162 replies to this topic

[x99]

And anyone that rides on the pipe dream is going to have the kind of disposable income necessary to make this a viable urban retail project?  Let's get real here for a minute (and horrifically politically incorrect):  People who ride buses in this town are people who have to because they don't have enough money for a car, and particularly so if they're going to a place with adequate free parking, which this project has in spades.   Is the parking just a temporary thing until they can finish the build out?  That would certainly be more logical.

As for something else I've wondered about:  ICCF also owns that old party store on Wealthy between Lafayette and Prospect.  They also own the house next to it on Prospect, and a vacant lot next to that, plus one behind it fronting on Lafayette.  The City owns a lot right on the corner of Lafayette and Wealthy.  Is there a plan to do something here in the future?  This is much closer to existing population centers, and far more walkable than this Division/Wealthy project, which is quickly becoming a boondoggle given the failure of the grocery store.  If they've got a viable commercial project for this space (which seems better that Div/Wealthy), I can't imagine the HH Association would grip too much about moving or razing the two houses in the way (although one is privately owned--ICCF must have missed the foreclosure sale--oops).

GR_Urbanist, on 25 May 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

And the biggest losers? The BRT riders. They get nothing more than a slightly fancy version of the shelter you see on Fulton and Sheldon. Completely exposed and in front of a parking lot.

Edited by x99, 25 May 2012 - 08:43 AM.

[andrew.w]

x99, on 25 May 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

And anyone that rides on the pipe dream is going to have the kind of disposable income necessary to make this a viable urban retail project?  Let's get real here for a minute (and horrifically politically incorrect):  People who ride buses in this town are people who have to because they don't have enough money for a car, and particularly so if they're going to a place with adequate free parking, which this project has in spades.

On the other hand, if we continue to design based on this mentality, we will never have a good public transportation system.  I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I can afford a car (in Grand Rapids at least) but if a reliable transportation system could get me where I wanted to go when I wanted to get there I would definitely take it, mostly because I don't care for city driving.  If the city is going to invest in a new method of transport, riding it should be as pleasant an experience as possible, regardless of who is projected to be riding.  Otherwise you are right: the people who can afford other means will not use it.

[x99]

Nothing but a field of dreams, but there aren't going to be any ghosts showing up to use it.  "City driving"--to the extent that term even makes sense around here (which, I submit, it doesn't as normally understood in the big city context) is still faster than taking transit, and there is plenty of empty dirt around here for parking.  I hate to say it, but the public transit proponents are utterly nuts so far as the present is concerned.  I hope they prove me wrong, but I dont' see that happening.  One thing I am glad to see is that ICCF is paying attention to reality, and designing with adequate parking.  Maybe someday all of this transit nonsense will make sense, but that day isn't here yet.  What was once the rallying cry of "monorail" has become "transit."  When it the people becomes so numerous that we really need to take a bus to avoid the hassle, the transit will follow.  It isn't goign to happen in reverse.  The dreamers need to deal with it any get over it already.

My mantra for towns like GR is to build out the street front, and put the parking behind it.  That's exactly what ICCF is doing here, absent this latest bit of weirdness with the parking right on Division.  That they still can't get a grocery store tenant and have sold off another chunk for school usage are not good signs.  At all.  The school is the worst thing possible, from a perspective of revitalizing this area.  I can hardly think of a use that would be worse or more unfortunate.  Once a school goes up, you're rather locked into that 8-4-o'clock-followed-by-dead-nothing box for a loooooooong time. I really hope ICCF doesn't lose its shirt on this deal, because it was such a great vision.  I really, really hope it works, but these changes do not give me a good feeling.

andrew.w, on 26 May 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

On the other hand, if we continue to design based on this mentality, we will never have a good public transportation system.  I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I can afford a car (in Grand Rapids at least) but if a reliable transportation system could get me where I wanted to go when I wanted to get there I would definitely take it, mostly because I don't care for city driving.  If the city is going to invest in a new method of transport, riding it should be as pleasant an experience as possible, regardless of who is projected to be riding.  Otherwise you are right: the people who can afford other means will not use it.

Edited by x99, Today, 08:48 PM.