29 replies to this topic

[Freddy C]

A good city to juxtapose against GR is Omaha, Nebraska. Prior to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) augmenting the Definition of Metropolitan GR to include Muskegon and Allegan Counties, Kent and Ottawa county defined Metro GR (by the way...the OMB changed it again and metro GR is no longer 1 mil). Anyway, the traditional Metropolitan area of Kent and Ottawa counties has a combined population today of about 850,000...slightly larger than Omaha’s Metro. The two metro areas have been running neck and neck in population over several decades.

Omaha is a regional hub, while GR is not, but if one want to measure GR’s downtown development...Omaha is a city to compare it with. They have just built a 645 foot office building in 2002 and have several other building under development. GR needs to get going with some REAL height. I would rather that the hold off on building any new office space in GR and let the demand get pent up so that a major 500 plus feet office tower can be erected in the center of downtown.

Edited by Freddy C, 26 March 2005 - 08:35 PM.

[snoogit]

Freddy C, on Mar 26 2005, 08:30 PM, said:

A good city to juxtapose against GR is Omaha, Nebraska. Prior to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) augmenting the Definition of Metropolitan GR to include Muskegon and Allegan Counties, Kent and Ottawa county defined Metro GR (by the way...the OMB changed it again and metro GR is no longer 1 mil). Anyway, the traditional Metropolitan area of Kent and Ottawa counties has a combined population today of about 850,000...slightly larger than Omaha’s Metro. The two metro areas have been running neck and neck in population over several decades.

Omaha is a regional hub, while GR is not, but if one want to measure GR’s downtown development...Omaha is a city to compare it with. They have just built a 645 foot office building in 2002 and have several other building under development. GR needs to get going with some REAL height. I would rather that the hold off on building any new office space in GR and let the demand get pent up so that a major 500 plus feet office tower can be erected in the center of downtown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ideal spot still is Lyon @ Ottawa IMHO...

but I agree I'd love to see a 500 Ft 35-40 story tower built in GR.

If that ever happened, I'd also reccomend a tall miz use at D&F

[GRCentro]

I'd love just as much as anyone else to see a soaring, world-class skyline in GR.   I'd be cautious though, to expect that height would make the city 'better.'  I am not in line with the attitude that wants to keep the GR image as 'small, little, and conservative,' but I do not believe that the city with the bigger tower wins.  

I just recently saw a screening of "Detroit: Ruin of a City" at U of M (I posted a summary on the Detrioit forum: Metro Detroit)   Although it is concerning an entirely different set of circumstances, the part that sticks out to me is when a city planner describes to negative effects when "planning takes a backseat to development."  

Rather than trying to temporarily starve local office needs (who may then just decide to set up in the suburbs), I would be more inclined to planning great smaller developments that call attention to downtown GR as the premier locale in the area - perhaps a secondary "hub" to Chicago.  Then outside investors can be enticed and bring with them the need and funding for height.


Then again, perhaps a big project would be needed to turn heads and get the ball rolling???  With that said, Lyon & Ottawa and Division & Fulton look prime.  

[superNOVA]

We should set a few things straight.

Ottawa missed the commuter requirement by less than 1% - it was pretty much a fluke.  Ohter than that, the metro is legit.

If Omaha is so comparable, why are they less than 1/2 as economcially powerful as Grand Rapids?  Metro wise.  Total sales in Grand Rapids are around $75 billion, Omaha is closer to Lansing at around $35 billion.  Grand Rapids is economically more powerful than Jacksonville, Buffalo, Memphis, New Orleans, and Birminham.  Money talks - Grand Rapids is in a higher league.


The only reason cities like Omaha and Des Moines have good skylines is that their economies are primarily service based.  They are also the hub cities in their states so all essential services are located there - government representation in Grand Rapids is weak at best.  Now before you knock production based economies, realize that they create a lot economically.

[snoogit]

superNOVA, on Mar 26 2005, 11:45 PM, said:

We should set a few things straight.

Ottawa missed the commuter requirement by less than 1% - it was pretty much a fluke.  Ohter than that, the metro is legit.

If Omaha is so comparable, why are they less than 1/2 as economcially powerful as Grand Rapids?  Metro wise.  Total sales in Grand Rapids are around $75 billion, Omaha is closer to Lansing at around $35 billion.  Grand Rapids is economically more powerful than Jacksonville, Buffalo, Memphis, New Orleans, and Birminham.  Money talks - Grand Rapids is in a higher league.
The only reason cities like Omaha and Des Moines have good skylines is that their economies are primarily service based.  They are also the hub cities in their states so all essential services are located there - government representation in Grand Rapids is weak at best.  Now before you knock production based economies, realize that they create a lot economically.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh I don;t mean to sound bad, but I think its ironic that the largest company n GR is a service-based company (Meijer @ 12 Billion annually), yet we are considered a production based economy city.

I knew there was talk of the Sears/Kmart merger moving to GR. oh if only we could have gotten that. I think that merged company could have moved downtown in such a large building.

[Freddy C]

Does size matter? One could look at the competition for height in the same respect. These tall buildings are like phallic symbols for metro and regional virility, vitality and competition for attention. It is a phenomenon born from the male ego. There is really no real functional necessity to building of such heights in most markets. Sure, the price of land and economies of scale make a difference in a few markets, but building over 1,000 feet is simply done for attention in most places. Whose got the biggest building...and whose name is one it.

From my Understanding, the new building in Omaha height was the product of the desire to be the tallest building in the region. Kansas City has had a 640 foot building and Des Moines Iowa has a 640 plus foot building. Ergo, Omaha’s developer wanted to top the height of those two markets.  

GR is in a region that it will never be number one...not even in the State, at least not in the foreseeable future. You have the behemoths of Chicago and Detroit, then Cleveland, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, and Columbus all within a 4 or 5 hour drive, depending on how fast you go. GR seems as if it does not want to compete or cannot compete with those markets for attention. Therefore, GR has seen and marketed itself not as a big city, but as a big small town. Once the metro was defined as one million, it became time to scrap that “big small town” mentality and start to compete for attention with the regional big boys.

Supernova, with all due respect I do not know how you have come to your figures. I am not saying that you are wrong, but that I most certainly believe that you have a strong emotional vested interest which could create a bias. One can parse statistics all day and finally create something that makes their case. The more markets that are over 1 million, the less the value of being over 1 million becomes, because everything is relative. I am sure that there are many areas that had counties miss the commuter cute off by less than 1 percent also.

I do not believe that the lack of development and height in downtown GR can be attributed to its manufacturing economy. Rather, I think that a lot of it has to do with city planners, the mindset of the Devos, Van Andel, Meijers, Old Kent Bank and the other major past players in the City. It is the economic leadership of the elites that really set the tone of development and GR economic leaders are or have been ultra conservative “big small town” type of thinkers. I hope that their progeny takes a different ideological approach for the 21st century. Competition is simply a reality of nature and image and size...does matter.

[metrogrkid]

Freddy C, on Mar 27 2005, 08:32 AM, said:

. . . . I hope that their progeny takes a different ideological approach for the 21st century. Competition is simply a reality of nature and image and size...does matter. . . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

   Freddy, Freddy, Poor Sit On Your Hands and Wait for Others to Shape Your Surroundings for You Freddy.

I have been silent listening to all this "big small town", "Detroit is major, we are not but we're as good as a Detroit suburb", "it is arrogant to call GR a big city", "I hope that someone else will make the GR I hope for" drivel long enough.

The Grand Rapids Metropolitan Area (which is now a CSA or Combined Statistical Area or Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland Metropolitan Triplex) is what it is - IT IS THE SMALLEST AND NEWEST BIG CITY/METRO AREA OF THE 21ST CENTURY.  It is time to get over that and deal with the implications.  The "smallest and newest"  denotes that it has taken its rightful place at the bottom rung of the ladder that leads to urban GREATNESS.  NO CITY that has ever been in such a position (and the list of past BOTTOM RUNGERS is long and includes the likes of Atlanta, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Miami, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Phoenix, Kansas City - even Chicago and New York before them once upon a time) gets to skip over the bottom rung.  EVERY city that is fortunate enough to even GET TO the bottom rung of Big Cities must perform the requisite primary due diligence of fostering a critical mass of local thinkers/visionaries/planners/residents (   What?!!  But that sounds like the UrbanPlanet-Grand Rapids Forumers!!) that become the collective will and pride necessary to break through the conventional thinking that consigns the majority of urban areas to invisibility, zero to little growth and non-greatness.

Point in case is Atlanta.  Now at some point in the 40's and 50's, were there a study group back then similar to our group, there would have been a Freddy of the then "big small town" of Atlanta and his like-minded cohorts saying things like "look at New York, Chicago and Houston . . . . now THOSE are REAL Big Cities - MAJOR Cities.  Those are simply the facts and we should just move there and hope that the next generation of poor Atlanta's philanthropy will build us the Atlanta we pine for but feel powerless to engage ourselves".  Fortunately for Atlanta, there were individuals outside of these limited vision folk (much like most of the UrbanPlanet-Grand Rapids crew) that said, "DAMN THAT, New York, Chicago and Detroit may be ALL THAT, but we can create a vision for Atlanta wherein it is just as major as those cities while still being Atlanta - we are proud of Atlanta and want to take her kicking and screaming if necessary to the next level!!!"

The first part of GR's civic moniker is GRAND.  Such a reference denotes world-class stature and scale by definition.  Some of us grasp this and likewise grasp the great disdain, ridicule and arrogant belittling that is cultivated within many when a place so named does NOTHING to radiate its GRANDNESS (by its architecture, its mindset, its regional layout, etc.).  GRANDNESS and its sibling GREATNESS are not procurred by hoping or waiting for it.  They are to be wrestled to the ground and inserted into the soil and raised into the air and permeated throughout the region by a few that give a damn.  Please, from here forward, save your negative comments for elsewhere.  We already know what GR is not.  It is far more constructive to focus on what we want it to be and how we can begin our trek up the long ladder to urban greatness.  Time is wasting and I for one am not waiting a second longer.  The world-class GR awaits.  Join me on the adventure to getting us there, will you?

-metrogrkid

Edited by metrogrkid, 27 March 2005 - 10:20 AM.

[Jonnyipps]

Numbers mean little when it comes to the quality of a city. It should not matter how tall our buildings are, how many people live in a subjectively defined area, what city G.R. best compares to, or where G.R. fits in the hierarchal structure of cities and economies. Identities are forged not by sizing ourselves up to others, but by forging out on our own and achieving goals that we deem important. I think a 800 foot building would look ugly in G.R. because it is not proportionate to the size of the structures now. Development at-all-cost is not what we should be after (which I feel like this forum gets caught in the trap of doing), rather we should be focusing on visions that create far greater outcomes. Placement and form of buildings are far more important than its size. We should be forming visions of a vibrant, 24-hour city that is walkable, engaging, and unique--one that seeks to engage disenfranchised segments of our community and has respect for the environment. Personally, I find cities that value "green" development, quality transit, and seek the inclusion of mixed-income individuals far more impressive than those that simply want lots of tall buildings at the expense of the aforementioned.

[daniel nudnik]

Welcome Jonny. I agree with your points.
I think that a large-sized skyscraper would be nice, although it would have to represent true need and street-level sensitivity just like every other building in GR.
I'm totally in support of huge buildings, although the most happening areas of cities are rarely the skyscraping business areas, but instead the mixed-use neighborhoods surround them.

All the same I honor the folks on here for their vision of GR's future. Places like Toronto are proof that height and human scale can coexist quite attractively. There, high-rise residences and office towers are planned to complement the ground-level fabric of the city, and the density they offer to a neighborhood contributes to its variety and vitality.

I think there's room for everyone and every size; all the same, the "skyscraper in a field" style of development is dead and will stay dead. Any tall building that appears in GR will have to be planned into the fabric of the neighborhood; personally, I'd like to do away with residential-commercial use separation altogether. That way, if we get a big building, it'll have the neighborhood presence it deserves.

Jonnyipps, on Mar 27 2005, 02:09 PM, said:

Numbers mean little when it comes to the quality of a city. It should not matter how tall our buildings are, how many people live in a subjectively defined area, what city G.R. best compares to, or where G.R. fits in the hierarchal structure of cities and economies. Identities are forged not by sizing ourselves up to others, but by forging out on our own and achieving goals that we deem important. I think a 800 foot building would look ugly in G.R. because it is not proportionate to the size of the structures now. Development at-all-cost is not what we should be after (which I feel like this forum gets caught in the trap of doing), rather we should be focusing on visions that create far greater outcomes. Placement and form of buildings are far more important than its size. We should be forming visions of a vibrant, 24-hour city that is walkable, engaging, and unique--one that seeks to engage disenfranchised segments of our community and has respect for the environment. Personally, I find cities that value "green" development, quality transit, and seek the inclusion of mixed-income individuals far more impressive than those that simply want lots of tall buildings at the expense of the aforementioned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Freddy C]

Metro kid, We on this forum can have all the vision we want for the city of GR, however, the bottom line is that we don’t have the money to create “our vision”, at least I sure do not. This is not like politics were we get to “Vote” on the direction of the region. This whole thing is driven by the ubiquitous capitalistic goal of PROFIT. Developers and investors are concerned, first and foremost, with making a buck...not creating a 21st century Grand Rapids. The Ultimate patriotism in America is to the all mighty dollar. GM did not care that its divestment from the city of Flint ruined that city that helped give birth to the company. They were simply concerned about the bottom line...not the people, the city, the state or even the country...just their profit margins and stock holders short term immediate gratification.

The only vote I have is in regards to patronage. I voted with my feet to leave Michigan, Just like my folks voted with their feet to leave Mississippi. I do not have the power to shape the future of Grand Rapids. Like everyone else, I am looking for opportunities and that is what drives most people. So I voted with my feet and moved to a more progressive location that had more opportunities to offer me. I would like to see Grand Rapids grow and prosper...for everyone.

To suggest that numbers does not matter, Jonny, is naïve. Marketing relies on numbers. Size relates to image and image matters. Everyone knows that marketing and image is what sells. Why does a city need to sell itself? A city needs to sell itself to compete for convention dollars, vacationers and the best and brightest workers and companies to promote the economic growth of the area. First impression often means a lot and the downtown is the signature area of most markets. Look, St. Louise did not build the Gate Way arch just for the heck of it. Toronto did not build the Cn tower for the Heck of it. Chicago did not build the world tallest building for nothing. These cities understood that bringing positive attention to itself help the area to prosper.

Competition is the reality of life. People compete, companies compete, States compete, cities compete ect. The metrics to this competition is measured in numbers. Whether you do not think GR needs to be compared and contrasted with others tells me that you should never work for the convention and visitors bureau.  If people want to take a vacation, have a convention or relocate....WHY GRAND RAPIDS AND NOT SOMEPLACE ELSE? Life is a competition and as entities realize this...the more successful they will be in the game.

Edited by Freddy C, 27 March 2005 - 09:22 PM.

[superNOVA]

Quote

Supernova, with all due respect I do not know how you have come to your figures. I am not saying that you are wrong, but that I most certainly believe that you have a strong emotional vested interest which could create a bias.

The US Government ECONOMIC CENSUS - does not lie.  Cities like Des Moines and Omaha are closer to Lansing and Kalamazoo economically than Grand Rapids.  The new one is about to be released, however, I am sure that neither Omaha or Des Moines have made a $40 billion dollar improvement in overall economic power.

Edited by superNOVA, 27 March 2005 - 09:30 PM.

[Freddy C]

superNOVA, on Mar 27 2005, 10:26 PM, said:

The US Government ECONOMIC CENSUS - does not lie.  Cities like Des Moines and Omaha are closer to Lansing and Kalamazoo economically than Grand Rapids.  The new one is about to be released, however, I am sure that neither Omaha or Des Moines have made a $40 billion dollar improvement in overall economic power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well...if thats true then GR's anemic dowtown, relative to these less robust economic markets, points to a lack of leadership, vision or interest on the GR business community. Des  Moines, with a third of the metro population of GR, has some major buildings and life to their CBD. If GR has all this economic strength....its sure is not reflected in its downtown.

[Jonnyipps]

Freddy C thank you for your reply. However I believe that you missed the spirit of my post. I did not say that "numbers don't matter," rather I stated that they do not matter as a way to measure the quality of a city. The point is bigger and larger numbers of development projects is not necessarily the best way to achieve a desired outcome for a city. Instead, focusing on grander visions (my examples being "'green' development, quality transit, and the inclusion of mixed-income individuals), of what a city defines as important will yield greater and more sustained economic development within a city. I will use your example of GM and Flint as an example. I would assume that Flint's original stance on GM was to attract as much business within the city regardless of the negative side-effects those businesses will bring. The result was an economy solely dependent on one large corporation. When Flint was no longer a strategic location for GM and it moved its production bases elsewhere, Flint was left to clean up the big polluted mess. The point is that Grand Rapids should focus on shaping its OWN identity and not necessarily focus on what others have (in regards to largeness of its buildings). I would agree that the CN tower, the Arch in St. Louis, and the Sears tower are symbols of those cities that many people identify with. However, I would disagree that they are pivotal to their success. Supplying the City with the tallest building possible will not necessarily yield larger numbers of businesses locating to Grand Rapids. However, focusing on creating a city where people want to live, play, interact, and work will.

[joeDowntown]

Freddy,

While Grand Rapids downtown may be a little vertically challenged, anemic is a poor choice of words. It is a very vibrant downtown, more so every day. We in this city have done a good job of making Grand Rapids a happening place, even between the hours of 8-5. I have visited a lot of cities much bigger than Grand Rapids that cannot say this. As MetroGRkid pointed out, we KNOW we are on the bottom rung of the biggest cities in the U.S. I would warn anyone though to not be alarmed as we somebody are crawling over your backs to reach for the rung above you.

Joe

Freddy C, on Mar 27 2005, 11:37 PM, said:

Well...if thats true then GR's anemic dowtown, relative to these less robust economic markets, points to a lack of leadership, vision or interest on the GR business community. Des  Moines, with a third of the metro population of GR, has some major buildings and life to their CBD. If GR has all this economic strength....its sure is not reflected in its downtown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Freddy C]

joeDowntown, on Mar 28 2005, 07:31 AM, said:

Freddy,

While Grand Rapids downtown may be a little vertically challenged, anemic is a poor choice of words. It is a very vibrant downtown, more so every day. We in this city have done a good job of making Grand Rapids a happening place, even between the hours of 8-5. I have visited a lot of cities much bigger than Grand Rapids that cannot say this. As MetroGRkid pointed out, we KNOW we are on the bottom rung of the biggest cities in the U.S. I would warn anyone though to not be alarmed as we somebody are crawling over your backs to reach for the rung above you.

Joe

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stand by my use of anemic...everything is relative.

[Freddy C]

Freddy C, on Mar 28 2005, 07:44 AM, said:

I stand by my use of anemic...everything is relative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the average summer day....I can find more people out and about on the streets of the Lafayette/Franklin community than I will find out and about in downtown GR...and that is a fact....a sad fact.

[metrogrkid]

Freddy C, on Mar 28 2005, 06:44 AM, said:

I stand by my use of anemic...everything is relative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

  WOW.  This one is TOO easy.  I'll let someone else define what BLISS is equivalent to here.  By the way, Fred, since you are "powerless" and wish to continue to sit on your hands and wait for the world-class GR, move them around a bit so that the circulation is not cut off.  Wouldn't want that to happen, would we?  

-metrogrkid

[Freddy C]

metrogrkid, on Mar 28 2005, 01:00 PM, said:

  WOW.  This one is TOO easy.  I'll let someone else define what BLISS is equivalent to here.  By the way, Fred, since you are "powerless" and wish to continue to sit on your hands and wait for the world-class GR, move them around a bit so that the circulation is not cut off.  Wouldn't want that to happen, would we? 

-metrogrkid

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah...I could start a revolution could not I? Hmmmmmmm...what tools do I have at my disposal for that....I know...we can have a good old fashioned march downtown to demand that these developers spend their money to build the type of GR that would make it the envy of the world.

Let me know when the march is....I will try to get the time off work to show up.  

Edited by Freddy C, 28 March 2005 - 03:15 PM.

[superNOVA]

Quote

Well...if thats true then GR's anemic dowtown, relative to these less robust economic markets, points to a lack of leadership, vision or interest on the GR business community. Des Moines, with a third of the metro population of GR, has some major buildings and life to their CBD. If GR has all this economic strength....its sure is not reflected in its downtown.

no the difference is that one is a production based economy while the others are service based economies.  Service economies lend themselves to large buuildings, production economies lend themselves to large production buildings, not office towers.

Can you guess which is which.  Also, production economies tend to be much more wealthy as average production pay rates are much higher than the average service worker rate.  In the Midwest average service workers get around $8.00 hour.  So yes, there are tall buildings, but they are filled to the brim with telemarketers, low level bankers, and secretaries.  

Now, I am not saying one is better than the other (trust me a production based economy has its problems) but one is definitely more wealthy than the other.  Whether this is deserved or not.  



If I recall Des Moines is a major center for telemarketers - they employ a significant portion of the working population.  That would be considered a low paying service field.  They do lend themselves to large buildings though.



And before you say anything about dying industry and crap like that, low level service jobs are at jsut as much or greater risk.

[joeDowntown]

How about we give this discussion a rest? It is pretty obvious that the remarks are getting more contentious. I think all the points are valid, but let's talk about something better... Like responsible urban growth.