644 replies to this topic

[mmcroberts]

There's no real agreement between the companies that's keeping Borders out.  The fact is that the Borders company makes a fairly good deal of money from their relationship with Schuler.  Opening their own store in GR wouldn't necessarily benefit them.  They'd stand to profit from the store, but would damage their relationship with a company that has 4 stores in GR and Lansing.  They'd also be seen as the "invading company" coming in and hurting a local business...

So it's probably more the economics of the situation that keeps Borders out of GR.

snoogit, on Nov 4 2005, 07:51 PM, said:

BUt isnt it true that its Schuler's Bookstores who is keeping BOrders out of GR?

othereisw why would an Ann Arbor based business create a giant worldwide company and NOT have a store in GR?

[Prankster]

mmcroberts, on Nov 4 2005, 09:01 PM, said:

There's no real agreement between the companies that's keeping Borders out.  The fact is that the Borders company makes a fairly good deal of money from their relationship with Schuler.  Opening their own store in GR wouldn't necessarily benefit them.  They'd stand to profit from the store, but would damage their relationship with a company that has 4 stores in GR and Lansing.  They'd also be seen as the "invading company" coming in and hurting a local business...

So it's probably more the economics of the situation that keeps Borders out of GR.

Thanks for clearing up the misconception.  I was also under the impression that Schuler's was another brand for Borders.  If what you say is true, it is good to see an independent do so well in the chain dominated bookstore business.

[mmcroberts]

During a period of underemployment in my chosen profession, I worked at the main Schuler store as a book seller.  It was a great job, though the pay was low, but as far as retail work goes it was great.  Wonderful customers, good coworkers, incredible management/owners.  Everything I know about the Borders/Schuler distinction comes straight from Schuler training--though I probably have broken some agreement of some sort by revealing as much as I have (LOL).  At any rate, it's a constant frustration to the Schuler-ians that they are often considered to be the same as Borders.

There was one day in the Christmas season; I don't know if I was distracted, or what, but I actually answered the phone "Borders Books and Music"...  I almost died of embarassment...

Prankster, on Nov 7 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

Thanks for clearing up the misconception.  I was also under the impression that Schuler's was another brand for Borders.  If what you say is true, it is good to see an independent do so well in the chain dominated bookstore business.

[acarlton]

I just read this section for the first time and I feel like I am going to throw-up. I just started working on the Downtown Branding Proposal from the city with suggestions to bring this sort of thing downtown. Basically all of the suggestions from UP forumers for downtown are being used in "The Village." Now we cannot bring the same stores downtown too. It sucks because any downtown projects of this nature would take years of city legislation approvals, but in the suburbs...anyone with money and an idea can build without difficulty.

While the outdoor structure of "The Village" mirrors some prinicpals of New Urbanism, where is the regional mindset that is so important to wise planning? The problem with GR (and its metro areas) retail is lack of density based on population. We can't remedy that by building yet another destination to drive cars to.

As much as businesses are out to compete with one another for our hard-earned dollars, there is a certain level of interdependence on the synergy created by density. It makes me sick to think that all the efforts to further develop downtown could be stifled by this suburban draw. There has been so much discussion about urban retail and its importance to a successful city, yet there is little we can do to thwart the ignornace of local developers. What ever happened to long-term thinking?

Maybe I am making too big of a deal about this, but I had such grand hopes for GR in 5-10 years. Developments like this make it tough to be an idealist. I may have to give Kevin at BDR a call...I thought they were moving in the right direction with their waterfront project in Grand Haven...I guess not.

-anne

[GRDadof3]

I think to blame BDR for anything is wrong.  He saw an opportunity to buy land that would be a good investment, a project that would work economically, and help build his company.  The process for them is not over yet (they haven't even gotten approval yet) and has hardly been easy. Is there a developer sitting on a piece of property downtown working on putting together something like this that we're not aware of?  If this development will make it harder for particular downtown developers, then why don't they get off their asses and do something before BDR does? Why should BDR take a back seat to something that "may" happen in the future.  Or is it just at the vision level.  Visions are great to have, but they don't pay the bills.

Sorry acarlton, but my frustration over downtown developers (other than the major players) and retail right now is pretty high.

Edited by GRDadof3, 07 November 2005 - 11:21 AM.

[snoogit]

mmcroberts, on Nov 7 2005, 11:45 AM, said:

There was one day in the Christmas season; I don't know if I was distracted, or what, but I actually answered the phone "Borders Books and Music"...  I almost died of embarassment...

That was you? lol (j/k)

Thanks for clearing this all up, now I feel smarter, and can one up my friends and coworkers with my knowledge (hehe)

[acarlton]

GRDadof3, on Nov 7 2005, 11:09 AM, said:

I think to blame BDR for anything is wrong.  He saw an opportunity to buy land that would be a good investment, a project that would work economically, and help build his company.  The process for them is not over yet (they haven't even gotten approval yet) and has hardly been easy. Is there a developer sitting on a piece of property downtown working on putting together something like this that we're not aware of?  If this development will make it harder for particular downtown developers, then why don't they get off their asses and do something before BDR does? Why should BDR take a back seat to something that "may" happen in the future.  Or is it just at the vision level.  Visions are great to have, but they don't pay the bills.

Sorry acarlton, but my frustration over downtown developers (other than the major players) and retail right now is pretty high.

I agree GRDadof3 in terms of the economical reasoning behind BDR's plan.  I don't really blame them, in fact I know Kevin Einfeld really well and he is a good guy with a realistic/smart business sense. He has found a niche in the Forest Hills/Cascade market and made a successful company from it.

But the fact that I like Kevin, doesn't diminish the frustration I have with the city being in competition with the susburban retail market for substantial stores. I realize that development is not marketable for the "common good" ...there needs to be an economic incentive. Do I wish GR developers would "get off their asses?" of course, but changing the perception that DT can sustain retail is far more difficult than adding a Banana Republic to Cascade.

So what is the solution? (we should really switch this conversation to the "Downtown Retail Thread")
I am not sure, but I believe we will get there. Its just frustrating playing the waiting game.

[GRDadof3]

I hope I didn't come off to gruff     Since you (and a few others) might be closer to this than many of the rest of us, what is the hold up?  Is available land too expensive?  Not large enough?  Too many regulations?  What is the word amongst developers who already have a strong foothold downtown?  That downtown retail is too risky?

[torgo]

GRDadof3, on Nov 7 2005, 02:41 PM, said:

I hope I didn't come off to gruff     Since you (and a few others) might be closer to this than many of the rest of us, what is the hold up?  Is available land too expensive?  Not large enough?  Too many regulations?  What is the word amongst developers who already have a strong foothold downtown?  That downtown retail is too risky?

I have no idea, but I would guess that it is viewed as a more substantial risk to set up shop DT, as opposed to the 'burbs.  And since land is more expensive DT, or at least similarly priced, the path of least resistance and least risk is the 'burbs.  That's my view of it, anyways.  All of us here think that businesses would do well DT, and many of them would, but I'd guess that more than a few retailers view setting up a downtown retail store as "sticking your neck out", so to speak.  Thats my $0.02 anyways.

[GRDadof3]

There needs to be a consolidated project or "mall" that smaller retailers, like Urban Outfitters, can jump on board to.  There is nowhere near the residential population downtown for them to open up in a ground floor retail spot on Monroe Center or Ionia (in my opinion) and survive on their own.  This project would act as an "anchor", just like a large department store, and would bring in enough activity to have other smaller retailers open up in the vicinity.  Obviously, more housing downtown will help that as well.  The question is, who will be the developer to step up to the plate to make it happen, even though it would be bold?  It almost has to be a local developer teaming up with a national developer and architect.  GR's dowtown is just too far off anyone's radar screen right now for a national developer to take notice, IMO.

[GR8scott]

yeah I agree with some of the things above but an example that I know is West Palm Beach Fla. (not plam beach). My grandparents live down there and just a couple years ago the DT was desolate but it is under a huge  transformation right now. There was no shopping there until a big project called city place tore out about 4 square blocks and reaplced with shops, put townhoses above and behind them and in the center was a Macy's and a Muvico and also a center pavillion area where the shops are further back and there is a fountain and a small stage. It is very cool and looks to be very sucessful and I think that GR could support something like that because it will draw ppl to come into DT. The problem is location because we dont have abanded blocks and monroe center is not set up to be like that. The one thing I could see is the government center being outdated and moving elsewhere and the current city hall/fed building/5/3building being replaced with an outdoor shopping center/hotel/housing. that would be cool

[Prankster]

Going with Gr8scott's way of thinking, the WAM sight is our best forseeable option to obtain this.  The problem with that, though, is Jack Buchanon is strictly a locally known developer that is most associated with the failed City Hall/Marriott failure.  He would need to team up with a nationally known developer like Urban Retail Properties, The Rouse Company or Cordish Company.  We need to change the paradigm of western Michigan from thinking that there isn't any place to shop downtown.  We changed the thinking by putting some of our most successful restaurants and nightclubs downtown, but we need to move that on to retail.

[GRDadof3]

Wow, that sounds like a solid plan Prankster!  Are you a rocket scientist?   

Edited by GRDadof3, 07 November 2005 - 09:33 PM.

[acarlton]

While the space downtown is certainly beginning to diminish. The bigger issue with urban retail is getting the retail itself to agree to come downtown (as opposed to Rivertown, 28th, Knapp and now "the Village"). They really need to see a catalyst to view the area as a viable entrepeneural opportunity and a huge flux in condos is not going to cut it.

Unfortunately, if "the Village" is a go then all those stores will never agree to come downtown (until their lease is up) because of the proxmity. We then have a tougher challenge of finding alternatives.

If I were to do a shopping district, I would put it behind the vanAndel arena along 131 between Oakes and Cherry. This way it has a presence from the highway, link to the GR skyway, connection to Ionia corridor and the monroe center corridor. I would use existing buildings and connect them with indoor/outdoor courtyards.

All underground parking too with a trolley or streetcar to bring folks to other parts of the city.

[GRDadof3]

The Village only has 50 tenants, and most of which are already in this area.  Why would having them at this location diminish the possiblity of getting them downtown any more than at Woodland or Rivertown?  Unless it's having additional locations ANYWHERE in the metro lessens the chances.  Here's another thing to think about for downtown developers.  There's a good chance we'll see ANOTHER development of this sort in Alpine Township in the next few years.  The longer people wait, the harder it will be.

South of the Arena is a great location too, but I was curious what existing buildings would be part of your development anne?  Most of Ionia is pretty much filled up.  Maybe the buildings along Grandville (old USXChange, 100 Grandville and the Anheuser Building) might work better, and build a multi-story shopping complex behind them on the surface lot and maybe another behind 100 Grandville.

Now that would be some great highway exposure, and easy connectivity to the skywalk system  

And one last thought, I believe that you only have to convince one party to move downtown, and that is one of the national downtown retail developers that Prankster mentioned.  Once you get them on board, they will do everything they can to fill the place with their current client base.  That's exactly what Kevin did with the Village.  Aikens is going to fill the place, not BDR.

Edited by GRDadof3, 08 November 2005 - 08:04 AM.

[GaryP]

GRDadof3, on Nov 8 2005, 09:00 AM, said:

South of the Arena is a great location too, but I was curious what existing buildings would be part of your development anne?  Most of Ionia is pretty much filled up.  Maybe the buildings along Grandville (old USXChange, 100 Grandville and the Anheuser Building) might work better, and build a multi-story shopping complex behind them on the surface lot and maybe another behind 100 Grandville.

Now that would be some great highway exposure, and easy connectivity to the skywalk system  

I think that would be best case scenario.  Something similar to the Nordstrom mall on Michigan ave would fit great into those surface lots along Oakes next to the highway.  It about 4 stories and full of retailers we dont have in GR.

I think the biggest problem is parking.  Shoppers expect free parking in abundance, but if you were to just give it away downtown there would be plenty of people ready to take advantage.

[GRDadof3]

That's the crux.  You would almost HAVE to add a parking ramp as part of the development, and then that lessens the chance of people venturing outside the development to experience other things downtown.  The Village is expecting 8000 shoppers/day.  I don't know what that translates into for parking spaces needed, but probably at least a 1000 car ramp for this and to replace the lost surface lots?  In addition, I think you would have several different classes of shoppers:

Some suburbanites coming downtown to the "mall" and maybe doing other things downtown, but not likely to venture out too far (unless they included an arena event with their experience)
Conventioneers and visitors that would walk to the mall from the hotels would be more likely to do other things along the way
The biggest bonus would be the increased interest in residential downtown, who would almost certainly spend more time downtown than just at the mall, and would be the biggest catalyst for spinoff retail

Edited by GRDadof3, 08 November 2005 - 08:34 AM.

[torgo]

GRDadof3, on Nov 8 2005, 09:34 AM, said:

That's the crux.  You would almost HAVE to add a parking ramp as part of the development, and then that lessens the chance of people venturing outside the development to experience other things downtown.  The Village is expecting 8000 shoppers/day.  I don't know what that translates into for parking spaces needed, but probably at least a 1000 car ramp for this and to replace the lost surface lots?  In addition, I think you would have several different classes of shoppers:

Some suburbanites coming downtown to the "mall" and maybe doing other things downtown, but not likely to venture out too far (unless they included an arena event with their experience)
Conventioneers and visitors that would walk to the mall from the hotels would be more likely to do other things along the way
The biggest bonus would be the increased interest in residential downtown, who would almost certainly spend more time downtown than just at the mall, and would be the biggest catalyst for spinoff retail

Yah, its kind of a catch-22.  It would be great to infill all that parking with retail, but then you gotta accompany all that retail with parking, plus what you filled in, so you end op with more parking than what you started with!  

BTW, did you know that the City of Portland managed to add 30,000 jobs downtown while adding zero parking spaces?  A lot of it was thanks to diversified mass transit options, including light rail and the like.     

[PBJ]

andy112129, on Nov 8 2005, 10:43 AM, said:

Yah, its kind of a catch-22.  It would be great to infill all that parking with retail, but then you gotta accompany all that retail with parking, plus what you filled in, so you end op with more parking than what you started with!  

BTW, did you know that the City of Portland managed to add 30,000 jobs downtown while adding zero parking spaces?  A lot of it was thanks to diversified mass transit options, including light rail and the like.     

If nobody minds, i'm starting a new thread, since this is trailing off the topic at hand of "The village" but I think it's a good discussion... Brb with a new thread  

[GR_Urbanist]

GRDadof3, on Nov 8 2005, 09:34 AM, said:

The biggest bonus would be the increased interest in residential downtown, who would almost certainly spend more time downtown than just at the mall, and would be the biggest catalyst for spinoff retail

Thats only if the people in that housing actually will want to "live" downtown. That is to say that people who move downtown into buildings that have private or covered parking grages are going to look out their window on January 15 and will opt to walk to their nearby car and drive out to Rivertown crossing or they will look at the walk from, for example, American Seating Park or Riverhouse or N. Monroe and Iwall on Bond in the hot summer and decided that that 1/4 or 1 mile walk isnt worth the sweat and will jump at A/C comfort and a short trip to 28th street. It may seem a bit outlandish to think that, but we now have how many people living in the DT area and we still have an almost empty DT after 6:30pm? Retailers are looking at this and no one is going to take the risk of putting a store in the city and end up losing there shirts because the residental population DT cant make the walk to their shop.

Also, many of the people moving DT are by and large from the suburbs and will most likely will keep going back to shop where their used to. At this point living downtown is more of a status symbol or fashion statement. It looks cool and is the trendy thing. That will be the case until some retail outlet will takes the leap downtown, we get more of a mix of housing and our dependance on the horseless carraige drops.

Yikes! I hope this made any sense.