518 replies to this topic

[winjer]

suydam, on Mar 2 2007, 12:12 PM, said:

It's eastern terminus is in EGR.
If you're heading the other direction, I'm not sure where it ends up as I usually use it to get on 131, but don't go further west than that.

It ends in a very industrial area next to the former Butterworth dump, (future city park). It turns north and terminates on Butterworth.

[joeDowntown]

I agree Josh, come on G3!

joshleo, on Mar 2 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

And you haven't posted them here yet why?

[tamias6]

Here's A Sketchup file of a 10 unit apartment/ condo development that integrates the front facade of the building pictured in the quote. Retail is along the front with 2 units in the back on the first floor while 8 more units are on 2 more floors added above. The penthouse contains the building's mechanical core, stairwells and elevator shafts, lofts for the 3rd floor back units and access to 2 shared roof top gardens.

So Before....

joshleo, on Feb 28 2007, 12:47 PM, said:

After....

[Nitro]

tamias6, on Mar 2 2007, 11:11 PM, said:

Here's A Sketchup file....

Don't you think that's a little big for the area?  All of the buildings for blocks are one story or short two story buildings.  

I think your building might suffer from Mercantile Bank syndrome.

[GRDadof3]

Nitro, on Mar 3 2007, 09:31 AM, said:

Don't you think that's a little big for the area?  All of the buildings for blocks are one story or short two story buildings.  

I think your building might suffer from Mercantile Bank syndrome.

That's not necessarily true, most of the homes in that area are very tall two stories or maybe even 3 stories.  I think it's pretty cool.  It would probably never get passed by the historic  preservation commission.

[Prankster]

Nitro, on Mar 3 2007, 09:31 AM, said:

Don't you think that's a little big for the area?  All of the buildings for blocks are one story or short two story buildings.  

I think your building might suffer from Mercantile Bank syndrome.

Not to get too far off topic, but what is wrong with the size of the Mercantile Bank building?  The whole area it is in could use a little more height because of it's proximity to downtown.
And as far as taller buildings in neighborhoods, any city you go to has them tucked into their neighborhoods.  The design isn't overpowering, and wouldn't be out of place any more than what lighthouse is building in some other areas of uptown.

[lighthousedave]

GRDadof3, on Mar 3 2007, 09:40 AM, said:

That's not necessarily true, most of the homes in that area are very tall two stories or maybe even 3 stories.  I think it's pretty cool.  It would probably never get passed by the historic  preservation commission.

I am not so sure about it not passing historic preservation...if they passed the town home project on Diamond they may pass something like this.  I think it is really impressive.  

We have been in regular conversation with the owners of this building trying to help them with the disposition of it.  Can't say too much but let me say that in all my days of doing real estate development I have never seen a bigger legal nightmare in regard to who owns this land legally and rightfully.  We continue to walk slowly with the owners to try and sort it out.  But it is going to take time.

[tamias6]

In the original photograph, the houses surrounding the building are 2 1/2 stories high. Taking that into account I felt that the area could visually absorb the impact of the building's height. Also to further blend the building into the area I opted to use a combination of brick and wood materials followed by recessing  balconies  into the body of the building to break up its form.

As for the HPC, I wasn't too sure if their coverage extended to that part of Wealthy street or not. But I did play it safe by sticking to materials found elsewhere in that area and echoing the architectural  details of the front facade which would be retained.

Nitro, on Mar 3 2007, 09:31 AM, said:

Don't you think that's a little big for the area?  All of the buildings for blocks are one story or short two story buildings.  

I think your building might suffer from Mercantile Bank syndrome.

[Mark Miller]

lighthousedave, on Mar 3 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

I am not so sure about it not passing historic preservation...if they passed the town home project on Diamond they may pass something like this.  I think it is really impressive.

"If they passed the town home project on Diamond...."

Let's just say that the townhome project on Diamond meets the infill standards of the HPC.  In fact, I would say that it is probably the best infill project I have seen, at least in the last few years.  It is far better than somebody trying to do beotchized traditionalism, which we are seeing way too much of right now.  I am becoming sickened by all the "traditional" styled stuff that looks like it belongs in a suburban monoplex.  It is spreading like a cancer throughout these neighborhoods.

As far as the rendering for Wealthy, it would appear that not only is the existing building being substantially altered - which is a definite no-no, but also that the houses behind it are being demolished.  This application, if it were real, would most likely not be viewed favorably.  

The Diamond Street townhouses and this building are evaluated with different standards, new buildings vs. existing resources.

[joeDowntown]

I was driving down Wealthy a couple of moments and thought about how cool the Baptist Church is on the corner of Wealthy / Eastern. It looks like it must have been a school at one time. This would make such a cool condo or apartment conversion.

Joe

[lighthousedave]

GR Town Planner, on Mar 3 2007, 02:15 PM, said:

"If they passed the town home project on Diamond...."

Let's just say that the townhome project on Diamond meets the infill standards of the HPC.  In fact, I would say that it is probably the best infill project I have seen, at least in the last few years.  It is far better than somebody trying to do beotchized traditionalism, which we are seeing way too much of right now.  I am becoming sickened by all the "traditional" styled stuff that looks like it belongs in a suburban monoplex.  It is spreading like a cancer throughout these neighborhoods.

As far as the rendering for Wealthy, it would appear that not only is the existing building being substantially altered - which is a definite no-no, but also that the houses behind it are being demolished.  This application, if it were real, would most likely not be viewed favorably.  

The Diamond Street townhouses and this building are evaluated with different standards, new buildings vs. existing resources.

I am not sure what you are talking about when you say beotchized traditionalism and traditional styled stuff that looks like it belongs in a suburban monoplex.  Can you explain that to me?  Or point out some examples.  I would like to know what you mean.

[lighthousedave]

joeDowntown, on Mar 3 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

I was driving down Wealthy a couple of moments and thought about how cool the Baptist Church is on the corner of Wealthy / Eastern. It looks like it must have been a school at one time. This would make such a cool condo or apartment conversion.

Joe

The sanctuary of that church is impressive.  Many years ago my organization held an event there.  I agree that this would be an awesome building to do a conversion of some sort, but the sanctuary would have to be saved and it takes a lot of space, basically the entire core of the building.

What is the history of this building...what school was it?

[GRGridGirl]

Wasn't the Church the birthplace of Cornerstone University, known as the Baptist Bible Institute?

[GRGridGirl]

Here is a zoning map of the Uptown area.  (PRD's not included)  

Wealthy Street spans three historic districts: Wealthy Theatre, Cherry Hill, and Heritage Hill.

[lighthousedave]

GRGridGirl, on Mar 3 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

Wasn't the Church the birthplace of Cornerstone University, known as the Baptist Bible Institute?

Don't know but that would make sense considering the size and prominence of the sanctuary in the building.

[tamias6]

I think this would be an example of progress and historical preservation butting heads like two fighting bulls. On one hand, a historical district, like any community, needs to be able to accommodate growth and change in order to remain a thriving place to live, work, and play. But on the other hand the character of the district needs to be preserved for future generations. Both sides have valid points. Therefore, this leaves developers stuck between a rock an a hard place when they want to build something or renovate/alter an existing building in a historic district. If they choose to propose a modern looking structure or substantial alterations to an existing building, chances are a historic district's HPC reacts with disgust and sends the developer packing. But on the other hand, if the developer proposes something that would stand a good chance of appeasing an HPC, critics a plenty cites the developer's proposal as "beotchizing traditionalism". That in mind, it boils down to the following question. Is there a happy medium that will both fit into a historic district and accommodate growth and change that is necessary to any type of community's prosperity?

My personal thought is that there is no real happy medium that would satisfy both the ever present need for change and those that wish to preserve history. No matter if the need for change is accommodated in a sleek ultra modern building, a neo-traditional building, or even the gentlest and most discrete alteration made to an old staunchly traditional building, what ever is done will alter to a varying degree the character of any community, historic or not. Therefore, one cannot just demand that a historic district remain unchanged right down to the very last brick. Historic preservation is very important as buildings are physical manifestation of cultural heritage. But there needs to be some degree of wiggle room to allow even the most historic community to keep pace with changing times.

GR Town Planner, on Mar 3 2007, 02:15 PM, said:

"If they passed the town home project on Diamond...."

Let's just say that the townhome project on Diamond meets the infill standards of the HPC.  In fact, I would say that it is probably the best infill project I have seen, at least in the last few years.  It is far better than somebody trying to do beotchized traditionalism, which we are seeing way too much of right now.  I am becoming sickened by all the "traditional" styled stuff that looks like it belongs in a suburban monoplex.  It is spreading like a cancer throughout these neighborhoods.

As far as the rendering for Wealthy, it would appear that not only is the existing building being substantially altered - which is a definite no-no, but also that the houses behind it are being demolished.  This application, if it were real, would most likely not be viewed favorably.  

The Diamond Street townhouses and this building are evaluated with different standards, new buildings vs. existing resources.

[lighthousedave]

tamias6, on Mar 3 2007, 03:48 PM, said:

My personal thought is that there is no real happy medium that would satisfy both the ever present need for change and those that wish to preserve history...Therefore, one cannot just demand that a historic district remain unchanged right down to the very last brick. Historic preservation is very important as buildings are physical manifestation of cultural heritage. But there needs to be some degree of wiggle room to allow even the most historic community to keep pace with changing times.

Very well spoken.  Needless to say I very much agree.  Unfortunately I have not seen any sign of wiggle room ever given by the Historic Preservation Comission in Grand Rapids, i.e. the way they have handled lead hazard remediation issues.

[Ted]

tamias6, on Mar 3 2007, 03:48 PM, said:

I think this would be an example of progress and historical preservation butting heads like two fighting bulls. On one hand, a historical district, like any community, needs to be able to accommodate growth and change in order to remain a thriving place to live, work, and play. But on the other hand the character of the district needs to be preserved for future generations. Both sides have valid points. Therefore, this leaves developers stuck between a rock an a hard place when they want to build something or renovate/alter an existing building in a historic district. If they choose to propose a modern looking structure or substantial alterations to an existing building, chances are a historic district's HPC reacts with disgust and sends the developer packing. But on the other hand, if the developer proposes something that would stand a good chance of appeasing an HPC, critics a plenty cites the developer's proposal as "beotchizing traditionalism". That in mind, it boils down to the following question. Is there a happy medium that will both fit into a historic district and accommodate growth and change that is necessary to any type of community's prosperity?

My personal thought is that there is no real happy medium that would satisfy both the ever present need for change and those that wish to preserve history. No matter if the need for change is accommodated in a sleek ultra modern building, a neo-traditional building, or even the gentlest and most discrete alteration made to an old staunchly traditional building, what ever is done will alter to a varying degree the character of any community, historic or not. Therefore, one cannot just demand that a historic district remain unchanged right down to the very last brick. Historic preservation is very important as buildings are physical manifestation of cultural heritage. But there needs to be some degree of wiggle room to allow even the most historic community to keep pace with changing times.

What is an example? Your sketchup drawing? Fighting bulls? Rocks and hard places?  It is very rare the moments when the HPC 'sends a developer packing' - you've been reading the Press editorials with too much reverence. And, do you really think the average developer cares about architectural criticism?

There are standards and a process to guiding a design through approvals at the HPC.  When you do your research, respectfully work within the process, understand the concerns of the stakeholders, and present a coherent design - most times you are confirmed with approval.  There are rules and they have to be followed.  But, there is room for a modern solution within the confines of the Department of Interior Standards - every day...on every project.

With regards to Wealthy street, the primary reason that we're seeing some stagnation amogst the redevelopment success stories is the lack of demand - not historic preservation or the GRHPC for that matter.

It seems to me that you've just personally overracted to some possibly valid criticism of a pretend project by blaming preservation.

[Ted]

lighthousedave, on Mar 3 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

I am not so sure about it not passing historic preservation...if they passed the town home project on Diamond they may pass something like this.  I think it is really impressive.  

We have been in regular conversation with the owners of this building trying to help them with the disposition of it.  Can't say too much but let me say that in all my days of doing real estate development I have never seen a bigger legal nightmare in regard to who owns this land legally and rightfully.  We continue to walk slowly with the owners to try and sort it out.  But it is going to take time.

Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't.

Hey, why don't you tie up the property and run that design past the HPC!  If they passed your project on Wealthy I'm sure they'll pass this one too!

[Prankster]

Can we at least act like adults on here.