Broadway and 1st Condos

[GaryP]

I cant understand why anyone would rip this project. The only change I'd like to see is more than 50 townhomes. I think there's room for twice that.

[Rizzo]

Where is your vision people??? The best cities have mixed-income neighborhoods.

I have vision, it will be evident in the next few months...

I was being sarcastic to the above poster.... Ooops. I think it would be interesting to include Dave's philosphy in this neighborhood. My roots are in the West Side so I'm the last to nock my side.

[ccbarnes]

Just wanted to say that I think this is a perfect development. COmbine this with Union Square, and this neighborhood will be changing very soon. Also, I can't imagine that with the amount of $$$ moving into the neighborhood with this and union square(not to mention American Seating, Riverhouse, and Isreals) that there won't be some new changes on bridge/stocking. I have always felt this would be the perfect area for something like this in GR...and buying the whole block is the only way to do this(strength in numbers).

Now we need someone to develop the Dash lots behind bridge street!

And why the negativity with the west side? If this was in North Monroe...everyone would be going crazy! Across the river and ( ) some people get freaked out. Remember N. Monroe is only a couple minute walk across 6th street bridge. I guess it comes down to having vision in a neighborhood and not. Anyone remember heartside not too long ago? Just remember that there will be people who will never realize why others would want to live downtown. I've been living DT for 5 years and wouldn't move for the world. And yes, I am considered a young professional (uh-no!)...and guess what, there's a lot of people that want to live near the bars ! Believe it or not, it's how a ton of people socialize in the world and a lot of people want to live within walking distance. But more important there are people that want to live in a neighborhood and still live in downtown(where else can this happen?). They want tree lined streets, neighborhood grocery stores, bars, a mix of people, front yards, new construction, yet still live in downtown...(again, where else can this happen?) To me, this is the perfect location in the city to create a downtown neighborhood. Heritage Hill is already established, full of rentals, HPC, and the obstacle of the hill. What's more of a physical obstacle, the hill or the river? OK, enough...I'm just befuddled at the negativity from some people that are supposedly fans of development in Grand Rapids.

[GaryP]

Where do you doubters and everyone else think would be an ideal spot for town homes like these?

[Veloise]

Just wanted to say that I think this is a perfect development. COmbine this with Union Square, and this neighborhood will be changing very soon. Also, I can't imagine that with the amount of $$$ moving into the neighborhood with this and union square(not to mention American Seating, Riverhouse, and Isreals) that there won't be some new changes on bridge/stocking. I have always felt this would be the perfect area for something like this in GR...and buying the whole block is the only way to do this(strength in numbers).

Now we need someone to develop the Dash lots behind bridge street!

And why the negativity with the west side? If this was in North Monroe...everyone would be going crazy! Across the river and ( ) some people get freaked out. Remember N. Monroe is only a couple minute walk across 6th street bridge. I guess it comes down to having vision in a neighborhood and not. Anyone remember heartside not too long ago? Just remember that there will be people who will never realize why others would want to live downtown. I've been living DT for 5 years and wouldn't move for the world. And yes, I am considered a young professional (uh-no!)...and guess what, there's a lot of people that want to live near the bars ! Believe it or not, it's how a ton of people socialize in the world and a lot of people want to live within walking distance. But more important there are people that want to live in a neighborhood and still live in downtown(where else can this happen?). They want tree lined streets, neighborhood grocery stores, bars, a mix of people, front yards, new construction, yet still live in downtown...(again, where else can this happen?) To me, this is the perfect location in the city to create a downtown neighborhood. Heritage Hill is already established, full of rentals, HPC, and the obstacle of the hill. What's more of a physical obstacle, the hill or the river? OK, enough...I'm just befuddled at the negativity from some people that are supposedly fans of development in Grand Rapids.

Welcome to the forum, ccb.

I don't see this as slamming the project so much as questioning some of the basic assumptions behind it. And we're likely a lot more gentle/less prying than the Planning Commission will be.

Generally projects are built in phases (look at Waterfall Plaza) and it's customary to put in one chunk, get it up and rolling, move on to another one. It would certainly be possible to do this without buying the entire block. (Sure, Union Square is, but it's been there since 1872.)

Part of the purpose here is to add considered opinions from other viewpoints. If the developer is merely attempting to appeal to the designated driver crowd, he's not likely to get past the first public hearing. Development for development's sake: not good. (Seen the Family Dollar on Wealthy, and how well that works with its surroundings?) Many of us have expressed interest in seeing the historic brick church remain, and we've suggested various ways to incorporate it, which might make this development even more perfect.

What would you propose for the Dash lots?

[ex detroiter]

Welcome to the forum, ccb.

I don't see this as slamming the project so much as questioning some of the basic assumptions behind it. And we're likely a lot more gentle/less prying than the Planning Commission will be.

Generally projects are built in phases (look at Waterfall Plaza) and it's customary to put in one chunk, get it up and rolling, move on to another one. It would certainly be possible to do this without buying the entire block. (Sure, Union Square is, but it's been there since 1872.)

Part of the purpose here is to add considered opinions from other viewpoints. If the developer is merely attempting to appeal to the designated driver crowd, he's not likely to get past the first public hearing. Development for development's sake: not good. (Seen the Family Dollar on Wealthy, and how well that works with its surroundings?) Many of us have expressed interest in seeing the historic brick church remain, and we've suggested various ways to incorporate it, which might make this development even more perfect.

What would you propose for the Dash lots?

Are we seriously comparing a project on 28th street to a downtown redevelopment issue? What would you like to see happen turn downtown into one of the pseudo urban centers on the Beltline or 28th street? Have you ever seen Telegraph Rd. on the East side of the state full of Celebration Cinema Centers and Waterfall Plazas, eventually all of these projects that allow suburbanites to feel like they are urban and hip get boring and dry up (trust me you don't want any street in this city or any other for that matter to turn into that, and yet I can see the beginnings of this happening)?

Better yet, let's just let the city sit be stagnant! No lets not bring a great deal of income and housing value to a part of the city that would greatly benefit, that would just be silly.

[Veloise]

Are we seriously comparing a project on 28th street to a downtown redevelopment issue? What would you like to see happen turn downtown into one of the pseudo urban centers on the Beltline or 28th street? Have you ever seen Telegraph Rd. on the East side of the state full of Celebration Cinema Centers and Waterfall Plazas, eventually all of these projects that allow suburbanites to feel like they are urban and hip get boring and dry up (trust me you don't want any street in this city or any other for that matter to turn into that, and yet I can see the beginnings of this happening)?

Better yet, let's just let the city sit be stagnant! No lets not bring a great deal of income and housing value to a part of the city that would greatly benefit, that would just be silly.

???

I do not understand most of this, which reads like a diatribe in defense of the proposed project rather than enlightened discussion.

OK, don't look at Waterfall. Look at Bridgewater Place, which is a phased development. Happy?

(p.s. the proposal is not downtown, and I am quite familiar with Telegraph)

Congrats on your 13th post.

[ex detroiter]

Well here's 14

Again you're comparing apples to oranges. How in the world is Bridgewater comparable to a 50 unit townhome project. But if you really need to go the staged development route, isn't that what the West Grand Neighborhood is esentially doing? First Union Square, Second 50 townhomes, and lets not forget that small business owners along Bridge ST. have also been included in this staged development, Bridge St. Pizza, Maggies, Monte's. The neighborhood is taking shape in stages and I praise all that are helping the community rebuild.

[ccbarnes]

Welcome to the forum, ccb.

I don't see this as slamming the project so much as questioning some of the basic assumptions behind it. And we're likely a lot more gentle/less prying than the Planning Commission will be.

Generally projects are built in phases (look at Waterfall Plaza) and it's customary to put in one chunk, get it up and rolling, move on to another one. It would certainly be possible to do this without buying the entire block. (Sure, Union Square is, but it's been there since 1872.)

Part of the purpose here is to add considered opinions from other viewpoints. If the developer is merely attempting to appeal to the designated driver crowd, he's not likely to get past the first public hearing. Development for development's sake: not good. (Seen the Family Dollar on Wealthy, and how well that works with its surroundings?) Many of us have expressed interest in seeing the historic brick church remain, and we've suggested various ways to incorporate it, which might make this development even more perfect.

What would you propose for the Dash lots?

I think the only way to this would be a block at time. And, whose to say that this isn't phase I of a multi-facet plan?

I also laugh at the idea that he's appealing to the D.D. crowd...being close to the bars is a selling point to anyone living near downtown...don't take one part of what he said and drudge it to death.

Also, "Development for development's sake: not good." I know that...thanks. That quote leads me to believe that you think developing this neighborhood is frivolous. Many of us differ...just ask the people at Union Square.

???

I do not understand most of this, which reads like a diatribe in defense of the proposed project rather than enlightened discussion.

OK, don't look at Waterfall. Look at Bridgewater Place, which is a phased development. Happy?

(p.s. the proposal is not downtown, and I am quite familiar with Telegraph)

Congrats on your 13th post.

Ease up on your tension here Veloise...

P.S. it is downtown

[GRDadof3]

I'd love to see a site plan and some elevations. It sounds like there is parking set aside in the middle of the development?

[ex detroiter]

I heard that 2 car garages were a planned part of the development. If this is true, I wonder if they are going to be attatched to each unit?

[MJLO]

My original post about this was not to bash the west side at all. While I don't particularly care for the neighborhood. I'd probabally like it a whole lot more If redevelopment like this started happening. What I do question were the things I read about it to begin with. It's proximity to downtown is a great selling point. It is also close to Union Square. I think it can work. I think using proximity to local businesses as a selling point might not be the wisest of marketing strategies.

Triple G. I agree and disagree with you. I do like to find little undiscovered places and make myself at home. However if the business im about to enter looks like "cini mini", there's a good chance i'm not going to want to go inside of it. Face it, there are more than a few places in that area that have that feeling, and look about them. I managed a restaurant on the westside for two years, which is where my less than favorable opinion of it's residents comes from. I'd love to see a development like this suceed and hopefully with it, a higher class of businesses and investment follow.

[joeDowntown]

I gathered that each unit had a 2 stall garage accessed from within the property (but I may be imagining things)

I think this could work, but nobody can deny their is definitely some blight in the area. With that being said, Union Square, American Seating, Israel's and this development should lead to a helluva lot of individual speculators investing in the properties around the development. That part of the west side has some real diamonds in the rough as far as houses go. In fact, some already look great. I think improvements will follow quickly but it is a chicken and the egg debate. Do you buy a $250K+ condo with a bunch of crappy rental units surrounding you? Do people speculate on property to fix it up not knowing if the big development is going to change the face of the area.

Tough call.

Joe

I'd love to see a site plan and some elevations. It sounds like there is parking set aside in the middle of the development?

[OneSweetWorld]

I think developments like this are great, especially in helping diversify neighborhoods like the West Side. But seeing how the average income of most FAMILIES in this neighborhood is not exactly sky-high, doesn't anyone here think that developments should be geared more towards low-medium income families? Apartment buildings like the proposed building on Lk. MI dr. would be perfect. Unfortunatly....well, u know...

[GRCentro]

Save the church building!

http://www.frontrangeliving.com/architectu...hurchcondos.htm

http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20040617_churchcondos.htm

[joeDowntown]

I agree! If they don't incorporate this into the design and just bulldoze it, I'll hate this project forever. Even if it looks nice.

Save the church building!

http://www.frontrangeliving.com/architectu...hurchcondos.htm

http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20040617_churchcondos.htm

[GR_Urbanist]

I think developments like this are great, especially in helping diversify neighborhoods like the West Side. But seeing how the average income of most FAMILIES in this neighborhood is not exactly sky-high, doesn't anyone here think that developments should be geared more towards low-medium income families? Apartment buildings like the proposed building on Lk. MI dr. would be perfect. Unfortunatly....well, u know...

That

[Beavis]

I have been back renting in Heritage Hill for several years now and am blissfully happy there. However, for the past 10 years before that I lived on the West side with my now ex-husband - we're still very close friends. Yes, the houses were crappy and the people, including us, working poor to lower middle class at best. It was all we could afford while trying to get back on our feet after finally successfully beating alcoholism (12+ years sober - discovered personal responsibility, empowerment and a little something called self-respect along the way - not AA they creep me out). I was fortunate enough to be well-educated and was eventually able to work my way back up to a modest but reasonably comfortable living situation.

Our block of neighbors by 4th and Fremont were mostly good people who were just struggling to make ends meet and take care of their kids. Many of these houses, including ours, were so poorly constructed in the first place that trying to fix them up as we did just turns into an endless money pit. We would have been better off knocking the house down and starting over. We owned but many of our friends rented from slum lords who let the places get as run down as the city would allow. One of my friends had to wash her dishes in the bathtub for over a year because her landlord wouldn't fix her kitchen sink - just an example.

I think redevelopment on the West side would be wonderful but hope that care is taken to ensure the people aren't totally displaced from the neighborhood. It's one of the reasons I love Heritage Hill. We have everything from $600K+ single family homes to $475 studio apartments so the neighborhood is very diverse which gives it it's energy, funk, and makes it just plain fun. It would be great if they could come up with developments to serve ALL income levels.

[civitas]

"12+ years sober " Add my respect to your self-respect.

"I think redevelopment on the West side would be wonderful but hope that care is taken to ensure the people aren't totally displaced from the neighborhood. " Jonathan Bradford at ICCF talks about the fine line between reinvestment and gentrification. The neighborhood needs reinvestment to overcome its current state. With reinvestment will come economic diversity, but, unfortunately, diversity is seldom the goal.

Maybe the city should mandate affordable housing quotas.

[gvsusean]

the west side is destined to boom.... the river and expressway can hold development for only so long.

[Veloise]

That

[GRDadof3]

I would argue that the West Side would be MORE diverse with a project such as this. As Beavis mentioned, many of the areas on the West Side only serve the working poor to lower middle class. Why not offer something for the middle class in that area? It sounds like the block in question is almost all strictly rentals, because the developers offered to help the residents there find new apartments. That to me indicates a "failed" neighborhood if it's all rentals and few (no) homeowners. I think a successful neighborhood should be 30 - 40% rental, and the rest owner-occupied, with various price ranges.

The West Side extends probably from Butterworth on the South end all the way to I-96 (?) on the North end, to well past Covell on the West (anyone can correct me if I'm wrong). So this one development spells the end of life as we know it on the West side? All the poor are being forced out? How about if we celebrate a few successes before we let it go to our heads, and start turning newcomers (and the risk-taking developers who are needed) away with negativity.

BTW: Those church links are fantastic GRCentro!

[Beavis]

"12+ years sober " Add my respect to your self-respect.

"I think redevelopment on the West side would be wonderful but hope that care is taken to ensure the people aren't totally displaced from the neighborhood. " Jonathan Bradford at ICCF talks about the fine line between reinvestment and gentrification. The neighborhood needs reinvestment to overcome its current state. With reinvestment will come economic diversity, but, unfortunately, diversity is seldom the goal.

Maybe the city should mandate affordable housing quotas.

Thanks for the respect civitas! I'm not trying to toot my own horn - but just to give some perspective on how people come to live in those blighted neighborhoods. I've only recently become aware that ICCF exists and need to learn more about them. It is a tough question and would be a hard call to determine where to draw the line. I recently became involved with grassroots politics in my neighborhood. Perhaps it would be something to bring up when talking with legislators which I'm finding more opportunities to do. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend a rally yesterday near Detroit where former President Clinton was the keynote speaker. If someone had told me I'd be standing 5 feet from him 13 years ago when I was still a homeless drunk, I'd never have believed it.

[CK1]

Maybe the city should mandate affordable housing quotas.

I know that they have affordable housing requirements in Ann Arbor, but the economics of development in A2 are much different than in GR. One, housing in A2 is many times more expensive than Grand Rapids (sub $100,000 houses anywhere in A2 simply doesn't exist). Two, because housing is more expense and in such high demand in A2, expecially within walking distance of downtown, charging a premium for a market rate condo to subsidize a low-income condo isn't as difficult to pass on to the end purchaser, whereas tacking on an extra $25,000 to a condo in grand rapids would be extremely hard to do.

While I am not necessarily a huge fan of the policy in Ann Arbor in which up to 20% of living units in a new development must be low-income related, I do like the option a builder has of instead having to pay into a city administered fund a certain amount of money to help lower-income individuals find housing within Ann Arbor in exchange for not having to designate a quarter of a project to these qualifications. Yes, it might bring about the separation of classes and prevents "proper" integration of peoples from many differnet backgrounds and socioeconomic situations, but it does seems to work well in Ann Arbor.

Being that Grand Rapids has plenty of less-expensive housing stock, I don't think affordable housing quotas would be the answer. However, requiring a developer that plans on razing a block of houses to assist current residents to find similiar accomodations elsewhere could be a useful (and decent) stipulation.

[twoshort]

The picture in my head of the bars mentioned are pretty much hole in the wall places that are in rundown buildings. (Monte's and to a lesser extent Stockbridge withstanding) The people who can afford that price range would probabally not frequent those establishments. The picture in my head of the business in that area are quite the same.

Just to refute that comment, on any given weekend you may see a very sucessful young real estate broker at Bob's sports bar shooting pool. Bob's defines hole in the wall. You may run into retired folks with homes on the lake at the silver derby. Everyone loves local bars. And for a good west side businesses check out Mieras Family Shoes. They aren't selling Uggs to people on welfare.

And as for this development, I welcome it. Having had a NW address for a while I can appreciate it. Granted, the portion I lived in was by no means 'gritty,' but I still liked how close you are to neighborhood restaurants and bars and shoe stores and bowling alleys and non-blockbuster movie stores. If done right I could see spending $200k for the convenience, rejuvination has to start somewhere.