200 replies to this topic

[Veloise]

GRCentro, on Apr 4 2006, 12:29 AM, said:

Public university buildings can trump local code.

As do other schools. They are exempt from local zoning regs, don't have to go through logical processes such as site plan review. (Check out the MLUI report on new schools being built on huge ag parcels miles and miles from where kids can walk to them. mlui.org, I think.)

[grandmabetty78]

Anybody know if Winkelman has plans to begin construction, aka. get the party started, on this project any time soon?  Hmmm.........and, does the building have interested tenants yet?

[GRDadof3]

Saw a big orange construction fence on the parking lot side of the JA building today.  Wonder if they are ramping up for construction?

[sparky05]

Has the rooftop signage been definitively denied?  Or is there still a chance that it'll be allowed?

[joeDowntown]

As far as I know it was definitely denied. Unless MSU moves in Schools can do whatever they want (though I have never heard anyone mention this building as a possible site (it would be on "neutral ground" though.

Joe

sparky05, on Apr 30 2006, 10:18 PM, said:

Has the rooftop signage been definitively denied?  Or is there still a chance that it'll be allowed?

[GRDadof3]

According to the Economic Development Office at the City, work is supposed to commence on the JA Building within the month.  Apparently that fence must be there for a reason.  

[MJLO]

would that mean yet another tower crane? or would that be overkill on a project like that?

[GRDadof3]

MJLO, on May 2 2006, 12:11 AM, said:

would that mean yet another tower crane? or would that be overkill on a project like that?

Probably overkill, although I wouldn't think the Art Museum would have needed a tower crane either.

[GRDadof3]

On this topic of the rooftop sign:

Churches, schools granted loophole in city ordinance

[Veloise]

GRDadof3, on May 2 2006, 08:50 AM, said:

On this topic of the rooftop sign:

Churches, schools granted loophole in city ordinance

Two different things. The variance to allow changing message boards for churches & schools in residential districts is a different animal than the lettering atop JA (unless I am misremembering this as a static sign). Generally it's a good idea to prevent visual clutter by limiting sign quantities and sizes. And JA isn't exactly in a RES zone.

Now, if the JA folk submitted a proposal for interesting artistic shapes atop their building--not lettering--those can't really be construed as a sign. (Unless the shapes are highway info icons implying this is a place to get a paper cut or a drink or food or...) If I were them, that's what I'd do. (I've seen neon ambiguous shapes on buildings, trying to recall where.)

[enjoying the chance to play my planner card]

[joeDowntown]

I don't know Veloise, Gabrielle Works thinks anything is a sign, whether it is a line of neon or a light shining on the Convention Center for 3 days...

I thought that they actually relaxed the sign ordinance a couple of years ago (remember when the city fought the Brassworks building until they realized it complied with their new sign ordinance? . I'd actually like to see more diversity in signage. Sign's like the Fox Jeweler sign should be welcomed downtown. It reminds me of the "heyday" of GR urban retail (not that I was alive or anything).

Joe

Veloise, on May 3 2006, 04:45 PM, said:

Two different things. The variance to allow changing message boards for churches & schools in residential districts is a different animal than the lettering atop JA (unless I am misremembering this as a static sign). Generally it's a good idea to prevent visual clutter by limiting sign quantities and sizes. And JA isn't exactly in a RES zone.

Now, if the JA folk submitted a proposal for interesting artistic shapes atop their building--not lettering--those can't really be construed as a sign. (Unless the shapes are highway info icons implying this is a place to get a paper cut or a drink or food or...) If I were them, that's what I'd do. (I've seen neon ambiguous shapes on buildings, trying to recall where.)

[enjoying the chance to play my planner card]

[GRDadof3]

There's definitely some interior demo going on now:

[civitas]

I just found this photo of the JA Building under construction.  Notice the mid-30's version of the tower crane on the west side of the building.

[grcitydog]

Nice photo- it's one I've never seen before of that corner.  I can't place that large building east of the Hearld however.  Does anyone know what that was?

[civitas]

grcitydog, on May 15 2006, 10:38 PM, said:

Nice photo- it's one I've never seen before of that corner. I can't place that large building east of the Hearld however. Does anyone know what that was?

That's the Grand Rapids Press building.

http://www.grpl.org/...lick&keynum=194

[grcitydog]

civitas, on May 15 2006, 11:00 PM, said:

That's the Grand Rapids Press building.

http://www.grpl.org/...lick&keynum=194

Thank you!  I didn't realize the Press was so close to that corner too!

[GRguy]

How come every photo I see of Grand Rapids in the past looks better and more interesting that what is there now?

[GRDadof3]

GRguy, on May 18 2006, 08:26 AM, said:

How come every photo I see of Grand Rapids in the past looks better and more interesting that what is there now?

Because downtown Grand Rapids' heyday was in the early 1900's.  In fact, talk about your 10 year boom.  I discovered at the library that over 100 new buildings were built in the CBD between 1905 - 1915 (I think it was?).

[Prankster]

GRguy, on May 18 2006, 08:26 AM, said:

How come every photo I see of Grand Rapids in the past looks better and more interesting that what is there now?

Because when a lot of them were tore down, they were considered obsolete and asthetically unpleasing.  They were replaced with what was, at the time, considered trendy and more in demand.  Now that the cyle has come around again, the old style buildings are what's in demand.  And the buildings that replaced them are now considered ugly.

[GRDadof3]

Look civitas, the local GOP was even sending subliminal messages here back in the 60's