Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
joeDowntown

New Development / Developer asks city not to put parking lot near river

13 posts in this topic

Interesting article about a possible development of 200 residential units on Market that hinges on the city NOT putting a surface lot next to the river. 

 

 

Prime Development has completed a first round of renderings for a potential mixed-use project for on least one of the 11 parcels commonly called 201 Market Avenue that’s located southwest of downtown Grand Rapids along the Grand River, Burgler said.

 

Early plans for the site call for Prime Development to build a facility for at least 200 market-rate apartments along with other complementary retail uses.

 

http://mibiz.com/news/real-estate/item/21797-park-it-elsewhere-developer-asks-gr-to-reconsider-parking-lot-along-grand-river

 

Anyone heard about this project before (sounds like it could be somewhat far off it it gets developed)? Sounds like initial renderings are coming soon.

 

Joe

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

While Burgler acknowledges the proposed project is potentially years away — if the firm decides to pursue it further...

 

 

Then why is he wasting everyone's time?

 

Doesn't this town already have enough developers that over-promise and then not deliver? We don't have the stomach for another "mystery project".

 

Either get something real on the table now, or go find some other way to get publicity for your firm. As much as I despise the brainless idea of wasting this space for parking lots, if you aren't going to build on it in a quick time frame, and not this "maybe" in 6 years stuff, then don't demand the city do anything but ignore you.

 

But he is right that if the city does this, then you can kiss any development there for the next 20 years goodbye.

Edited by GR_Urbanist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article about a possible development of 200 residential units on Market that hinges on the city NOT putting a surface lot next to the river. 

 

 

http://mibiz.com/news/real-estate/item/21797-park-it-elsewhere-developer-asks-gr-to-reconsider-parking-lot-along-grand-river

 

Anyone heard about this project before (sounds like it could be somewhat far off it it gets developed)? Sounds like initial renderings are coming soon.

 

Joe

 

OMG, build another parking lot on the riverfront Grand Rapids. We've officially become Flint.

 

In all seriousness though, once a surface lot is built (price tag of $1.7 Million means it won't be a gravel lot) then I don't see it going away for at least 20 years. The city might be that far out from anything getting developed there, but seems like there are better uses for those underutilized city buildings. Warehousing of Founders kegs and bottles?

 

Good for the developer for standing up against the city on this. If the city needs more parking (can't see how, but OK let's pretend the answer is yes) then how about putting up lots out further from downtown and shuttle bus people into the city?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. It prolongs its use as a undesirable use. If it is "temporary" then make it temporary by making it a gravel lot. Additionally, make sure there is a vegetative buffer between the lot and the river. We can at least start the slow development of the riverside greenway. 

 

Re:development proposal. I'm sure there is a reason, but why doesn't Burgler develop the riverside property first and the parking lot can be moved away from the river?  And I would agree, we don't need any more prime city-owned development parcels tied up for projects that are dead in the water.....

 

I'm assuming the movie theater project is dead? What about CWD hotel next to the Fulton St garage? Two-year options, with a 1-year extension tied to a fairly compelling justification should be the maximum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why hasn't anything of substance come along for those lots?   With all the residential momentum I would have thought something that wasn't a "maybe" would have struck interest there.   Is it just too expensive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do know there is a fairly large storm or potable water pipe under the site somewhere. That may impact the buildable portions of the lot. Additionally, there is an issue of relocating the City's operations to other sites, and doing so in a manner that doesn't cost millions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why hasn't anything of substance come along for those lots?   With all the residential momentum I would have thought something that wasn't a "maybe" would have struck interest there.   Is it just too expensive?

 

I suspect it's because it isn't a very hospitable location for a small-scale project.  If these were just vacant lots, I suspect the highest value at the moment might be another warehouse unless you can find someone willing to fund a rather massive and speculative project.  It's a tough sell, no matter how you slice it.  Even if the real estate was next to free, I think a residential or commercial project would still be tough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect it's because it isn't a very hospitable location for a small-scale project.  If these were just vacant lots, I suspect the highest value at the moment might be another warehouse unless you can find someone willing to fund a rather massive and speculative project.  It's a tough sell, no matter how you slice it.  Even if the real estate was next to free, I think a residential or commercial project would still be tough. 

 

Exactly. Who wants to live in the middle of what is essentially an industrial park? Overlooking one of the ugliest stretches of the Grand River? And the marketability of doing a huge project to infill even half the site is pretty iffy.

 

Development will come to that area but it's going to be a while, at least 20 years as several developers have estimated.

 

Perhaps I can see the thought process of marking it parking, or adding it to the DASH system. And I agree with jippy that using that opportunity to enhance and green up the riverfront a bit would be nice. The city should be taking a slice of that property along the river and putting it in an easement anyway, so that a development doesn't cut off public access to the river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I do know there is a fairly large storm or potable water pipe under the site somewhere. That may impact the buildable portions of the lot. Additionally, there is an issue of relocating the City's operations to other sites, and doing so in a manner that doesn't cost millions. 

https://flic.kr/p/oMa5aB

 

14950861237_36b94371df.jpg

Edited by GReno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Either get something real on the table now, or go find some other way to get publicity for your firm. As much as I despise the brainless idea of wasting this space for parking lots, if you aren't going to build on it in a quick time frame, and not this "maybe" in 6 years stuff, then don't demand the city do anything but ignore you.

 

 

Actually, from a publicity standpoint, this is a shrewd move.  If the city's making a decision that hurts development, why not call them out publicly?  Whether or not there's a "shovel-ready-game-changin'" plan in the works, they're in a position to speak out, and they should.  I agree this new lot will be anything but temporary.

Edited by RegalTDP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the City is planning on leaving this area in the future and after the "transformation" much of it isn't used.  

 

It isn't in their interest (or mine - taxpayer) to maintain or repurpose these properties at a cost higher than the Demo & Pave.

 

How does this deter future development?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is "temporary" then make it temporary by making it a gravel lot. 

 

It may be a financial thing.  I've seen it where due to funding it is cheaper to build something than not for a demolition project.

 

Government  :dontknow:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.