Jump to content

Broadway and 1st Condos


civitas

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't get the whole Tabula Rasa thing. Why do we have to wipe out an entire block of existing urban fabric to do this? It makes me cringe. That's Detroit style development.

Not to mention the thought of demolishing that church turns my stomach.

GR Town Planner, you've been pretty silent on this to date. I know you've got to be having some internal conflicts with this. What's the scoop?

I struggle with that question too. I suspect that the answer is probably somewhere in the cost of rehabbing the existing homes compared to their value after rehab. You need to change the image to enhance the value enough to make the investment feasible.

I have often wondered if a local foundation might have interest in investing patient money into efforts to change a neighborhood. Developers are often killed by the carrying costs. If such an effort had very patient money, it might be able to succeed.

This is what the foundations call "program related investment", but I haven't found any in town willing to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The church can come down without approvals by the city Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission because it is not located in the downtown area and it is not a historic landmark or residential structure, City Planning Director Suzanne Schulz said.
Well isnt that just great. A building that gives character to an urban landscape gone, just like that.

"The idea behind the whole thing is to build a new community, but also not to wreck the community that's there."

Huh? If there is a community already here, would'nt this project already be part of that community? Or are these people going to be walled off from the rest of the west side like American Seating Park and Union Square?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well isnt that just great. A building that gives character to an urban landscape gone, just like that.

...

"The city Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the request on Sept. 14."

UP meet-up! 1120 North Monroe!

If Union Square can re-use the old school cabinets and chalkboards and gym flooring, these two young'uns ought to be able to include this cool old building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To put this all into shape, it would cost thousands and thousands of dollars," said Zadvinskis, 83. "And, the church is way too big for us right now."

Since they're probably going to have to build this out in phases based on market demand anyway, perhaps they can save the Eastern end of the site for last (Broadway), start on the West end of the site (Alabama)(since they would get maximum exposure from I-196 and Bridge St at that end to help drive sales), see if anyone is interested in re-doing the church into some sweet condos, and then go from there. If in a couple of years there are no takers, they can revisit whether renovating the church is economically viable or not. They could have some preliminary plans drawn up by an architect of some ideas for converting the church to show potential buyers. :dontknow:

Thank you Veloise for mentioning the trees. The one thing I don't like about many of the developments I've seen in Denver is the total lack of any trees. :sick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the plans do call for trees along the streets which is good. Although it would be nice if there were a few trees scattered throughout the access streets.

I'm talking about big huge tall trees that have been there for decades.

bway-9.jpg

bway-6-1.jpg

bway-8-1.jpg

bway-5-1.jpg

Church building:

bway-2-1.jpg

bway-1-1.jpg

bway-10.jpg

St Mary's:

bway-12.jpg

bway-11.jpg

Alabama building:

bway-4-1.jpg

Another building (not bad from the rear):

bway-13.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the elevation and site plans look GREAT! I'm very excited for this project and the improvements for the neighborhod that it could bring! :thumbsup:

Glad to hear this

Zeiser said they intend to complete demolition this winter. He plans to assist the residents in moving out and help renters find new quarters in the neighborhood.

"The idea behind the whole thing is to build a new community, but also not to wreck the community that's there."

Now we just need somebody to take on the cinamini and D.A.D.D's block!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the elevation and site plans look GREAT! I'm very excited for this project and the improvements for the neighborhod that it could bring! :thumbsup:

Glad to hear this

Now we just need somebody to take on the cinamini and D.A.D.D's block!

ya, lets make every block just like this one, tear down all that old crap and build new!!!!! i hate anything built b4 1985 <_<

goodbye what could've been some great neighborhoods, hello boring, "cant wait to get out of this monotonous mountain of crap, area" :sick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya, lets make every block just like this one, tear down all that old crap and build new!!!!! i hate anything built b4 1985 <_<

goodbye what could've been some great neighborhoods, hello boring, "cant wait to get out of this monotonous mountain of crap, area" :sick:

:huh:

How many houses of these have you really seen, let alone been in? This isn't a 'great' neighborhood. This is an area that has served it's purpose and land value has dictated that it goes through a rebirth. All development destroys something...let it be nature, existing homes, a parking lot, or something else. The majority of homes in this neighborhood are beyond salvage.

monotonous mountain of crap, area
????

:huh:

Many city's brownstone/rowhouse neighborhoods are some of the most beautiful and cherished neighborhoods in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Save the church and it'll be a perfect development. Heck, the apartment building next to it is sweet too. I'd sacrifice the apartment building for the church though. I remember watching a This Old House where they turned a church in San Francisco into a house and it was awesome. I hope they seriously think about it.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:huh:

Many city's brownstone/rowhouse neighborhoods are some of the most beautiful and cherished neighborhoods in the U.S.

I agree...I could walk through Lincoln Park / LakeView / Wicker Park neighborhoods of Chicago for days on end, just looking at the thousands of rowhouses that line the streets. All the houses are essentially the same, with just minor cosmetic variations differentiating one building from the next, but anyone that would want to build anything like those neighborhoods in GR would have my support.

Needless to say that almost everyone on this UP board wants to see Grand Rapids grow and thrive, and to have new development created all around the city (albeit to various degrees in different parts of the city). Problem is, anything of any scale will HAVE to replace something that already exists. Yes, in a perfect world all the new would be wonderfully blended in with the old. However, this will not always be the case (I would guess it will rarely be the case, actually), and unfortunately sacrifices will have to be made.

In the end, if what is built is better than what was replaced, than the city is one step ahead of where it was before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, the development is great, even as designed. I've seen the existing houses and they are ehhh, OK. Some of the houses in that area don't even have siding on them, just plywood. I think keeping the church would not only be the right thing to do, but it would also be a HUGE selling point for the development if tied in creatively. :shades: My question is, do we just want to be another Midwestern city, or do we want to have projects that make people say "WOW"!!??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone (possibly civitas) pointed out in a different thread, if we tear all this stuff down, are we trading up? Are the buildings that are going to be built better than the stuff that is there now? If so, then I say fire up the bulldozers. I'm going to have to drive over there and take a look. The church has to stay though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone (possibly civitas) pointed out in a different thread, if we tear all this stuff down, are we trading up? Are the buildings that are going to be built better than the stuff that is there now? If so, then I say fire up the bulldozers. I'm going to have to drive over there and take a look. The church has to stay though

What about the people in them? Are all of the homes vacated and ready for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Church interior was pictured in yesterday's paper; hardly ramshackle. I haven't peered through their windows, nor tested the door.

I saw that too Veloise, not bad. Here are some church conversions I found online rather easily:

rupert.jpg

AP41g.JPG

AP41b.JPG

AP41n.JPG

AP41p.JPG

AP41t.JPG

Here's one in Chicago from the exterior

Barry%20and%20Clifton%202.jpg

Here's Hobb+Black Architecture in Ann Arbor

church-3.gif

church-4.gif

church-2.gif

church-1.gif

Maybe some people think it's sacreligious or something?? :dontknow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.