Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

153 Excellent

About whitemice

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/06/1972

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Highland Park, Grand Rapids, MI

Recent Profile Visitors

1203 profile views
  1. Agree. Gates and restricted throughput is better than closing. There's really no upside to complete closures, IMNSHO. I see many potential areas for restricted access: Bridge St, Ionia (arena district), Ottawa (the plaza), Monroe Ctr. I am a rabid transit & active transportation person, yet not Ban-The-Cars ; the problem with Motordom isn't the Cars it is the Privilege. When it is appropriate - and it very often is - the cars can wait, they can go an alternative route, and their owners can pay to store them when they choose to use them. Yet 5am on a Tuesday morning is still
  2. https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2015/03/bridge_street_grand_rapids_sha.html I cannot see it happening anytime soon; city leaders don't seem to have any interest in big projects. But the social zones are nice and provide a good excuse to squeeze traffic.
  3. This seems like a perfectly fine idea to me. Step#1) Talk to the parks dept / Friends of GR Parks, what are their feelings? They are both very friendly organizations. Perhaps inquire what parks are currently in [re]design review; they cycle through the parks for making improvements. Step#2) If you have specific parks in mind talk to the relevant Neighborhood Associations. Best maybe to start with your own. I am chair of the Highland Park association - we'd be very open to talking about something like this. Step#3) [after step#1 & step#2] if you are going to move forward
  4. Woah, that was 2017. This committee did have some good ideas - but what a fizzle. And the Housing NEXT needs analysis was over a year ago; watching them talk about getting to work on that issue is not amusing. They even talk about taking "near term" actions. https://urbangr.org/housingnext20200721COW What I've heard is that the city does next to nothing regarding enforcement. I'm currently building out an apartlet in my basement, confident I can recoup the costs with some short-term leases. One doesn't even need to Airbnb anymore; I get contacted by people, often des
  5. Yeah. I dunno: meh. My only real thought is how this development seems contrary to all the Planning Dept's jabber about design and the street.
  6. There was no dip, the pandemic was a nonevent in terms of housing. https://urbangr.org/data-point-20210426-zori
  7. Wow; and in two years! Rather than the 5 years so far that GR has been screwing around, with another 5 years before our leaders do anything. The State of California has taken important steps to put its cities feet to the fire - - - Michigan, and probably everywhere, needs equivalent action. Left to "Local Control" our leaders will study us into oblivion.
  8. That's the bug-a-boo: Did they? Where? When? They did some studies, cool, taking that as a mandate is passive-aggressive governance by a group of people who talk about "conversation" and "community" all the live long day. I worry this kind of thing may contribute to a backlash, and I'm already skeptical if the city's insistence on an "equity lens" is going to be unhelpful. There's research that the general public doesn't respond well to that kind of framing; an economic development and fairness argument is less righteous, but more effective. My own, admittedly anecdotal, experience ali
  9. I am a bit surprised it passed. It raises the question: what won't? It is interesting enough to merit a BLOG post IMO; I've downloaded and read through all the letters, etc... I'm an unapologetic YIMBY, yet feel if I was on the PC I might have voted "no". This site really raises the question what all those "plans" are worth, and why we have all these meetings which we ask people to sit through if, then, 'meh, whatever, sure'.
  10. There is a change which is either very recent or still in the pipes to remove the 4-with-bonus and make it simple-4. I though that was part of the same revision as the ground floor residential. The PCs comment was that nobody used the 4-with-bonus as it was too complicated for too little. https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/files/assets/public/meetings/city-commission/2021-01-12/2021-01-12-proposed-zoning-tex-amendments.pdf Aside#1: I have no idea why "ADU requirements vs construction costs" is a bullet point on slide 4. Aside#2: Frustrating and ironic that this can pop-up and be approve
  11. The old YMCA / Geek Group site (900 Leonard St. NW) https://mibiz.com/sections/real-estate-development/mixed-use-project-planned-at-former-ymca-on-grand-rapids-west-side-calls-for-119-apartments 119 units:: 40 studios ($930/mo), 50 single bedroom ($1,170/mo), 20 two bedroom ($1,500/mo) Four stories Ground floor commercial space. Developer will pay for adjacent bus stop shelter, provide tenants with WAVE cards, and parking is with a shared-use agreement with the church next door.
  12. I read it as "just get moving". BTW, DGRI meetings are streamed. I'd imagine the big challenge is financing, anything there at scale is going to be million$. But this really makes sense; Grand Rapids doesn't want infill development, so density can't increase in the neighborhoods, and these are the last big spaces. I do hope they manage to "GO BIG", and don't surrender the potential of that space for less than a whole lot.
  13. Does the change do that? I read it as allowing ground floor residential on the side and rear of the building; the front (20ft) remains commercial except by Special Land Use. Practically speaking I suspect that will prevent a most strange ground floor residential. Then Planning Commission can still say "no" to ground floor residential facing 28th St, for example. It is always confusing when The Planners use the word "can", because that can mean By-Right or by SLU.
  14. I doubt it applies to Fulton Place; 20ft of the ground floor facing an arterial does not qualify. Not sure how much of the vacant ground floor is left over after that. Gateway @ Belknap I believe just signed an office user for the ground floor; there was a SLU to permit office use filed. """Turkelson said allowing first-floor residential units in these areas will increase the amount of floor space available for housing in the city by 50%.""" ... 50% of what? I do not understand that number. Anyway, it seems like a very solid idea. I look forward to the construction of some
  15. The consensus of the meetings I've say in (or Zoom'd in) recently have been that development has not generally followed the plan. Density has crept south and west of where it hoped it would center; mostly on Lafayette. Other than GVSU the only development on Lafayette has been the Bazanni building so far. The most recent proposed apartment building across from Coit School follows the pattern of density growing outside of the planned pattern. Disclaimer: I'm not saying any of that is a problem.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.