mpchicago]

There has been a group of us that have wanted to purchase this site for years.  Our vision was to put in a commercial kitchen and build in some flexible some flexible space for out door concerts and events.  The real kicker to our plan was to develop the site as a food truck park.  There are a ton of cities across the US that have really successful models for this.  The park would include a partnership with a local micro brewery so beer and wine could be served there and enjoyed while patronizing the food trucks.  Alas, we were long on ideas and extremely short on funds...

 

That would have been awesome.   How is it that Traverse City has a great food truck spot, but GR can't seem to put one together.  I recall one planned for Wealthy and Atlas, where Orion is putting up those apartments. Or was that some sort of food shipment container park?    Obviously the apartments are a better fit there, but I love the these "food truck parks."  I've been to the one in TC, pretty cool.

 

http://www.thelittlefleet.com/

Edited February 26, 2015 by mpchicago

[ModSquad]

I certainly think this concept would fit well somewhere long the river

[GRDadof3]

There has been a group of us that have wanted to purchase this site for years.  Our vision was to put in a commercial kitchen and build in some flexible some flexible space for out door concerts and events.  The real kicker to our plan was to develop the site as a food truck park.  There are a ton of cities across the US that have really successful models for this.  The park would include a partnership with a local micro brewery so beer and wine could be served there and enjoyed while patronizing the food trucks.  Alas, we were long on ideas and extremely short on funds...

 

I hear ya Dave. Plenty of ideas and short on funds.

 

Even my "Taxi" idea is great on paper but hard to sell to investors/financiers. I'll be interested to hear who bought this property. I actually know of one specific person who has been looking at this property too but I'd be surprised if he pulled the trigger on it. We shall see..

[GRDadof3]

More development talks heating up, now on Market Avenue. I guess I agree with the city that without a contract in hand to discuss, the city moving off the Market Avenue site is a huge cost to incur just based on speculative development. Or should the city clear out, clear the land of the industrial buildings, and put it all on the market? I can see the tea-party comments and Esmerelda Pumphandle on Mlive now...

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/02/chicken_or_egg_problem_for_gra.html

 

Interesting, most of the poll takers think the city should just move out and market the property, even if it's costly.

[ModSquad]

In my opinion, I think the City's move from this site is inevitable.  I think they should be planning, budgeting, scheduling, and preparing to move now.  In doing so, it would signal to the developer/investor world that this site will become available sooner rather than later and allow them to begin making their plans.  It is a huge wasted asset to have industrial service buildings along the river so close to downtown when A) these buildings could be put anywhere else within the City limits and B) Downtown is busting at the seams.

 

That being said the MLive trolls will have a hey day with this when it does actually happen.

[GR_Urbanist]

This is a tough one. If they move, clear the site, and then sell it, are we going to get a really good development in a reasonable amount of time, or are you going to have a dirt lot that will end up just being used for parking for the next decade until the city desperately sells to anyone because Prime Development Co. says it's ready to go, but then backs out for [insert reason here] that developers have at the last minute.

 

If they stay, then how much more will it cost the city to move, and demolish? Will we get a super low offer because it isnt ready for development at the time of the sale?

 

I would be very cautious. This is a huge chunk of prime land, and I dont trust developers. They will get the property with all types of made-up big plans. Plans that will fall through conveniently. They now have the land to sit on for years to either leave unused to make a big payday later on selling to someone else, or to turn into a parking lot to make money because the "market isnt what we thought, and we have to do something".

[ModSquad]

This is a tough one. If they move, clear the site, and then sell it, are we going to get a really good development in a reasonable amount of time, or are you going to have a dirt lot that will end up just being used for parking for the next decade until the city desperately sells to anyone because Prime Development Co. says it's ready to go, but then backs out for [insert reason here] that developers have at the last minute.

 

If they stay, then how much more will it cost the city to move, and demolish? Will we get a super low offer because it isnt ready for development at the time of the sale?

 

I would be very cautious. This is a huge chunk of prime land, and I dont trust developers. They will get the property with all types of made-up big plans. Plans that will fall through conveniently. They now have the land to sit on for years to either leave unused to make a big payday later on selling to someone else, or to turn into a parking lot to make money because the "market isnt what we thought, and we have to do something".

Let me make my point a little bit finer.  My suggestion is that the City begin the process of moving.  There is a ton of moving pieces and parts that need to fall in place in order to make this happen, including determining a budget, determining the value of the vacated site, finding a way to pay for the new site and the infrastructure on it, finding a new site or sites to purchase, etc.  I believe that if developers see that the City is serious they too will get serious.  In fact I would contend that the City does not need to clear the site, whoever purchases it would take that responsibility.  Of course the City should never approve a sale of the site that did not include a rather developed site plan, feasibility study, and most important proof of financing. 

 

Right now it feels like there is a bit of a stand off, or as the article states a chicken and the egg scenario.  I think the City needs to make the first, reasonable and calculated, first move.

[GRDadof3]

This is a tough one. If they move, clear the site, and then sell it, are we going to get a really good development in a reasonable amount of time, or are you going to have a dirt lot that will end up just being used for parking for the next decade until the city desperately sells to anyone because Prime Development Co. says it's ready to go, but then backs out for [insert reason here] that developers have at the last minute.

 

If they stay, then how much more will it cost the city to move, and demolish? Will we get a super low offer because it isnt ready for development at the time of the sale?

 

I would be very cautious. This is a huge chunk of prime land, and I dont trust developers. They will get the property with all types of made-up big plans. Plans that will fall through conveniently. They now have the land to sit on for years to either leave unused to make a big payday later on selling to someone else, or to turn into a parking lot to make money because the "market isnt what we thought, and we have to do something".

 

Development is very tricky work and there are a lot of moving parts, any one of which can make a project a no-go. Most developers I know would love to keep a project secret until it can really happen, so as not to disappoint people or tip off competitors, but it's hard to do in this digital age.

 

Any disposition of city land requires that developers enter into a development agreement, with strict requirements from the city. They don't usually just plop a piece of land on the MLS.

[wingbert]

Development is very tricky work and there are a lot of moving parts, any one of which can make a project a no-go. Most developers I know would love to keep a project secret until it can really happen, so as not to disappoint people or tip off competitors, but it's hard to do in this digital age.

 

Any disposition of city land requires that developers enter into a development agreement, with strict requirements from the city. They don't usually just plop a piece of land on the MLS.

 

 

Duane Faust sees your tricky work and raises you one farcical expectations.

Edited March 2, 2015 by wingbert

[GRDadof3]

Duane Faust sees your tricky work and raises you one farcical expectations.

 

For every Duane Faust there are 20 developers like 616 or Locus or CWD et al getting things done.

[GRDadof3]

When GRForward presented their findings around the river study, with help from a group called Stoss, they did a big presentation on it at one of the city meetings. If someone can find it online somewhere, there's a pint at Founders in your future.

[GRDadof3]

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://grcity.us/design-and-development-services/Economic-Development/EDC/EDC%2520Agenda%2520Packet%252011-6-14.pdf&sa=U&ei=iCsBVemyGuW1sQTS34GoDw&ved=0CAoQFjAD&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGA-bsWF-rUdZJIZ-p9dwRGyiVlYw

This? I'll take a case of Monster if I'm right.

 

Close, but it doesn't have the image I was told to look for. Oh well.

[GRDadof3]

Next step in the river restoration project: Sea Lamprey Barrier, $10,000,000.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/03/grand_river_rapids_us_army_cor.html

[GRDadof3]

When GRForward presented their findings around the river study, with help from a group called Stoss, they did a big presentation on it at one of the city meetings. If someone can find it online somewhere, there's a pint at Founders in your future.

 

The Press got a copy. 

 

I didn't realize the city had their eyes on the Post Office property to turn it into a park. I hope they realize by continuing to restrict land supply they're going to continue to push land prices sky high, which squeezes out all but the wealthiest developers, which drives up rent and condo prices. 

 

I don't understand why they can't do both, develop riverfront parkland AND set aside part of it for development. It would actually help pay for the parkland with increases tax revenues, money which the city doesn't have. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was also this idea, much like the development zones that I suggested for North Monroe and the 6 acres along the river. The city ignored that idea and is moving forward with turning the whole thing into parkland.

 

 

 

Oh hey, look at that. GRForward should've just aggregated 10 years of UrbanPlanet posts and they could've skipped the expensive consultants.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a link to the article and presentation:

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/03/20_concepts_for_the_future_of.html?ath=1a90132b90933db8002100e5723c045a#cmpid=nsltr_strybutton

[RegalTDP]

Oh, please don't turn the Post Office space into a park.  Why would you take such a ripe parcel for development and turn it into something that generates no revenue?  Who wants to hang out at a park beneath I-196?  With the back of Olds Manor facing you?  Why would we want the back of Old's Manor facing the river?