Jump to content

More buildings to be torn down in the LaGrave/Sheldon/Cherry St area

GRDadof3

By GRDadof3
in Grand Rapids

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply
aowwt Whistle-Stop

aowwt

Posted
Posted

The key thing in this entire situation is that the elected officials do not care. It is them who are ultimaly responsible for any redevelopment or change in the city. I say that because it is they who are to hold the city planning and buildings departments from doing things like this. I understand somebody brings a plan to the city for any new buildings or for a permit to teardown a building. It is those departments who have to ask what is on that property and maybe it should be brought before a commission first to make sure it wont do negative harm to the city. That is the missing aspect to this whole thing. If you want an action stopped you have to start with elected officials on it to get the ball rolling and the key thing is once they get informed you have to show something that can be done instead. Its a simple fact in my year of looking at how cities work that it does take hold and things do indeed get done. One person was able to convice the city of wyoming to relook at the spray area for gyspie moths. All it takes is communication. I am going to love the next planning commission meeting on the aspect of McDs coming to Metro Health. That should be a riot on top of the current work on commission is undertaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeDowntown Metropolis

joeDowntown

Posted
Posted

I think the thing that grind me the most about these (now 3) buildings, is that while the city gave this an instant stamp of approval to demolish these great buildings, they are not at all consistent in their policies. Look at Seward avenue or the Lexington school on the west side. The city basically tried EVERYTHING to stop two major developments (successfully I might add), and in my opinion, both of these West Side projects showed more merit in that one was a re-use of an exisitng building, the other served a need for GVSU and there is no land available without knocking down several dilapidated building.

Yet Saint Mary's is a sea of surface lots, all of which could be filled with development before ever having a need to raze building that are in use. We're not talking about unused buildings. These properties were occupied, and from what I heard, pretty full.

So I think my frustration is more with the way the city will deal with one project one way, but have a totally different "attitude" on another.

Plus, they are sweet buildings. :)

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aowwt Whistle-Stop

aowwt

Posted
Posted

Exactly my point JD, those officials in the city are held responsible by the city council. Grand Rapids Citizens hold the city council members responsible for their actions. Hold them accountable if you want this fixed. If you do not like how they are doing policy then talk to them at their meetings. The worst they can say is we do not care and if they say that, trust me they wont, but if they do thats not doing their #1 job which is to get reelected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Exactly my point JD, those officials in the city are held responsible by the city council. Grand Rapids Citizens hold the city council members responsible for their actions. Hold them accountable if you want this fixed. If you do not like how they are doing policy then talk to them at their meetings. The worst they can say is we do not care and if they say that, trust me they wont, but if they do thats not doing their #1 job which is to get reelected.

The problem with this theory is that there is no mechanism to save these buildings. They are not in an historic district. I don't know the specifics, but the city can't just stand in the way of a demolition permit without a good reason, ie they can't deny it just because they don't like it. That creates groundwork for a lawsuit by the developer (arbitrary decisions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raildudes dad Hamlet

Raildudes dad

Posted
Posted

The key thing in this entire situation is that the elected officials do not care. It is them who are ultimaly responsible for any redevelopment or change in the city. I say that because it is they who are to hold the city planning and buildings departments from doing things like this. I understand somebody brings a plan to the city for any new buildings or for a permit to teardown a building. It is those departments who have to ask what is on that property and maybe it should be brought before a commission first to make sure it wont do negative harm to the city. That is the missing aspect to this whole thing.

Apparently you have not attempted to develop a parcel or an existing building in the City of GR. The City has put all the departments you need to talk to at 1120 Monroe so you don't need to go from building to building like you used to. Trust me, every department gets their turn at your project.

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

Mark Miller

Posted
Posted

They hold back growth when all of the thousands of parking spaces around them are filled in with development, and there is nowhere left to go. Or maybe when they impede a truly A-grade project where the developer actually put forth an engaging, and creative structure.

They need to be saved when you find that they basically are the last thing standing in the way of a parking lot expansion or a bland, crap development. When craft and style are going to be sacrificed for E. Beltline budgeting.

This is dead on. We have never really bemoaned the loss of structures when they were replaced with something better or when development pressure was truly in existence. But with the number of surface lots here, there is no development pressure, unless you are in the business of building parking lots. And from all indications, what we will get in place of these buildings is going to be substantially less urban and profoundly less interesting architecturally.

This is clearly a loss and ultimately makes this area worse rather than better, especially considering that they were functional, occupied buidlings AND that there is nothing but surface parking lots surrounding them. They were the last thing holding whatever semlence of credible fabric was still here. And once they are gone....as said earlier by GR Urbanist...you may as well write this area off.

I'm sorry, do you own the property? Did you put up millions to develop the block? Who are you to tell a property owner what they can and can not do with their property? And all of your negative criticism is based off a crappy rendering in the news paper.

This might be true if there was real development going on here, but saying someone is going to develop this block is a stretch. Land development constitutes adding value through development of the property. And while they may be putting something on this site....adding value is questionable. This has all the appearances of overpaying for land (not the buildings since they are tearing them down) and then building what? A marginal building made of chip board and faux stucco.

All under the guise of the non-profit who just wants to help all the underserved people.

This has been a good thread and there is clearly an understanding and passion by posters regarding this wrong. Although ultimately this has probably been played out and there is not much that can be done to save these. Now we just have to cross our fingers and hold our breath that this "developer" will actually add value to this place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aowwt Whistle-Stop

aowwt

Posted
Posted

Departments are held responsible by the City Manager who is held responsible by the city council. A committee only has the city council to report to and be held responsible to. Thats what happened with the Meijer issue on 28th and Kzoo. As for the current item, this should have been brought before planning commission at least to be looked at. They can vote yes or no and if the city council wanted to put their two cents in they could by writing to the commission. The key thing is in this issue was a complete lack of communication about the project and the surronding areas. I seen that area and it does not look like it used to 10 years ago. Is it bad or good depends on what was occupied and what was vacant and falling over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Departments are held responsible by the City Manager who is held responsible by the city council. A committee only has the city council to report to and be held responsible to. Thats what happened with the Meijer issue on 28th and Kzoo. As for the current item, this should have been brought before planning commission at least to be looked at. They can vote yes or no and if the city council wanted to put their two cents in they could by writing to the commission. The key thing is in this issue was a complete lack of communication about the project and the surronding areas. I seen that area and it does not look like it used to 10 years ago. Is it bad or good depends on what was occupied and what was vacant and falling over.

The building to be built there DID go before the city for approval. It's all in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeDowntown Metropolis

joeDowntown

Posted
Posted

We did. In fact, some of us looked into moving the buildings. No way to make the numbers work.

The fact remains that the city should be consistent from project to project. If they are going to over-scrutinize ANY attempt at demolition/redevelopment on the near westside, they should have scrutinized this development in the same manner.

So if we could look at an alternate reality where all development projects in the city were treated the same:

Scenario 1:

a. Lexington School would be redeveloped and housing GVSU students

b. Seward would be redeveloped with new housing for GVSU students

c. Fulton (or was it Lake Michigan Dr.? Sorry) would have a high-density residential development (again, GVSU students)

d. The buildings around LaGrave, Sheldon and Cherry would be demolished and redeveloped.

Scenario 2:

a. Lexington School would STILL be redeveloped [GRPS was bullied by SWAN].

b. Seward would have the same dilapidated housing

c. Fulton/Lake Michigan Dr. would have no new development

d. The buildings around LaGrave, Sheldon and Cherry would stay a part of the fabric of the neighborhood.

The fact is, we got the worst of both scenarios. Buildings near St. Mary's are about to meet the wrecking ball and the near Westside continues to repel development. Now that's progress!

Joe

Well that was the venue, I thought I read through this maybe I missed something. If anything its a shame more people did not speak up against tearing down the buildings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Whistle-Stop

Ted

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry, do you own the property? Did you put up millions to develop the block? Who are you to tell a property owner what they can and can not do with their property? And all of your negative criticism is based off a crappy rendering in the news paper.

Please come back with your elitist attitude when you are doing what you propose everyone else should do with their property and their money.

Of course your over-the-top hyperbolic post comes from the fact that you've got a skin in this game as a member of D+...

We did. In fact, some of us looked into moving the buildings. No way to make the numbers work.

The fact remains that the city should be consistent from project to project. If they are going to over-scrutinize ANY attempt at demolition/redevelopment on the near westside, they should have scrutinized this development in the same manner.

So if we could look at an alternate reality where all development projects in the city were treated the same:

Scenario 1:

a. Lexington School would be redeveloped and housing GVSU students

b. Seward would be redeveloped with new housing for GVSU students

c. Fulton (or was it Lake Michigan Dr.? Sorry) would have a high-density residential development (again, GVSU students)

d. The buildings around LaGrave, Sheldon and Cherry would be demolished and redeveloped.

Scenario 2:

a. Lexington School would STILL be redeveloped [GRPS was bullied by SWAN].

b. Seward would have the same dilapidated housing

c. Fulton/Lake Michigan Dr. would have no new development

d. The buildings around LaGrave, Sheldon and Cherry would stay a part of the fabric of the neighborhood.

The fact is, we got the worst of both scenarios. Buildings near St. Mary's are about to meet the wrecking ball and the near Westside continues to repel development. Now that's progress!

Joe

It's only funny cause it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
  • Author
Posted

We did. In fact, some of us looked into moving the buildings. No way to make the numbers work.

The fact remains that the city should be consistent from project to project. If they are going to over-scrutinize ANY attempt at demolition/redevelopment on the near westside, they should have scrutinized this development in the same manner.

So if we could look at an alternate reality where all development projects in the city were treated the same:

Scenario 1:

a. Lexington School would be redeveloped and housing GVSU students

b. Seward would be redeveloped with new housing for GVSU students

c. Fulton (or was it Lake Michigan Dr.? Sorry) would have a high-density residential development (again, GVSU students)

d. The buildings around LaGrave, Sheldon and Cherry would be demolished and redeveloped.

Scenario 2:

a. Lexington School would STILL be redeveloped [GRPS was bullied by SWAN].

b. Seward would have the same dilapidated housing

c. Fulton/Lake Michigan Dr. would have no new development

d. The buildings around LaGrave, Sheldon and Cherry would stay a part of the fabric of the neighborhood.

The fact is, we got the worst of both scenarios. Buildings near St. Mary's are about to meet the wrecking ball and the near Westside continues to repel development. Now that's progress!

Joe

I think this illustrates that the city does actually listen to surrounding property owners. Maybe too much so. In the case of Cherry Ct Apts, there aren't any neighbors left to complain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
RegalTDP Burg

RegalTDP

Posted
Posted

The company that purchased the two buildings on lagrave also just purchased the dayton on cherry. Hopefully they do not decide to turn it into a parking lot as well.

Does anyone know what the fate of the Dayton is? I haven't noticed any talk of it since last Fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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.