Jump to content

grmetro

Members
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About grmetro

  • Rank
    Unincorporated Area
  1. To further illustrate my point (because I think it is worth making and I apologize for beating a dead horse), those taking the "so-called" moral high ground would argue that not contributing to the tax role, etc. does not qualify as a lack of contribution. The homeless contribute in alternative ways and simply because they do not contribute to our preconceived ideas of economic value does not make them any less important. The homeless offer value and our city needs no saving from them. The counter arguments are always predictable and establish a unarguable basis without being labeled cold-hearted or discriminatory. I'm now done expressing my annoyance with such arguments. Thank you for permitting me the opportunity to voice my displeasure.
  2. My point about you taking the moral high ground was that you establish an unrealistic framework of which no argument can be made. Yes, we all aspire for candy clouds and bubble gum sidewalks but some of us realize that will never be reality and choose to tackle real life problems in a way that can have actual solutions. You harp on others for not aspiring for candy clouds and criticize when realistic solutions are posed. Your argument is not won but rather acknowledged as fool-hardy and Utopian. Simply because people stop responding to you does not mean you've won, but perhaps you've lost their attention. Moral low ground, as you call it, (I prefer realism) may be the world we should all start dealing in.
  3. I love taking the moral high ground. My heart is bigger than yours. I care about other people more than you and therefore the foundation of my argument is untouchable because I've established that you are hard-hearted and not nearly as compassionate as I. The homeless are people. The homed are people. From what I've read there has been no mention of shutting the shelters and saying "good riddance" but merely mentions of suggestions that the best use for the area is no longer for homeless shelters and that other areas may be bettered suited. That should be the conversation not moral superiority. I'm all about a big heart but I occasionally like to consult my brain, which is capable of caring for humankind whilst also understanding the ever-changing realities of a progressive economy (which happens to help both the homeless and the homed). This conversation can establish ideas to benefit both the homeless and the homed. And can we please address the situation in real terms. We can couch every conversation about the homeless as those just needing a cup of soup (which many are) but we also need to acknowledge that there is a contingent of the homeless that are drug dependent, mentally unstable. potentially harassing, and perhaps not as "vibrant" or "diverse" as previously described. A productive conversation should admit and acknowledge all facets of an issue.
  4. They are rebuilding. There is some demo being done in the still standing building. I believe they plan to have a sports bar as part of the new build. Maybe that will be a good place to watch the beautiful game!
  5. It reminds me of the library at Valparaiso University (The Christopher Center)
  6. Free Beer and Hot Wings recently provided some commentary on GRAM, as they can see it from their studio. The commentary went something like this
  7. Ivy can be harsh on concrete but It would be cool to have a hanging lattice covered in ivy in the entryway
  8. Correct me if i'm wrong....but didn't one of the early designs have a lot of wood/greenery in the design. Then the architect changed, or something like that, and that feature was lost. If the louvers were not a color that is so often used for exhaust vents and the repetitive gray was a teak wood or some other material I might like the feature.
  9. In the past I've been harsh about the museum and decided to take a step back some time ago to let it pan out and then rejudge. I was starting to find the museum more palatable due ot the heavy inclusion of glass and window. (still don't like conrete as a design feature) Now that they are "effectively" covering the windows my sentiments of disgust are quickly returning. Hoorumph
  10. I'm neither on a soapbox nor being over dramatic. This project has been badly mismanaged and there are rumblings of law suits over various issues (certain arbitration hearings may have already occurred) My original point was that the look of the concrete may have something to do with poor management, instruction, etc. UPer's need to know when not to be cheerleaders anymore. This major block of downtown Grand Rapids has been in flux for too long and I know of several subs who are thankful not to be part of it.
  11. Not so sure about the faith invovled here. How many managers has teh project gone thru? How much over budget is the project? How far past original timelines is the project. How much arbitration and litigation has and will this project gnereate. Too much.
  12. 2012 was tongue in cheek...i need to do better with my sarcasm.
  13. I know a couple of contractors who are glad they didn't win the bid on this project. Grand Opening 2012?
  14. Is it still for sale? I thought the son moved in after the market for such homes proved to be nonexistant. I think he is still in town running Butterball Butter.
  15. There was an access garage that i thought they were making into retail space. Has that project come to fruition?
×
×
  • 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.