25 replies to this topic

[GRDadof3]

The owners of 40 - 60 Logan SW plan to turn this historic furniture factory into 4 floors of 90 apartments, and one floor of commercial, at an estimated cost of $30 Million.  They are first seeking a historic committee be set up with the city to determine whether the building could receive historic designation.  



http://www.ci.grand-...93888658012.pdf
(pages 171 - 175)

[John E]

I think they should demolish it and make it history.
~John

[GRDadof3]

John E, on Apr 10 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

I think they should demolish it and make it history.
~John

Huh?     Why?  It's not like it's standing in the way of anything.

[wingbert]

GRDadof3, on Apr 10 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

Huh?     Why?  It's not like it's standing in the way of anything.

I think that was supposed to be a pun.  He was going for a hysterical designation.  [groan]  

[snoogit]

wingbert, on Apr 10 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

I think that was supposed to be a pun.  He was going for a hysterical designation.  [groan]  

You're better then that.

[GR_Urbanist]

I'm just happy to see development jump the Wealthy St. border!

With the ICCF stuff, that whole S. Division area will become much less creepy over the next 6 years.

[GRDadof3]

GR_Urbanist, on Apr 10 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

I'm just happy to see development jump the Wealthy St. border!

With the ICCF stuff, that whole S. Division area will become much less creepy over the next 6 years.

There ya go, The S.O.W. District (South of Wealthy):  We're less creepy

I think JohnE was trying to make a pun, but I'm not so sure that he wasn't serious.

There were also rumors of someone eyeing the old Klingman's building at Wealthy and Ionia, but I haven't heard anything recently.

[GRapcity]

This is bad@$$. We should probably be thanking those behind the BRT. Any word on if these will be income based or market rate? Now all we need are a few jobs to go with it.

[Rizzo]

GRapcity, on Apr 10 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

This is bad@$. We should probably be thanking those behind the BRT. Any word on if these will be income based or market rate? Now all we need are a few jobs to go with it.

I don't doubt that the Silver Line will have some impact on development -- but this early in the game? The public has yet to vote on the millage request.

[fotoman311]

Rizzo, on Apr 10 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

I don't doubt that the Silver Line will have some impact on development -- but this early in the game? The public has yet to vote on the millage request.

Well, yes, but by the time they get all of their approvals, especially if they are seeking some of the historic designation and things like that, and finish construction the BRT would be in place.  If the millage doesn't pass, they won't have lost a ton of money, even if their plans hinge on the BRT going in.

[GRDadof3]

GRapcity, on Apr 10 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

This is bad@$$. We should probably be thanking those behind the BRT. Any word on if these will be income based or market rate? Now all we need are a few jobs to go with it.

I don't know that this is being proposed because of the BRT, although it certainly won't hurt.  I think it has more to do with the fact that it was purchased pretty cheaply back in 2005 (about $10/sf), so it makes it more financially viable for redevelopment.

[Grandrapidsne]

That seems like alot of apartments can this area handle more of this type of housing? Would be nice to see this get off of the ground.

[John E]

Serious pun. I really would like to see the ugly factory building come down with a cool, fresh building or something go up in it's place.
~John

[tSlater]

I'm sure this area can take more apartments.  Heck, anyone losing their home due to mortgages is probably looking at apartments.  I do wonder what the income level will be for them.

Edited by tSlater, 11 April 2009 - 02:40 AM.

[John E]

tSlater, on Apr 10 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

You being the same one who wanted to demolish the Bell Telephone building.

ANYWAYS, I'm sure this area can take more apartments. Heck, anyone losing their home due to mortgages is probably looking at apartments. I do wonder what the income level will be for them.

I am not the one who wanted the Bell Telephone building demolished.
~John

[jbr12]

John E, on Apr 10 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Serious pun. I really would like to see the ugly factory building come down with a cool, fresh building or something go up in it's place.
~John

Problem with 'cool, fresh building's is that they are expensive, especially on a lot with a large building that would need to be demolished. Developers are doing whatever they can to stay busy and reusing an existing building is incredibly more sustainable then demolishing a structurally sound building just for the sake of cool and fresh buildings.

[Quercus]

The furniture industry is such an important part of GR's history; I'd love to see as many of these buildings preserved as possible.  I hope this project goes through and we see many similar re-uses of these types of structures!  Take a look at the area around this big guy - there is plenty of space for "cool, fresh" projects to be built.

The GR condo market seems a bit saturated but I think we could use more apartments.

[tSlater]

John E, on Apr 10 2009, 06:05 PM, said:

I am not the one who wanted the Bell Telephone building demolished.
~John

My apologies, I must have you completely confused with someone else.

[OneSweetWorld]

John E, on Apr 10 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Serious pun. I really would like to see the ugly factory building come down with a cool, fresh building or something go up in it's place.
~John

Hey I think I'm in the same boat as you. I would LOVE to see some newly-constructed apartment buildings in the city, especially outside of the immediate downtown area (I would REALLY like to see some high-rise apartment buildings around the 28th St/131 and 44th St/131 interchanges, maybe even around the M6/131 interchange). However, I'd rather see new construction take place on property that is vacant, instead of tearing down historical buildings. I'm all for new construction projects, but we most definitely don't have to tear down old buildings to make them happen.

I might add that this building is very visible from US 131, so it better look good.

This should be a good project for SE Grand Rapids   (or is it SW...hell i dunno)

Annnnd I'm done with my drunk urbanplanet posting for tonight       .............bedtime

[rachelliz]

the_grand_raggidy, on Apr 11 2009, 03:43 AM, said:

Hey I think I'm in the same boat as you. I would LOVE to see some newly-constructed apartment buildings in the city, especially outside of the immediate downtown area (I would REALLY like to see some high-rise apartment buildings around the 28th St/131 and 44th St/131 interchanges, maybe even around the M6/131 interchange). However, I'd rather see new construction take place on property that is vacant, instead of tearing down historical buildings. I'm all for new construction projects, but we most definitely don't have to tear down old buildings to make them happen.

I might add that this building is very visible from US 131, so it better look good.

This should be a good project for SE Grand Rapids (or is it SW...hell i dunno)

Annnnd I'm done with my drunk urbanplanet posting for tonight .............bedtime

Yeah, new buildings are great, but not when you have to tear down an existing one to build it--in my opinion this is the best kind of development. Yay sustainability! Plus, I think that they can really do a lot with that building--it has potential. When you are in a building that used to be something else, it can have a really unique and attractive character. (Where I used to live, they converted the old city jail into a restaurant and it was really popular).