Jump to content

Broadway and 1st Condos

civitas

By civitas
in Grand Rapids

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Mark Miller Whistle-Stop

Mark Miller

Posted
Posted

The space that contains the E-W sidewalk is currently 15 feet wide. It would need to be atleast another 13 feet wide to allow for the apparatus to go through (and to extend its outriggers), which would result in a net loss of units, while compromising the layout shown on this thread (not the developer's layout), because the spatial definition of the northern courtyard would be diminished by what would amount to a street bisecting it.

The developer's layout (approved site plan) meets the fire department and traffic safety requirements with no major tweaks. It also happens to be the plan that the developer wants to build and the plan that they believe can be marketable and sold to homebuyers, while also being profitable (which is one of the reasons they are doing the project). Many of the issues being discussed here were looked at by the developer and reviewed with the city at design team meetings. Many scenarios either were not feasible due to public safety requirements (alley configurations) or because of financial issues (rehabilitation of the church).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexPKeaton Burg

AlexPKeaton

Posted
Posted

Perhaps the developer could add a couple stories to some sections to recover and lost units and add a little variation to the design of the project.

What I really like about the idea of steps up to a townhouse besides privacy for the main occupants, it gives the possiblity of a lower-level apartment without being totally underground. Or a daylight basement if not an entirely separate unit. Regardless, a lower-level unit would be smaller and cost a lot less, which could add some variation in income levels and people living in the development, while also adding more units and density. It looks like they're planning for plenty of on-street parking, so a little more density shouldn't be a problem.

-nb

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Miller Whistle-Stop

Mark Miller

Posted
Posted

Perhaps the developer could add a couple stories to some sections to recover and lost units and add a little variation to the design of the project.

What I really like about the idea of steps up to a townhouse besides privacy for the main occupants, it gives the possiblity of a lower-level apartment without being totally underground. Or a daylight basement if not an entirely separate unit. Regardless, a lower-level unit would be smaller and cost a lot less, which could add some variation in income levels and people living in the development, while also adding more units and density. It looks like they're planning for plenty of on-street parking, so a little more density shouldn't be a problem.

-nb

Sometimes this is referred to as an English Basement. Some really good examples in D.C. It is a good idea for the reasons that you mention, particularly adding the option of an accessory rental propery, which not only allows for a variety of incomes renting the space, but also allows more people to have the ability to pay the mortgage, because their monthly payment is off-set by rental income.

As townhouses become more accepted in GR, we can only hope that this option is exercised more often. We need more townhouses to come on line in order to densify the city and for the type to become more of an excepted norm. The ones Ted is doing on Wealthy and Diamond could have this option, I think. They are much closer to a historic urban rowhouse/townhouse typology than the units being proposed for this development, simply because of this.

I am quite certain that they do not have a proposed "English Basement", but from the way they are designed they could. These will be exciting ones to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Whistle-Stop

Ted

Posted
Posted

As townhouses become more accepted in GR, we can only hope that this option is exercised more often. We need more townhouses to come on line in order to densify the city and for the type to become more of an excepted norm. The ones Ted is doing on Wealthy and Diamond could have this option, I think. They are much closer to a historic urban rowhouse/townhouse typology than the units being proposed for this development, simply because of this.

You are correct. We are doing this on ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DwntwnGeo Hamlet

DwntwnGeo

Posted
Posted

I don't want to stray off topic, but real quick, how many sq ft does each unit have?

The RapidGrowth newsletter states around 1400 sqft.

"Each three-story home will have a private yard, a walkout deck on the third level, and an optional garage. While a variety of floor plans are available, the size of each home will be approximately 1,450 square feet. Prices start at around $214,000 for a 2-bedroom townhouse."

Here is the complete article:

http://www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/developmen...egrdns0921.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twoshort Town

twoshort

Posted
Posted

The RapidGrowth newsletter states around 1400 sqft.

"Each three-story home will have a private yard, a walkout deck on the third level, and an optional garage. While a variety of floor plans are available, the size of each home will be approximately 1,450 square feet. Prices start at around $214,000 for a 2-bedroom townhouse."

Here is the complete article:

http://www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/developmen...egrdns0921.aspx

I meant Ted's townhouse :) thank you though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veloise City

Veloise

Posted
Posted

Cut and paste is a beautiful thing. 45 minutes while watching TV and chewing gum.

So it wouldn't be real difficult to add the architect firm title block, stamp and seal? Then slip-sheet it into the offishul offices? And, um, provide it to the A&E firm's server??

(What I am suggesting is completely illegal and I am not suggesting that anyone actually do this.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
civitas Burg

civitas

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The space that contains the E-W sidewalk is currently 15 feet wide. It would need to be atleast another 13 feet wide to allow for the apparatus to go through (and to extend its outriggers), which would result in a net loss of units, while compromising the layout shown on this thread (not the developer's layout), because the spatial definition of the northern courtyard would be diminished by what would amount to a street bisecting it.

The developer's layout (approved site plan) meets the fire department and traffic safety requirements with no major tweaks. It also happens to be the plan that the developer wants to build and the plan that they believe can be marketable and sold to homebuyers, while also being profitable (which is one of the reasons they are doing the project). Many of the issues being discussed here were looked at by the developer and reviewed with the city at design team meetings. Many scenarios either were not feasible due to public safety requirements (alley configurations) or because of financial issues (rehabilitation of the church).

If the developer's plan gets built as it is today, it would be a good thing for the city. The rest of this debate has been constructive criticism aimed at making things even better. In that context I'll offer one last observation....

The primary goal of development is to maximize profit, which done by balancing quantity, quality and cost. Maximizing quantity doesn't always yield maximum profit. I get the impression that these are not experienced developers and they are focused on quantity. They may want to consider value in a more comprehensive way. For instance, someone should explain to them the difference in value between the 26 interior units that face each other (less value) and the 26 with street frontage (more value).

These interior buildings are 34 feet apart and 40' high in a corridor that is 300' long. That ratio creates more of a tunnel than a great space and the value of 50% of the total units are compromised.

249713707_eb05806c0d.jpg

A "U" shaped alley limits the less valuable interior units to 16 while cutting the length of the space in half. Now it feels a little more like an outdoor room than a tunnel and the 16 units become more valuable than before.

223214079_6c2c08cc08.jpg

More importantly, a "U" plan creates a greater number of the more valuable units that front on the public street. Without the church it appears that you could still achieve 52 units. 36 of those units would have public street frontage - 10 more than the plan pending at the city (13 on Alabama, 13 on Broadway and 10 on First).

All of the revised units might be either worth more and/or might sell faster. Even if the quantity was reduced to 50 units, the benefits would likely produce more profit for the developer.

BTW, the alleys on the developer's plan are 28' wide. A fire truck can probably maneuver the "U" if you clip the inside corners. Also, the public streetscape on First is improved over the ends of units and driveways that face the street on the developer's plan.

249755079_3e48e01380.jpg

This has been fun, but I've got to get some real work done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rizzo City

Rizzo

Posted
Posted

I don't really follow this.

Are you raising money to fight the development?

or,

Are you raising money to give to them to make the church viable?

I'm assuming people could raise the money to keep the development a float while sparing the church. I think that was what Budgie was saying. :dontknow: I bet the cost would be exuberant. :dontknow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Miller Whistle-Stop

Mark Miller

Posted
Posted

If the developer's plan gets built as it is today, it would be a good thing for the city. The rest of this debate has been constructive criticism aimed at making things even better. In that context I'll offer one last observation....

The primary goal of development is to maximize profit, which done by balancing quantity, quality and cost. Maximizing quantity doesn't always yield maximum profit. I get the impression that these are not experienced developers and they are focused on quantity. They may want to consider value in a more comprehensive way. For instance, someone should explain to them the difference in value between the 26 interior units that face each other (less value) and the 26 with street frontage (more value).

These interior buildings are 34 feet apart and 40' high in a corridor that is 300' long. That ratio creates more of a tunnel than a great space and the value of 50% of the total units are compromised.

A "U" shaped alley limits the less valuable interior units to 16 while cutting the length of the space in half. Now it feels a little more like an outdoor room than a tunnel and the 16 units become more valuable than before.

More importantly, a "U" plan creates a greater number of the more valuable units that front on the public street. Without the church it appears that you could still achieve 52 units. 36 of those units would have public street frontage - 10 more than the plan pending at the city (13 on Alabama, 13 on Broadway and 10 on First).

All of the revised units might be either worth more and/or might sell faster. Even if the quantity was reduced to 50 units, the benefits would likely produce more profit for the developer.

BTW, the alleys on the developer's plan are 28' wide. A fire truck can probably maneuver the "U" if you clip the inside corners. Also, the public streetscape on First is improved over the ends of units and driveways that face the street on the developer's plan.

This has been fun, but I've got to get some real work done.

This has been an interesting excercise and most of the comments were well intended and constructive.

All of your points are valid and I can't say that I disagree with them. They should make perfect sense, if you assume that the everyone agrees that that street frontage is more desireable than the interior frontage. I do, but everyone does not.

"In America, quantity is quality." --Aldo Rossi

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeDowntown Metropolis

joeDowntown

Posted
Posted

I drove by the buildings today on the way to American Seating Park and I just have to continue on my track of "it's a damn shame". The "nunnery" is a cool little building. The church is great. The rest of the neighborhood stinks. But boy, the diversity in architecture that these two buildings would bring to this project would make it so much more interesting.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
luma Unincorporated Area

luma

Posted
Posted

I'm still not certain that I'm understanding the attachment to this church - it doesn't meet the city guidelines for a historic building, nobody bothered to show up for the planning commission public hearing to defend it, and only 1 of the 38 letters sent to the commission opposed bringing the structure down. The church staff and parisioners have sold the building and the nunnery, knowing full well that the building was to be demolished. Furthermore, it's not as if Grand Rapids is running any shortage of churches.

The result is that the planning commission, the concerned neighbors, the historical society, and the church themselves don't have a problem with the development as proposed. Folks on the internet, who have nothing vested in the structure, and very likely had never even seen or heard of the building before reading about it here, are all fired up to save this church. For what reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nitro Burg

Nitro

Posted
Posted

Folks on the internet, who have nothing vested in the structure, and very likely had never even seen or heard of the building before reading about it here, are all fired up to save this church. For what reason?

Funny, that's what they must have said in the 60's when Urban Renewal was pounding on the door of the old City Hall, the very old County Building, Union Station, and every other great building we've lost along the way.

To completly destroy and level the existing urban fabric of a whole city block is irresponsible Tabula Rasa style development. Where does it stop? The next block over, maybe a couple to the west? At what point do we value the existing urban fabric and stop erasing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Budgie Frisket Burg

Budgie Frisket

Posted
Posted

Funny, that's what they must have said in the 60's when Urban Renewal was pounding on the door of the old City Hall, the very old County Building, Union Station, and every other great building we've lost along the way.

To completly destroy and level the existing urban fabric of a whole city block is irresponsible Tabula Rasa style development. Where does it stop? The next block over, maybe a couple to the west? At what point do we value the existing urban fabric and stop erasing it?

I'm with Nitro on this.

I am interested in saving the structures that comprised the church and nunnery. Not because of any religious attachment, but because they are interesting architecturally.

Just because I didn't know these structures existed doesn't mean they are any less interesting. There are many, many buildings of which I am unaware, and I'll only learn of them when a development such as this makes headlines.

Hope that helps your understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeDowntown Metropolis

joeDowntown

Posted
Posted

Well said!

Look at my icon. It was "obsolete" and torn down. Imagine how much character it would add to downtown if it were here today?

Joe

Funny, that's what they must have said in the 60's when Urban Renewal was pounding on the door of the old City Hall, the very old County Building, Union Station, and every other great building we've lost along the way.

To completly destroy and level the existing urban fabric of a whole city block is irresponsible Tabula Rasa style development. Where does it stop? The next block over, maybe a couple to the west? At what point do we value the existing urban fabric and stop erasing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.