920 Cherry, ICCF/Blodgett Home and Fairmount Square

[dragt]

The boundaries are what they are, that ship has sailed. My point (and opinion) is that the standards and the preservation districts that they protect create and maintain value and that is not a coincidence. They have created stability and as a result the Eastbrooks of the world see potential. This potential is not occurring at the same level in non-historically designated neighborhoods in the city, again no coincidence. That is the only point that I make.

I am not trying to slam poor people or make any socio-economic statements. Do not take this as a slam on the people south of my neighborhood. I know many of them and I know that many of them are dilligently trying to repair the "heritage" of their neighborhood, despite the persistance of others to do "home improvement" projects.

Many of the people with, as you say "lack of standards", are no different than the people on the "other side of the boundaries". They have the same desires for quality places. The only standards that they lack are those offered by the designated districts, they certainly have the self determination and have fought for the quality places...but they do lack the key tool and as a result are not able to get the full effect of their efforts.

I am by no means wealthy, so please do not make assumptions like that. There are many people within districts who are not wealthy. There are also crummy landlords in districts and people with less than the ability to adhere to the standards. Few folks really want to spend $6,000 to $8,000 dollars on custom garage doors, so they just live with the rotted ones they have. I can not afford storm windows, so I live without. I have inherited cobbled together ceilings, doors and floors along with leaking roofs and leaking water pipes. All of which I have neither the time nor the money to adequately repair. I am no different than the poverty that you think I am isolated from, although I do have the relative protection of the standards.

I also would never ever consider replacing lead painted wood with plastic through some half assed program. I have three children living in the midst of, in some cases, 10 coats of lead based paint. Instead of replacing it, I am painstakingly stripping it room by room, down to the wood and then repainting it. It amazingly takes almost no money. Just a lot of time and effort. If I can do it anyone can do it, but of course the easy way out is to just slap up some $50.00 vinyl window that does not even fit in the original opening. I do not need the standards for myself, I need them for others. I will do the right thing.

As a point of reference, I would be apprehensive about living in East Grand Rapids and while there are many things that would lead to that apprehension, the most notable are that the neighbors have the ability to do piss poor home improvement projects, like replacing perfectly good double hung wood windows with vinyl slider windows and the fact that a certain developer who shall remain nameless is consistently destroying the context of EGR one house at a time, by tearing down small contextual homes and replacing them with the latest greatest mcmansion. It makes no difference to me about the wealth / socio-economic issue.

[GRDadof3]

I think that having standards that are as specific as roof pitch to be x/y, windows to be q, siding to be o will create disastrous results.

I think that a simple meeting with neighbors, prior to having a design worked out, would have made things very clear and would not have wasted the time that has been invested to this point.

I may be overstepping my assumptions here, but I do NOT think that the neighborhood would be opposed to flat roofed buildings, with aluminum windows, steel steps to a stoop (not porch) and some combination of concrete and metal panels. As long as they are well designed and well built. In regards to the well built, that is pretty easy to ascertain. As far as the well designed, while it seems rather subjective, I can almost guarantee that most people would know it, if they saw it, especially those in this neighborhood.

[ModSquad]

GR Town Planner, you said:

I also would never ever consider replacing lead painted wood with plastic through some half assed program. and but of course the easy way out is to just slap up some $50.00 vinyl window that does not even fit in the original opening.

What do you mean by a half assed program? The Get the Lead Out Program and the City's Lead Hazard Reduction Program has been going round and round with the HPC over window replacement. The City's program has never asked the HPC to approve simple vinyl windows. As a quick side note, there is no such thing as a $50.00 window. The City program has tried to get the HPC to approve numerous products that would meet the spirit of the regulations upheld by the HPC. The HPC has consistently taken the stance that they do not want windows that have the appearance of historic. They want windows that are historic. Once quick example they will not approve wood windows that have wooden mullions. They require actual wooden paned glass. This is extremely cost prohibitive and pretty much make the lead program not work in historic districts.

As someone that heads up a organization that does a myriad of urban neighborhood revitalization programs, I do have to honest and say your "half assed" comment is offensive.

[Mark Miller]

I'm not taking issue with the intent behind the Districts. I REALLY am glad that the houses in these districts can't be destroyed by an underfunded improvement project. And I really wouldn't want to see townhomes go up at 920 that felt like the burbs.

I just wonder if a little less wholesale disdain for all things "replacement" or solutions other than those accepted by the HPC's is in order? For instance, below is a pic of house recently rehabbed by Lighthouse Comm. It uses vinyl exstensively and I think the end result is an improvement for the neighborhood. I'm just wondering, would this be considered an example of the use of a "half assed" improvement program?

Or what about situations where years cannot be devoted to the loving restoration that you are doing (bravo BTW). The house I just took on is under condemnation because the previous landlord failed to deal with the lead paint problem. So, we can't just move in and deal with the problem a little at a time (though I'd love to). I'm afraid i might have to replace my windows with quality vinyl windows that do fit the original openings. And unless I can convince the health department to let me deal with the exterior over time, I may have to do a "full assed" job of siding it with plastic.

Again, not trying to fight (really), or invalidate your opinions or experieces. I love the HD's and appreciate the hard work it takes to maintain them! Just wondering if some of your comments are exagerations to make a point or if you really consider all projects like the one below misguided?

[Mark Miller]

GR Town Planner, you said:

I also would never ever consider replacing lead painted wood with plastic through some half assed program. and but of course the easy way out is to just slap up some $50.00 vinyl window that does not even fit in the original opening.

What do you mean by a half assed program? The Get the Lead Out Program and the City's Lead Hazard Reduction Program has been going round and round with the HPC over window replacement. The City's program has never asked the HPC to approve simple vinyl windows. As a quick side note, there is no such thing as a $50.00 window. The City program has tried to get the HPC to approve numerous products that would meet the spirit of the regulations upheld by the HPC. The HPC has consistently taken the stance that they do not want windows that have the appearance of historic. They want windows that are historic. Once quick example they will not approve wood windows that have wooden mullions. They require actual wooden paned glass. This is extremely cost prohibitive and pretty much make the lead program not work in historic districts.

As someone that heads up a organization that does a myriad of urban neighborhood revitalization programs, I do have to honest and say your "half assed" comment is offensive.

[twoshort]

This is an improvement to something, but whatever the comparison is, it is relative. It is an improvement to a burned out crack house (not saying that is what it was) it is also an improvement to the alternative of demolition and the resulting empty lot.

[PRCH]

Before:

Define 'bad neighborhood.'

[Mark Miller]

Before:

Define 'bad neighborhood.'

[GR Jackson]

Lead paint is a serious issue though, sometimes stripping it only exacerbates the threat.

[GRDadof3]

I know what kind of neighborhood it is. The question was in reference to the door, which says to me "stay the hell out", which either means that something rotten is happening inside or that something bad is happening outside.

So there are no bad neighborhoods, there are only bad people inclined to do bad things AND inappropriate doors.

[twoshort]

Or some people don't like all glass front doors for privacy issues, especially women. And they don't like a solid front door because they can't see the front porch at all. However, I'm not a big fan of the single pane in the middle solution, because it looks like a cyclops to me.

I think that house is much improved. It maybe needs some shutters?

[ModSquad]

I think the door is bad too, although I think (as I think back) every house I've lived in has had a solid front door), so maybe I'm biased. And yeah, the windows need something. Trim or shutters or something.. but lets not forget, the house isn't finished (and won't be until a buyer is found).

[dragt]

Well, I feel like we all understand each other a little better after this little tangent We don't see eye to eye or have all the same values but that's ok with me. I just wanted to know what was genuine opinion and what was mabye hyperbole... At any rate, thanks for being honest but not hostile.

To get us back on the subject of this thread... Does anyone have access yet to the design Eastbrook submitted? Anyone know if they are committed to this development no matter what it takes or will they walk if they don't get to do it their way?

Anyone who lives in the neighborhood have a dream plan for these townhomes? Something you would really like to see if it were all up to you? Be specific if you can, I'd really be interested in hearing it.

[GRDadof3]

Well, I feel like we all understand each other a little better after this little tangent We don't see eye to eye or have all the same values but that's ok with me. I just wanted to know what was genuine opinion and what was mabye hyperbole... At any rate, thanks for being honest but not hostile.

To get us back on the subject of this thread... Does anyone have access yet to the design Eastbrook submitted? Anyone know if they are committed to this development no matter what it takes or will they walk if they don't get to do it their way?

Anyone who lives in the neighborhood have a dream plan for these townhomes? Something you would really like to see if it were all up to you? Be specific if you can, I'd really be interested in hearing it.

[ModSquad]

Knowing a little about Eastbrook, once they set their eyes on a project they pretty much will do whatever it takes to get it going (including meeting with the neighborhood).

Dave, what about picking one of the deep red colors from the bricks and doing that color shutters around the windows? Just an idea. Might bring a splash of color against all that beige and brown. The tough one will be that center window, because there isn't much room between the window and the sidewall.

[Veloise]

The problem is that I really do not like fakey shutters. I like the idea of picking up the brownish red from the bricks though.

Maybe some really cool window boxes under each front window.

[andrew.w]

The problem is that I really do not like fakey shutters. I like the idea of picking up the brownish red from the bricks though.

Maybe some really cool window boxes under each front window.

[markrumsey]

You couldn't be more right, it has everything to do with the people who make up the neighborhood. The high standards of preservation are very noble and I'm glad there are places like the Hill, but it also garauntees a certain amount of socio-economic segregation. The houses a few blocks south of you are worth less (and have thus been treated as such), largely because of who has lived there and greedy landlords. If preservation is so important and vinyl is so evil why aren't we as a community doing more to clean up the "heritage" of toxicity left to us by previous generations. Why not have city funded crews safely stripping and repainting our housing stock before it's all covered in vinyl? Because the get-the-lead out program pretty much garauntees that homes like those a few blocks south of you will get covered in vinyl.

Say what ever you want, but whether it's intended or not, the historic districts create a haven for those with the means to maintain the "standards". It's good you have such insulation from the poor folk a few blocks south of you, shame on them for their lack of "standards".

I'm not trying to pick a fight just trying to express what it feels like from the other side of your boundaries...

[GRDadof3]

Historic Preservation is not socio-economic snobbery. Historic Preservation helps stabilize communities. A by product of a stable community is that it becomes more desireable and property values increase. As a neighborhood we are working at preserving the diversity of our community which includes a program to develop a land trust which will create permanently affordable home ownership opportunities. Their are many good intentioned people who have a mis-understanding of the complexity of poverty in an urban environment. Fixing and restoring houses also creates prosperity which creates jobs. Improving neighborhoods creates demand which supports businesses which create local jobs. Increasing property values increases tax revenue which pays for roads and schools. A neighborhood improving itself can not be blamed for the hardship that another neighborhood is faced with.

If you really want too talk about socio-economic segregation than you need to look at the demographics comparing the urban core versus the suburban rings.

[dragt]

Historic Preservation is not socio-economic snobbery. Historic Preservation helps stabilize communities. A by product of a stable community is that it becomes more desireable and property values increase. As a neighborhood we are working at preserving the diversity of our community which includes a program to develop a land trust which will create permanently affordable home ownership opportunities. Their are many good intentioned people who have a mis-understanding of the complexity of poverty in an urban environment. Fixing and restoring houses also creates prosperity which creates jobs. Improving neighborhoods creates demand which supports businesses which create local jobs. Increasing property values increases tax revenue which pays for roads and schools. A neighborhood improving itself can not be blamed for the hardship that another neighborhood is faced with.

If you really want too talk about socio-economic segregation than you need to look at the demographics comparing the urban core versus the suburban rings.

[markrumsey]

And you won't find those "living near the margins" in Ada. And I do believe that it is a very vital part of the conversation we are having here. The city and its suburbs function as a single economic unit. Urban dwellers take on the most responsibility in this system, paying higher tax rates and using less infrastructure per housing unit than their suburban counterparts. What you are saying is that the socio-economic stratification of our society only exists where it is most visible- i.e. on Madison between Hall & Fulton. In reality a much greater disparity exists on Fulton between Cascade and Fulton Heights.

Just because the Hill is more diverse than say.. Hudsonville means nothing to the conversation we were having. We were talking of the specific very real divide that exists between between Hall and Fulton on Madison Ave. As I said repeatedly, I am not accusing Historic Preservation of socio-economic snobbery. I am simply observing that an unintented result of HD's is a certain amount stratification. It's great that you recogonize this and are working to keep some housing 'affordable'. But like or not the standards of the Historic Districts will also mean that those living near the margins will not find themselves living in the Hill. Your very right, it's complex, and I am by no means trying to suggest that we as city would be better off with out the HD's. I am not calling everyone who lives in the Hill a snob, please don't hear me that way.

And, I have a feeling that the HD's won't be the only places our city will face this scenario. The west side is heading in this direction very fast. The answer is not and cannot be to not fix homes but neither is the answer to simply ignore or pretend the issue is there.

[markrumsey]

Back on Topic:

I find it curious that this thread talks about the project getting "slammed." It has not been slammed, we, as a neighborhood, have just asked to have a place at the discussion table, which is where we are at right now. It is a matter of perspective, Eastbrook wants to do the right thing, the neighborhood wants the right thing - we are just looking at it from slightly different angles. Currently neighborhood reps, Eastbrook and a few members of HPC are all at the table talking in good faith.

On the use of Vinyl: Opposition to vinyl is about historic character and it is about community character and values. Vinyl has a toxic life cycle - toxic production, toxic off gassing and toxic disposal. Its production is relegated to poor communities where companies can pollute at will causing long-term environmental and health effects. So, opposition too vinyl is not all about how it looks, it is about social justice and environment responsibility and those core values held by a community.

On the site: Personally I think this plan, and the prior plan proposed by Bazzani, are mediocre at best. This site provides a rare opportunity to do something innovative and new but we don't have players in GR that will step up to the plate and do it. So, we settle and end up with some more Mr. Potato Head boxes with doo-dads. One of the most common things I have heard about this project is that it is "not as bad as it could be." I think that is a fairly sad commentary on the state of residential architecture in our city. We could have brownstones here, we could have a mix of designs, we could narrow lot site condos, we could have many things better than big dumb boxes.

[GRDadof3]

Back on Topic:

I find it curious that this thread talks about the project getting "slammed." It has not been slammed, we, as a neighborhood, have just asked to have a place at the discussion table, which is where we are at right now. It is a matter of perspective, Eastbrook wants to do the right thing, the neighborhood wants the right thing - we are just looking at it from slightly different angles. Currently neighborhood reps, Eastbrook and a few members of HPC are all at the table talking in good faith.

On the use of Vinyl: Opposition to vinyl is about historic character and it is about community character and values. Vinyl has a toxic life cycle - toxic production, toxic off gassing and toxic disposal. Its production is relegated to poor communities where companies can pollute at will causing long-term environmental and health effects. So, opposition too vinyl is not all about how it looks, it is about social justice and environment responsibility and those core values held by a community.

On the site: Personally I think this plan, and the prior plan proposed by Bazzani, are mediocre at best. This site provides a rare opportunity to do something innovative and new but we don't have players in GR that will step up to the plate and do it. So, we settle and end up with some more Mr. Potato Head boxes with doo-dads. One of the most common things I have heard about this project is that it is "not as bad as it could be." I think that is a fairly sad commentary on the state of residential architecture in our city. We could have brownstones here, we could have a mix of designs, we could narrow lot site condos, we could have many things better than big dumb boxes.

[Eridony]

[GRDadof3]

Where are these things? They're horrible! The front looks good, but what is with the gap between each of them? They should all be wall-to-wall. Not to mention only the front are brick and all the exposed side walls are made out of cinder blocks.