163 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.

[andrew.w]

x99, on 28 May 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

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.

I have to say that even in larger more congested cities, driving is still faster than riding transit when it comes in the form of a bus, and is sometimes true when it comes to trains.  Here in Chicago it takes me 35 to 45 minutes to commute 5 miles downtown in the morning depending on how long I have to wait for the bus to come, and how many people are riding.  Driving a car, I can get there in about 20 minutes (not including time to park).  The reason being, not only does the bus stop often, but every time it does it invariably misses the next traffic light.  The reason I ride is because even at $86/mo. I am still saving money over gas and parking costs, plus I get an extra hour of time to read or do whatever that I could not do behind the wheel of a car.

I realize that the situation in Grand Rapids has none of the same situation as Chicago, but part of my point was that it doesn't matter if it will only be low-income people riding the BRT, they still deserve to have attractive stations.  Plus, I claim to be no expert on peak oil, and the impending depletion of fossil fuels, but I think we can all agree that the cost of fuel is most likely outpacing inflation, meaning more people are falling into the range wear car ownership is too expensive.  This may be more likely to drive people to mass transit than congestion or the cost of parking.  Sure I am talking long term, but transit systems must be planned for and implemented long term--because they are so danged expensive.

x99, on 28 May 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

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.

I don't have a problem with the school because many service businesses have similar hours, maybe open until 6 or 7.  Conversely, many bars and residences are empty during the day when the school is full.   It takes establishments that are occupied for all sorts of different periods to make a neighborhood.  Hypothetically the school also helps draw more families to the immediate vicinity.