Jump to content


Why haven't you registered yet?

Registration is quick, easy and completely FREE! Click the Create Account button located at the top-right to sign-up and receive additional benefits that existing members are already receiving!

Photo
- - - - -

Martha's Vineyard


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#21 arcturus

arcturus

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 463 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 13 February 2013 - 11:26 AM

Yep, I would rather have crappy buildings there, waiting for an actual worthwhile project that will add value to the business district and neighborhood, than a crappy car wash that's going to look ugly in two years and tie up the land for the next 20 years.

 

What would be your definition of a worthwhile project in such a heavily commercialized area with its gas stations and fast food joints?



 

#22 GRDadof3

GRDadof3

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 18,112 posts
  • Location:Metro Grand Rapids

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:29 PM

Saw this on Facebook. Seems to be a lot of fretting and hand-wringing over this. If I compare it to, say, the Diocese tearing down an historic school for an empty plaza, I guess I'm not as riled up about this one. Thoughts?

 

318150_10101082044551065_1239820978_n.jp



#23 john_denver

john_denver

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Location:Downtown - Grand Rapids

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:40 PM

Did i hear correctly that they will use the current diagonal parking for a pedestrian area?



#24 GRDadof3

GRDadof3

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 18,112 posts
  • Location:Metro Grand Rapids

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:56 PM

Did i hear correctly that they will use the current diagonal parking for a pedestrian area?

 

That's what I've been pushing for, but haven't heard definitively.



#25 GR_Urbanist

GR_Urbanist

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,028 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:40 PM

Saw this on Facebook. Seems to be a lot of fretting and hand-wringing over this. If I compare it to, say, the Diocese tearing down an historic school for an empty plaza, I guess I'm not as riled up about this one. Thoughts?

 

318150_10101082044551065_1239820978_n.jp

 

Flat out disgusting. I personally will never buy from them again after this. Just look at the size of that hole in the streetwall!

 

And to think that the demographic that frequents this place the most are those that will tell you with a straight face that they want to live in a built urban environment and really "hate" car-centric places in the suburbs. They loved this place because it WAS somewhere that really seemed to fit that mold. I always held this place in such high esteem as a business that was on the other end of the scale from the Family Dollars and Walgreens. Places that were always looking for a way to scam a huge parking lot for their buildings no matter how ugly it made the surrounding area. Now what makes Martha's different? Just because this place is more fancy and sells cheese that is hard to pronounce?

 

And the thing that really hacks me off? How some dullards actually think this is going to be some great enhancement to the area! That this parking lot is somehow going to be used for festivals, beer tents, or goodness knows what imaginary foolishness. It is a parking lot. It WILL be used to park cars. It will be covered with fluid stains in the summer and with snow in the winter. It will have cheap saplings and juniper shrubs to try to cover it up from the street...poorly. It will not moonlight as a "festival plaza", piazza, or a community gathering place no more than the even bigger church parking lot across the street ever functioned as anything other than that.

 

I just wish they would at least acknowledge what they are doing, and spare us the fluffy "We are expanding our store" crap. They took advantage of a situation to needless turn a part of the urban fabric into a permanent hole. As if GR needs more of that.


  • jthrasher likes this

#26 RegalTDP

RegalTDP

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:00 PM

Saw this on Facebook. Seems to be a lot of fretting and hand-wringing over this. If I compare it to, say, the Diocese tearing down an historic school for an empty plaza, I guess I'm not as riled up about this one. Thoughts?

 

I'm sad for the building, but not outraged. 

 

Sad because I really did like the look of the old building, and though GR may be 45 square miles (as you pointed out), there weren't many buildings like this anymore, and there aren't many intersections like Lyon/Union left in this town.

 

But not outraged.  This is different from St. Andrew's, because that was a usable/marketable building in decent condition, and they spent a great deal of money to replace it with something that serves no purpose.  619 Lyon is not usable or marketable in its present condition, and what costs $250,000 to fix now may cost more in the future.  It's true that the eventual parking lot serves equally no purpose, but at least the loss of the building in the first place was a foregone conclusion.

 

It's frustrating that this new parking lot will likely be here to stay for a long time.  But keep in mind vacant lots tend to stick around for way too long as well.


Edited by RegalTDP, 26 February 2013 - 05:32 PM.


#27 fotoman311

fotoman311

    Burg

  • Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,820 posts
  • Location:"The Woods" in Midtown, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Posted 26 February 2013 - 06:09 PM

Did i hear correctly that they will use the current diagonal parking for a pedestrian area?

 

You mean the sidewalk that's currently used for diagonal parking, right? :)


  • john_denver and amylynne like this

#28 tSlater

tSlater

    Town

  • Members+
  • 2,717 posts
  • Location:Plainfield Twp

Posted 27 February 2013 - 02:04 AM

The loss off the relatively unique building is sad indeed, but the only thing that can possibly enrage me is the parking lot across the street, and the lack of a way to negotiate common use of it for the benefit of the community rather than for private single-purpose use.


  • jthrasher likes this

#29 wingbert

wingbert

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:36 AM

To be honest, if we're going to get worked up trying to save a derelict, run-down, old building then I think we should shift our focus to Olds Manor.  Where's the outrage at the Devos family for letting that building stand and rot in one of the most prominant locations in our fair city.  If it was Azzar who owned that building everyone would be calling him a squatter (or worse).


  • Veloise likes this

#30 SupercityGR

SupercityGR

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Location:up in the air

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:39 AM

To be honest, if we're going to get worked up trying to save a derelict, run-down, old building then I think we should shift our focus to Olds Manor.  Where's the outrage at the Devos family for letting that building stand and rot in one of the most prominant locations in our fair city.  If it was Azzar who owned that building everyone would be calling him a squatter (or worse).

 

Im hoping that with msu owning the the press building and maybe usps moving, that olds maor will go through rehab. fingers crossed



#31 GR_Urbanist

GR_Urbanist

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,028 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 01:02 PM

To be honest, if we're going to get worked up trying to save a derelict, run-down, old building then I think we should shift our focus to Olds Manor.  Where's the outrage at the Devos family for letting that building stand and rot in one of the most prominant locations in our fair city.  If it was Azzar who owned that building everyone would be calling him a squatter (or worse). 

 

The answer is right there. They let the buildings stand.


​Even a clown like Azzar hasn't engaged in opportunistic demolition that I know of. And if he did, what are we going to say? That Martha's blowing holes in the street wall for a parking lot is ok because they are hip and cool or because that building doesn't matter, but Azzar or the DeVos family(whom have no record of doing so) attempting the same thing is bad?

 

Just remember that the urban renewal of the 60s that is scorned to this day was predicated on saving us from derelict, run-down, old buildings too. No one thought those buildings mattered either, until they woke up and noticed that they didnt matter themselves into a joke of a city. By then it was too late, and now billions and years will have to be spent just to get back to where we were.



#32 GRDadof3

GRDadof3

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 18,112 posts
  • Location:Metro Grand Rapids

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:32 PM

The answer is right there. They let the buildings stand.


​Even a clown like Azzar hasn't engaged in opportunistic demolition that I know of. And if he did, what are we going to say? That Martha's blowing holes in the street wall for a parking lot is ok because they are hip and cool or because that building doesn't matter, but Azzar or the DeVos family(whom have no record of doing so) attempting the same thing is bad?

 

Just remember that the urban renewal of the 60s that is scorned to this day was predicated on saving us from derelict, run-down, old buildings too. No one thought those buildings mattered either, until they woke up and noticed that they didnt matter themselves into a joke of a city. By then it was too late, and now billions and years will have to be spent just to get back to where we were.

 

 

N/M



#33 joeDowntown

joeDowntown

    Town

  • Moderators
  • 3,304 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:37 PM

You make a good point. However, I think Olds Manor will be rehabbed if(when) the USPS vacates the the Michigan St location. Olds Manor is one of my favorite buildings and I hate to see it sit, but I can understand any developer waiting til the time is right. 

 

I do find it a shame that Martha's ripped down the building. More for the fact that once these buildings are gone, we can't them back. I can understand the economics, but I hate to see GR lose any additional old buildings. 

 

Joe

 

 

To be honest, if we're going to get worked up trying to save a derelict, run-down, old building then I think we should shift our focus to Olds Manor.  Where's the outrage at the Devos family for letting that building stand and rot in one of the most prominant locations in our fair city.  If it was Azzar who owned that building everyone would be calling him a squatter (or worse).



#34 GRDadof3

GRDadof3

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 18,112 posts
  • Location:Metro Grand Rapids

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:01 PM

I was one of the people who made an uproar when the Diocese was tearing down the school, so this may seem hypocritical, but it seems like there are a lot of people in the city of GR more concerned about a building being torn down here and there, and not that concerned about huge population and job losses within the city. Unemployment in some sections are 30+%. Most of the kids in GRPS qualify for free lunch programs because of the abject poverty. Entire high schools are being closed down. I'm not advocating that buildings be torn down for parking lots, but how about putting energy toward filling in the 185 vacant lots in the city's residential areas? (last count I saw) And not chasing businesses away with Amsterdam ideology?

 

And comparing this to urban renewal of the 60's? Urban renewal (in some cities was way bigger than GR), it would mean Martha's would be gone, along with every home North to Michigan, West to College, South to Fulton, East to Eastern.

 

Probably not a good idea to chase Kameel out of Heritage Hill. I'm sure some suburban commercial developers would love to land him as a tenant.


  • wingbert likes this

#35 dbrock1046

dbrock1046

    Unincorporated Area

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Location:Heritage Hill

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:18 PM

Couldn't have said it better, thanks for putting my thoughts to keyboard.



#36 GRDadof3

GRDadof3

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 18,112 posts
  • Location:Metro Grand Rapids

Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:54 PM

As I said, it sure will be nice to have this nice brick paved sidewalk used as it was intended.

 

8519900928_a99a47bd00_z.jpg


  • jthrasher likes this

#37 fotoman311

fotoman311

    Burg

  • Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,820 posts
  • Location:"The Woods" in Midtown, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Posted 01 March 2013 - 11:42 PM

As I said, it sure will be nice to have this nice brick paved sidewalk used as it was intended.

 

8519900928_a99a47bd00_z.jpg

 

 

Certainly!  And those cars are parked very well.  It's not uncommon to have someone park 30-40" from the building.



#38 GRDadof3

GRDadof3

    Gigalopolis

  • Global Moderators
  • 18,112 posts
  • Location:Metro Grand Rapids

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:45 PM

Certainly!  And those cars are parked very well.  It's not uncommon to have someone park 30-40" from the building.

 

Actually, when I came out after taking this photo, there was a car so close that you had to turn sideways to get between the bumper and the ivy of the wall.



#39 GR_Urbanist

GR_Urbanist

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,028 posts

Posted 05 March 2013 - 03:48 PM

I just could not pass up posting this from the Marth's FB page. Apparently one poster had enough of people having the audacity of being critical of the most holy of stores over their exciting new parking lot.

 

 Most of the haters should keep in mind that you're street probably isn't congested because of the lack of parking and that this helps the store owners, the patrons, AND the neighbors. No I don't live in this neighborhood and deal with the congestion, but I live nearby and can appreciate what this will do. The reality is that restoring and maintaining an old building is EXPENSIVE AS crap and if they weren't tearing it down then you'd be stuck looking at a crapty old building whining for someone to do something with it. Well, someone is doing something with it that is logical and beneficial, you just can't tell because your new urbanist glasses are too thick. I'm against parking lots as much as the next schmo, but you also have to be reasonable taking all sides, including the financial side, into consideration. Anyway, it's martha's, so you know their going to dress it up with landscaping as much as possible. Nothing to worry about folks, you can go back inside now. Nothin to see here.

 

This is the same line of "logic" used in the suburbs, during urban renewal, and with entities like St. Mary's today. And as I said before, while it may be "ok" because it is Martha's and few people have the desire to call them out, it wont be possible for the same people cheering this to credibly chide anyone else for doing the same in the future. 

 

And oh they will.

 

If I was a developer with a plan to waste some buildings for a parking lot, I would walk into a PC meeting and just flash a picture of the Martha Lot with all of the thumbs-up, and with a grin, dare them to say I'm doing something wrong.

 

Then again after living for 35 years in a city that almost grounded most of its buildings into dust for "safe and easy" parking, maybe my " new urbanist glasses are too thick".


Edited by GR_Urbanist, 06 March 2013 - 03:54 PM.


#40 walker

walker

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 451 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:26 AM

As I said, it sure will be nice to have this nice brick paved sidewalk used as it was intended.

 

8519900928_a99a47bd00_z.jpg

 

Unless they intend to build new front doors facing the new parking lot like a suburban strip mall, I think people will continue to park on the sidewalk rather than around the block in the parking lot.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users