Broadway and 1st Condos

[Mark Miller]

I can't believe the HPC would fight for the old Purple East building and not this?! Is it just a matter of not being in their jurisdiction?

The inside is just as fantastic as the outside. I am the first in line to be pounding my fist and rallying around new development but how could the developers not see the potential of these two buildings? This pisses me off so bad I can't even believe it. And there is nothing anyone can do about it at this point.

If I raise $200K can I also buy the city attorneys and have them fight this for me? I didn't know if the buy-off policy was limited to lusty entertainment or if I could pay them off to fight to save good architecture too.

Sometimes this forum talks of HPC having too much power, even when it is following the standards and guidelines which it is mandated to follow while dealing with properties IN district. Now people are calling for the commission to expand its jurisdiction and force its power on owners who do not want it?!

Keep in mind that the HPC has had trouble protecting buildings that are within its jurisdiction, let alone those that are definitively outside district. Look at the recent example of the houses that were proposed for demolition for a surface parking lot. While these are not in district, they DO fall under HPC's review. In this case HPC said they were significant, the planning commission did not agree. Done deal.

The McCauley building, The Milner Hotel and a long list of other buildings have come down, despite objections from the HPC. Even if this was in district it would have no guarantee of protection.

In order for a structure to come down it must meet one or more of the following criteria. Just one

[GRDadof3]

Sometimes this forum talks of HPC having too much power, even when it is following the standards and guidelines which it is mandated to follow while dealing with properties IN district. Now people are calling for the commission to expand its jurisdiction and force its power on owners who do not want it?!

Keep in mind that the HPC has had trouble protecting buildings that are within its jurisdiction, let alone those that are definitively outside district. Look at the recent example of the houses that were proposed for demolition for a surface parking lot. While these are not in district, they DO fall under HPC's review. In this case HPC said they were significant, the planning commission did not agree. Done deal.

The McCauley building, The Milner Hotel and a long list of other buildings have come down, despite objections from the HPC. Even if this was in district it would have no guarantee of protection.

In order for a structure to come down it must meet one or more of the following criteria. Just one

[Mark Miller]

I wouldn't characterize the entire forum here having the opinion that the HPC has too much power:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...c=28993&hl=

I think for most, it really depends on the circumstances. To me, the church in question here is not impeding the entire development. It's probably impeding two of the entire 52 townhomes, which to me works out to about 4%.

As far a d) is concerned, couldn't it be argued that the resulting development of that one parcel is not in the interest of the majority of the community? Maybe different if they were building a Cancer Center or a hospital, but two townhomes and two garages?

BTW: wasn't the Milner Hotel falling in on itself?

The HPC does what it can do. It is composed of volunteers, who spend hours each month making tough decisions while interpreting standards. I certainly would not characterize the entire forum as having a negative feeling of the HPC, but there are definite undertones.

BTW, anyone interested in serving on the HPC, should apply. There will be three open seats at the end of this year.

The church would actually effect a much larger portion of the site than two townhouses. It could have an impact on as much has a quarter of the site plan as approved. This impact, along with the amount of money needed to rehabilitate the church, would most likely kill this project.

The church is a great structure. It is a fine example of historic religious architecture. I personally hate to see it go. The development team has looked at the options of keeping it, but the truth is that the market will not bear condos in this area that cost north of $400,000 to $500,000. Most likely that is what the units would need to START at just to break even. Anyone on this forum want to buy a condo in this neighborhood for that much?

The Milner hotel represents the ambiguity associated with this kind of thing. A structural engineer was hired by the applicant and subsequently indicated that the Milner was about to fall down at any minute. Another stuctural engineer was hired by a group interested in saving the building and indicated that, while it was in bad shape, it was structurally sound. Who was right? You tell me. It took Rockford almost two weeks longer than anticipated to knock down a building that "was literally falling in on itself" and they had to use hand torches to cut it apart. It did not go without a fight.

It is a shame that the Milner came down, especially considering what it was replaced by.

The same situation can be found on many old buildings, including maybe this church. But this ship has most likely sailed. It sailed years ago, when no one designated anything on the West Side as a protected historic district. It sailed when no one fought for this church (incidently, talking about it here does not constitute formally protesting on its behalf), it sailed when simple economics most likely did not make saving it viable, and it sailed when the development was approved by planning commission last week.

Incidently the public support, in letters to the planning commission, was over 40 for the development and 1 against. These letters were from community leaders, residents and business owners. The positive impact of this project to the immediate community seems rather obvious.

[Nitro]

BTW: wasn't the Milner Hotel falling in on itself?

That was the biggest smokescreen put to the public of GR since the supposed failed structure report of the City Center parking ramp.

Milner was solid as a rock. The wrecking ball just bounced off of that building.

[civitas]

The church would actually effect a much larger portion of the site than two townhouses. It could have an impact on as much has a quarter of the site plan as approved. This impact, along with the amount of money needed to rehabilitate the church, would most likely kill this project.

The church is a great structure. It is a fine example of historic religious architecture. I personally hate to see it go. The development team has looked at the options of keeping it, but the truth is that the market will not bear condos in this area that cost north of $400,000 to $500,000. Most likely that is what the units would need to START at just to break even. Anyone on this forum want to buy a condo in this neighborhood for that much?

The church might influence the design of 1/4 of the site, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is just a change. To the extent that units are lost, that is offset (at least in part) by the purchase price of the church and apartment building. I would hope that the church is being paid a fair price for their property and I assume that those properties cost more per SF of land than the detached homes on the rest of the block. The higher demolition cost (bigger buildings) is another added expense for these parcels.

In other words, if you did an economic feasibility analysis on developing townhomes on just the church property, the cost might not justify the return. Unfortunately, the same is probably true if an analysis was done on their rehabilitation and incorporation into the proposed development.

Both buildings are currently experiencing "demolition by neglect." They will either be rescued in the very near future or they may fall down by themselves.

[GRDadof3]

That was the biggest smokescreen put to the public of GR since the supposed failed structure report of the City Center parking ramp.

Milner was solid as a rock. The wrecking ball just bounced off of that building.

I stand corrected. I do seem to remember it being very difficult to tear down.

[AlexPKeaton]

I stand corrected. I do seem to remember it being very difficult to tear down.

I remember hearing about the Milner a while back before I joined UP. Can anybody share some details and photos of the Milner?

-nb

[gvsusean]

screw it lets tear down everything older than 10 years and just build new. lets tear down heritage hill and put those townhomes everywhere that would be so great.

this developer sucks, i will never buy ANYTHING they create/own.

[GRDadof3]

screw it lets tear down everything older than 10 years and just build new. lets tear down heritage hill and put those townhomes everywhere that would be so great.

this developer sucks, i will never buy ANYTHING they create/own.

Sorry gvsusean, that would constitute a "formal protest", and that's not what this is....

[civitas]

screw it lets tear down everything older than 10 years and just build new. lets tear down heritage hill and put those townhomes everywhere that would be so great.

this developer sucks, i will never buy ANYTHING they create/own.

No more beer at Monte's or O'Tooles....

[NorthCoast]

Its good to see some development on the West Side but it is a real shame that they will be tearing down a historic church. I wish there was some way that this project could feasibly move forward without impacting the church. The West Side is a proud and historic neighborhood that is in sorta of a sticky situation. As Grand Rapids continues to grow and revitalize we will be faced with more and more of these type of decisions. How does a city hold on to its heritage and history for future generations but at the same time not stunt its opportunities for growth. I hope that in all of this urban revival that we do not repeat the same mistakes that were made during the urban renewal movement in terms of destroying buildings of character for the sake of progress, modernization, and profit. That may or may not be the case here but I really think its something the city needs to keep in mind.

[Veloise]

Its good to see some development on the West Side but it is a real shame that they will be tearing down a historic church. I wish there was some way that this project could feasibly move forward without impacting the church. The West Side is a proud and historic neighborhood that is in sorta of a sticky situation. As Grand Rapids continues to grow and revitalize we will be faced with more and more of these type of decisions. How does a city hold on to its heritage and history for future generations but at the same time not stunt its opportunities for growth. I hope that in all of this urban revival that we do not repeat the same mistakes that were made during the urban renewal movement in terms of destroying buildings of character for the sake of progress, modernization, and profit. That may or may not be the case here but I really think its something the city needs to keep in mind.

Put in the Union Square thread, and I am moving it here:

I can just see a display for the former church .... It could be headlined What is significant about this site?

[gvsusean]

No more beer at Monte's or O'Tooles....

goo their beer always tasted skunked anyway

[Mark Miller]

Its good to see some development on the West Side but it is a real shame that they will be tearing down a historic church. I wish there was some way that this project could feasibly move forward without impacting the church. The West Side is a proud and historic neighborhood that is in sorta of a sticky situation. As Grand Rapids continues to grow and revitalize we will be faced with more and more of these type of decisions. How does a city hold on to its heritage and history for future generations but at the same time not stunt its opportunities for growth. I hope that in all of this urban revival that we do not repeat the same mistakes that were made during the urban renewal movement in terms of destroying buildings of character for the sake of progress, modernization, and profit. That may or may not be the case here but I really think its something the city needs to keep in mind.

Well phrased. The schism between the destruction of urban fabric and "progress" has always plagued the development of cities. Historically it was never really a problem. Tearing down houses for retail or knocking down buildings for taller buildings was never opposed until sometime after WWII, when citizens began to question if what was being built was better than what was lost. The quality of the new came under great scrutiny and has been manifested today in historical preservation and the kind of dialogue that is happening here.

How do you still have growth and progress and still maintain the balance with preservation of buildings of character? It would appear there is a balance in GR right now, but the balance is always shifting from one side to the other and thus is precarious.

Growth and progress will never satisfy the side that wants to save everything and preservation will never satisfy the side that want progress. Everyone will never be happy.

The right answer is difficult to determine. There is probably no black and white formula to use. But one thing is relatively certain, that urbanism needs to transform and continue to evolve over time or it will become static and die.

In Grand Rapids, the master plan and the current development standards for downtown help to create a framework for better urbanism. The overhauled zoning ordinance will also hopefully add to the quality of how the city's urbanism transforms and of course, the historic districts and landmarks will always be there to preserve the past. Hopefully, as the city becomes more vibrant and housing close to the core becomes more of a premium, the economics will shift so that more of these small buildings of character can be preserved as part of the new fabric.

[DwntwnGeo]

this developer sucks, i will never buy ANYTHING they create/own.

Do you really want to keep track of every building

[GRDadof3]

Aside from the church for a moment, I'm surprised no one has brought up the fact that the front doors of these townhomes are so low to the ground. Most of the brick townhomes I've seen have a raised stoop of 4 - 6 ft, even with a garden level, to give it a richer look.

More townhome images

[Mark Miller]

Good observation, I too am surprised no one has brought this up.

Not only does the raised stoop provide for a richer look, it also serves some practical function.

A raised stoop (and thus a raised first floor) will provide a much greater level of privacy for the person living in the townhouse as the windows will be raised up from the grade level. This is particularly important when buildings are close to the right of way, as most townhouses are.

This vertical separation also acts as a transition zone from public to private, similar to that of a front yard and porch. This transition enriches the urban environment.

The only townhouses that I have seen that have little vertical separation are the ones on the corner of Hall and Madison and I think these would be far more convincing if there was more separation.

[ccbarnes]

I'm just wondering if the protest is fueled because it's a church as opposed to say the cinamini. To ME, it doesn't change things much because it's a church, but maybe because I'm not really a religious person.

[Allison Slater]

You're right. The base of the windows appear to be at about 4 feet from the ground, allowing people to peek into the very bottom of the windows. Although it does appear as though they are raised somewhat, it's a couple feet short of privacy.

Unless the base of the windows will be covered up with foliage, I can see how that could become a concern.. but perhaps this was a measure taken to reduce costs? Increase floor and window height by 2 feet, increase the total building structure by 2 feet. Would it then surpass height restrictions? Maybe add on costs per unit that are just a little higher than they want them to be?

[HIGHontheHOG]

ccbarnes,

You'd have a valid point if you were aware of any 100+ year old ciniminis that were being knocked down...

[ccbarnes]

ccbarnes,

You'd have a valid point if you were aware of any 100+ year old ciniminis that were being knocked down...

haha....you got me there!

[mjak68]

I'm all for preservation. I've driven past that church many times and didn't even notice it. From the pics, it looks beautiful on the inside. The outside has character too. But honestly, these people have bought the thing when noone else seems to have shown any interest in it. They should be able to do with it what they want. If someone wants it preserved at this point, they should buy it, move it, and let these folks get on with their development.

[torgo]

But honestly, these people have bought the thing when noone else seems to have shown any interest in it. They should be able to do with it what they want. If someone wants it preserved at this point, they should buy it, move it, and let these folks get on with their development.

Careful! What if they were "developing" a parking lot?

I like the church too, and I also like the looks of the project. That is a great observation about the stoops GrDadof3. It looks a lot better when its elevated.

[GR8scott]

I'm just wondering if the protest is fueled because it's a church as opposed to say the cinamini. To ME, it doesn't change things much because it's a church, but maybe because I'm not really a religious person.

religion aside, it is a very old and prominant structure with a lot of detail. If your saying its almost like tearing down the cinimini, then whynot tear down that POS olds manor

As for it being a church, GR has always had that image of being a "church town", good or bad, I like the fact that there are many historically significant church structures throughout the city. I'm not talkin about mars hill and the large modern high-school looking ones outside of downtown, I mean the old ones with large stained galss windows and tall towers that can be seen all over. This would be a big loss to the city IMO.

Its more of a shame because It looks like it could easily be worked into the project which would be nice

[egrguy]

Regarding this debate, I do apologize if I'm stepping out on a limb here, but it appears that many are upset about the demo of the church which I understand. However, as gr town planner said it was 40-1 in support of the development.

I would only ask, if this is so bad a deal to those that oppose the demo of the church for this development, where were your letters, voices, opinions, etc of opposition when it counted?