New apartments proposed for Seward/West Side

[joeDowntown]

So quality of life is a factor for the planning commission? Is it really their job to determine amount of natural light per unit or what people will do indoors or out. Doesn't GVSU have a nice amount of greenspace around it, with Ahnabawen park right down the road.

I think the planning commission is really being silly here. Maybe they should draw a picture for Ted and he can just draw plan up for whatever they decide on. It seems like they are over reaching a bit. It's like a planning commissioner saying "I don't like the color blue, therefore, no more blue glass buildings in Grand Rapids, EVER!".

Why doesn't the planning commission just come out and say what they want for the area, and then we can all agree with their wisdom and walk off a cliff like good little Lemmings.

Joe

I'm sure Dad was just using hyperbole to point out the obvious: there ARE options other than rubber stamping whatever plan a developer presents. 70 bedrooms on one site equals maximum profit for the owners. That doesn't necessarily translate into quality of life, either for the project's tenants or for the surrounding neighborhood.

[GRDadof3]

I'm sure Dad was just using hyperbole to point out the obvious: there ARE options other than rubber stamping whatever plan a developer presents. 70 bedrooms on one site equals maximum profit for the owners. That doesn't necessarily translate into quality of life, either for the project's tenants or for the surrounding neighborhood.

[GRDadof3]

This project goes before the City Commission on the 21st of Oct.

[Ted]

Townhouse proposal near GVSU Grand Rapids campus falls apart amid West Side objections

[AlexPKeaton]

This is why we can't have nice things!

[GRDadof3]

Wow. Unbelieveable.

And Jendrasiak doesn't see a need for the project? I didn't think it was the city's call?

[AlexPKeaton]

What's the next step? Keep buying up all those run down houses until there's no neighbors left to complain?

[PRCH]

Wow. Unbelieveable.

I didn't think it was the city's call?

[Veloise]

Meanwhile, neighbors who had opposed the project along Seward Avenue NW ...argued Boorsma's project would have threatened the single-family homes left in the working-class neighborhood west of the campus.

"We're trying to protect the endangered species of single-family homes, or homes that can be converted back to single family," said Peter Carlberg, president of the John Ball Park Community Association.

He's kidding, right? Ray Charles could see a major difference between the near NW side (Seward) and the JBP area.

Good grief.

ETA: Circuit Court is looking better and better.

[Ted]

There is a suspicion that Boorsma was merely land banking for future resale and had no intention of building the proposed structure. Just heard that blowin' in the wind, guys.

[PRCH]

Meanwhile, neighbors who had opposed the project along Seward Avenue NW ...argued Boorsma's project would have threatened the single-family homes left in the working-class neighborhood west of the campus.

We're trying to protect the endangered species of single-family homes, or homes that can be converted back to single family," said Peter Carlberg, president of the John Ball Park Community Association.

He's kidding, right? Ray Charles could see a major difference between the near NW side (Seward) and the JBP area.

Good grief.

ETA: Circuit Court is looking better and better.

[plee30]

"We're trying to protect the endangered species of single-family homes, or homes that can be converted back to single family," said Peter Carlberg, president of the John Ball Park Community Association.

I find this all interesting to say the least. Peter Carlberg's comments come from a gentleman who was at one point a long time renter at 444 Bridge St., in between O'Toole's and Monte's. And what's become of the property he once rented after being sold to a local developer? Locus Development redeveloped the space into 4 loft apartments to cater to the younger college set.

Perhaps there's a hidden agenda Mr. Calberg has in limiting new development geared for a different generation. This is the same gentleman who gathered opposition to attend City Planning meetings for new bars/restaurants, even in neighborhoods he and other oppsition didn't live in.

I've driven through this part of town many times, and until recently worked near this location. I honestly believe these townhouses would not have changed the neighborhood character for the worse. If anything, the working class nature of the Westside comes to a head. Just look at the developements of American Seating and Union Square. The surrounding houses are still there, and from the looks of it, appear to be more occupied than ever.

[D-Man_GR]

Personally, I believe the PC has become too activist for its own good. Looking at this and the Meijer denials, the PC is acting far beyond its mandate and authority - as well as only hearing one side of the story. The problem is fairly typical: there are always existing neighbors and activists who, fearing change, lobby the PC to deny zoning changes or site plan approvals without anyone present to advocate the project's benefits except the developer - whose hands are stained by the potential of "profit" (that nasty word).

It's like the example of a existing residential neighborhood successfully lobbying for no connections to an adjoining new residential neighborhood. If you were to ask 20 years later, most residents in both neighborhoods would see the benefits of interconnectivity, but at the time of approval there's only one side being heard.

PC's have to step back, take the long view and evaluate both sides on such projects.

[fotoman311]

This is indeed frustrating.

[Prankster]

Personally, I believe the PC has become too activist for its own good. Looking at this and the Meijer denials, the PC is acting far beyond its mandate and authority - as well as only hearing one side of the story. The problem is fairly typical: there are always existing neighbors and activists who, fearing change, lobby the PC to deny zoning changes or site plan approvals without anyone present to advocate the project's benefits except the developer - whose hands are stained by the potential of "profit" (that nasty word).

It's like the example of a existing residential neighborhood successfully lobbying for no connections to an adjoining new residential neighborhood. If you were to ask 20 years later, most residents in both neighborhoods would see the benefits of interconnectivity, but at the time of approval there's only one side being heard.

PC's have to step back, take the long view and evaluate both sides on such projects.

[Veloise]

I certainly hope you are not implying that some people couldn't be quite content with more modest, well maintained homes. "Many houses in my father's Mansion" or something like that. Why not protect and improve areas with modest homes?? There are lots of smaller homes in Cherry Hill, Fairmount Square, the Brikyaat and other Midtown, East Hills, AND West Side neighborhoods. Diversity !

[plee30]

Personally, I believe the PC has become too activist for its own good. Looking at this and the Meijer denials, the PC is acting far beyond its mandate and authority - as well as only hearing one side of the story. The problem is fairly typical: there are always existing neighbors and activists who, fearing change, lobby the PC to deny zoning changes or site plan approvals without anyone present to advocate the project's benefits except the developer - whose hands are stained by the potential of "profit" (that nasty word).

It's like the example of a existing residential neighborhood successfully lobbying for no connections to an adjoining new residential neighborhood. If you were to ask 20 years later, most residents in both neighborhoods would see the benefits of interconnectivity, but at the time of approval there's only one side being heard.

PC's have to step back, take the long view and evaluate both sides on such projects.

[GRDadof3]

As a side note, this was the city commission that denied the request, not the planning commission. Developers can appeal to the city commission if they do not get satisfaction from the planning commission.

My opinion on this, as a father of 2 young children, I would never move my family into that neighborhood because of the condition of the school system. And I like to think of myself as a little more of an urban enthusiast that most people. So if the neighborhood association thinks that if they hold out long enough, families will start migrating back to the neighborhood, they are sadly mistaken. Only the cities that are the furthest along in redevelopment are attracting families. The demographic for cities like Grand Rapids are the young professionals, empty nesters, etc. Only when the city is close to being fully redeveloped with solid school systems will families start to move back.

Anyways, that is my two cent take on it.

[PRCH]

Of course, that's beside the point John.

[Ted]

I seem to (too) often find myself beside the point. It is, however, an eminently defensible position.

[Rizzo]

Is self preservation and innovation incompatible? Or should I say, can innovation help preservation?

Also, I don't know if this vocal contingent is related to the old politics and society of the West Side that existed. Oral history passed down tells me that might help explain what's going on here. It would be interesting to see how many people currently of the West Side go back that far.

[PRCH]

I guess I don't see it. Would you please defend?

[Ted]

Constitution of The United States of America; 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech......

[PRCH]

Is self preservation and innovation incompatible? Or should I say, can innovation help preservation?

[PRCH]

And that relates to land banking how?

[/quote

Didn't realize we were discussing land banking(!?). Being an observer, I think being beside the point is a perfectly comfortable place to be.