GR_Urbanist

I'm still fine with demolishing everything above the front first 2 floors and build new from there, including that lot at the end of the block. This place has been effectively empty nearing almost 20 years, and no one that proposes anything there are serious for more than 2 months. This poor thread is just pages and years of this. If the building as-is was ever going to be utilized, it would have happened by now. No one wants to put the money into fixing this place, especially with some historic status on it.

I was tempted to look at the discussion a couple of days ago, but it almost always devolves into just overly righteous bicyclists that will go on about how much they hate cars and why people that drive are dumb, and NIMBYs complaining for the sake of complaining as if they cant wrap their heads around this design and that a couple of meters shaved off a lightly used one-way street that is used more as a speed-up to get on the freeway (which literally forms a solid wall facing the houses there, will result in lower property values or something. This same setup exists along Riverside park and on Century Ave, north of Franklin. Everything is just fine. If anything the lane will make that stretch of Turner at least look a little nicer even if the people there take a minute to figure out that they arent supposed to park on it...

I'm really digging that first idea for Wealthy St.. Never understood how something like that would have been pulled off, but it looks like they nailed it!

Far better than that first one. Neither are amazing, but that first one looked like something from the early 60s.

After watching the full PC video on YouTube (because what else to do on a Saturday evening?). A few observations: 1) The multiple references to the "green space" as if it means something. It will be just a dirt lot with grass seed that will become more parking in short order. They make it seem like it is Central Park. Like who on Earth would use it for anything recreational? 2) The Commissioner that was hopelessly naive in thinking that these lots were totally going to be built on anytime soon. If Corewell did build on them, then where are all of their employee's cars going to go? 3) Why didnt Corewell not anticipate the number of people working at this facility early on and build their ramps to accommodate that? 4) The "fellow housing" component Corewell floated isn't even fully funded, a real red flag that to me just means it has a good chance of falling through and thus leading to them coming back asking to turn even that plot into yet another parking lot. In fact there are no dates on any of the residential components, but they sure wanted to get the parking lots in by winter. 5) Corwell's people seriously not understanding that DT GR isnt the E. Beltline and seeming confused that parking lots =/= urban vibrancy. 5b) Are they seriously under the impression that people will walk from there to the top of the hill? 5c) I really wish they would stop referring to it as a "campus". Even calling it a "campus in an urban core"! Could have fooled me... 6) No one hates Corewell for being there, and this isnt some anti-car thing. Everyone just doesnt want to sacrifice a significant area for perpetual used car lots that are not even open to the public, and will be empty after 5 and on the weekends. 7) All the commissioners giving pushback were solid and it felt like they really read all of the oppositional points. Tabling it was a good end at this step, but it needs to come up with something far better than what is proposed.

The small GRPS parking lot at the SW corner of Baldwin and Diamond SE has been completely torn up down to the dirt. Seems a little much for one that wasn't in disrepair. As it wasn't the main lot for Congress Elementary School, anyone know if this is anything significant or some project GRPS had just to redo the lot? UPDATE: Looks like it is just some sort of resurfacing.

Good job, team! We really made a statement and got the ear of the city for something really important to us. It isnt over, but savor the win!

I'm honestly stunned! I would have totally expected them to have faceplanted right into Woodland Mall, never giving DT a glance. But the spot absolutely looks made for the brand, and hopefully it will have a halo effect on other spots nearby that need some ground floor action!

So basically a one (maybe 2) road in/out subdivision? There are multiple roads that approach this property. Doesnt the city still lay out new streets? Why would you even need to "buffer" a city neighborhood from the neighborhoods around it?

Yes! Let's go, everybody! Still time to get a quick email in. You have nothing to lose from some civic participation.

I've never felt that was a "great" fit for a prominent spot like that. It has had some interesting places over the past 20 years, though. Hoping for something more active.

Truth be told, the original renderings were just a concept, so it's not a letdown that the new rendering is really "worse" looking.... First rendering: 2nd rendering: It's just that it's Saint Mary's, and they have never been known for having taste when it comes to architecture or competence when it comes to urbanism. I honestly have no idea what they are going for here in terms of the "style", but it definitely fits with the classic "cut off from the street bunker style" theme of the buildings across the street. I suppose the arch bridge thing is them trying to be imaginative, but I'm fully not expecting that to survive to construction. Honestly, I'm not even expecting the pedestrian bridge to either. I really liked where they were going with the original EAST side rendering, though. I'm also not holding my breath that the new version remotely will look like this.

The park is as close to sacred ground as you are ever going to get in GR. So I would just offer the person that is proposing this a blindfold and cigarette....because they are going to need it. The proposal they are offering is just laughably absurd, and taking 50%+ of the park for parking is just astonishing. What is that building at the SW corner of the park, right along Butterworth? Why not use that land for a ramp? Redirect the small road that goes up to the hilltop pavilion and that way you completely eliminate the problem. Otherwise there is no way they should expect to rip up a chunk of the park to park more cars. If they do this ramp correctly, they could potentially add park space by eliminating a surface lot.

I'm glad the city is expressing some doubts. I hope they have been hearing from a lot of concerned people. I know it took me 4 drafts to get a letter conveying my thoughts on it (without ranting). If nothing else, the city should not allow any lots there to be paved. They have to be all gravel. That way they can be easily dug up at a moment's notice. That Corewell will either have to develop something on them or maintain the gravel.

Fences are up, and a construction trailer is on-site as of this morning.