New Meijer "Bridge Street Market" on the West Side

[joeDowntown]

The PDF is worth looking at. Really cool project. That gas station owner must have REALLY wanted to stay, can't imagine he wasn't offered a small fortune so they didn't have to design around it. 

I assume one of the buildings will be affordable housing (as discussed yesterday) and one will be market rate? 

Here's an interesting rendering of the building facing Seward. 

Joe

[MJLO]

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 2:35 PM, MJLO said:

I'm pretty sure based on the articles the scope of the project Rockford has in mind is mixed use.  I read office, and residential mentioned in their plans.  That leads me to think multiple floors encompassing the majority of the footprint.  It would also make me think underground/lined parking garage.   It sounds as if you're envisioning more of a big box style format with parking.  Did I miss something?

Nailed it.

[discgrab21]

This will be amazing, especially with New Holland just down the road.  With all of the potential new residents, and being supported by what should be an impressive grocery, hopefully we can see Bridge St turn into a more significant and impressive retail and restaurant destination.

[GRDadof3]

2 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

The PDF is worth looking at. Really cool project. That gas station owner must have REALLY wanted to stay, can't imagine he wasn't offered a small fortune so they didn't have to design around it. 

I assume one of the buildings will be affordable housing (as discussed yesterday) and one will be market rate? 

Here's an interesting rendering of the building facing Seward. 

Joe

The article in MiBiz says that the first building on Stocking will be the LIHTC project. 

https://mibiz.com/item/23786-documents-show-full-scope-of-proposed-project-for-grand-rapids’-west-side

[Guest]

Wow very nice.  I can see this spurring on much more development on the west side.  There are so many vacant properties, surface lots, and under-utilized properties.  Who knows, maybe in 10 years the area west of 131 will be considered part of "downtown".  It would be nice if we could get some height in the area.

[RegalTDP]

5 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

The PDF is worth looking at. Really cool project. That gas station owner must have REALLY wanted to stay, can't imagine he wasn't offered a small fortune so they didn't have to design around it. 

That owner is smart not to move!  With all the traffic that will be coming through there soon...

This is great!  Are there any other mixed-use buildings in Michigan with a grocery store on the first floor?  In Ann Arbor or anywhere?  I can't think of any, this may be the first of its kind in the state.

I wonder what the square footage of the grocery store will be.

[GRDadof3]

8 minutes ago, RegalTDP said:

That owner is smart not to move!  With all the traffic that will be coming through there soon...

This is great!  Are there any other mixed-use buildings in Michigan with a grocery store on the first floor?  In Ann Arbor or anywhere?  I can't think of any, this may be the first of its kind in the state.

I wonder what the square footage of the grocery store will be.

I believe you are right. Would be Michigan's first. There's probably a mixed use project in AA with a small market in it, but not quite the same. 

[GR8scott]

8 hours ago, RegalTDP said:

That owner is smart not to move!  With all the traffic that will be coming through there soon...

This is great!  Are there any other mixed-use buildings in Michigan with a grocery store on the first floor?  In Ann Arbor or anywhere?  I can't think of any, this may be the first of its kind in the state.

I wonder what the square footage of the grocery store will be.

I hope somehow they convert that gas station to a Meijer brand! I cant stand BP anyway. 

I am curious about the sq ft as well and if it will be 50/50 grocery/retail or more heavy one way or the other?

I really like the layout, The only thing im not sure about is the ground floor retail along 1st.

[wingbert]

It can be done...

[x99]

17 hours ago, Floyd_Z said:

Wow very nice.  I can see this spurring on much more development on the west side.  There are so many vacant properties, surface lots, and under-utilized properties.  Who knows, maybe in 10 years the area west of 131 will be considered part of "downtown".  It would be nice if we could get some height in the area.

My thoughts, too.   The problem here, to me, is that this building, while 5 stories, actually ends up having very squat proportions compared to the rest of the area.  It's a pretty big step backwards, from a pedestrian level.  It would be very advantageous if Meijer could revisit their "urban market" architectural concept like they used out in Cascade.  I know they abandoned it due to cost reasons related to the false front, but here it wouldn't be a false facade.  It was also out of place in Cascade, but it would be a great fit here, and add some much needed architectural diversity and tall proportioning to the project.  That was really a forward-thinking New Urbanist style design.  A lot of the recent projects happening in GR seem like they're all getting a really similar look to them, which is more than just a little bit suburbaney mega-building that would fit better out on the Beltine or in a corn field suburb project somewhere.  

The design below integrates much better into an urban environment than the initial rendering.  Breaking up the facade into a bunch of small buildings, even if they are internally integrated, helps to add a lot of visual interest and creates a far more pedestrian-friendly environment.  It's ironic that a two story Meijer in Cascade actually "looks" taller, proportionally, than a 5 story proposal for downtown.

Since we've moved to a form-based zoning code, it would be quite possible to integrate some sort of facade height to width ratio right into the code for retail buildings in certain zone districts, and might not be a bad move.  Putting a horizontally-oriented instead of vertically-oriented built environment into dense urban areas really is a pretty bad fit, IMO.

Edited June 30, 2016 by x99

[RegalTDP]

3 hours ago, x99 said:

My thoughts, too.   The problem here, to me, is that this building, while 5 stories, actually ends up having very squat proportions compared to the rest of the area.  It's a pretty big step backwards, from a pedestrian level.  It would be very advantageous if Meijer could revisit their "urban market" architectural concept like they used out in Cascade.  I know they abandoned it due to cost reasons related to the false front, but here it wouldn't be a false facade.  It was also out of place in Cascade, but it would be a great fit here, and add some much needed architectural diversity and tall proportioning to the project.  That was really a forward-thinking New Urbanist style design.  A lot of the recent projects happening in GR seem like they're all getting a really similar look to them, which is more than just a little bit suburbaney mega-building that would fit better out on the Beltine or in a corn field suburb project somewhere.  

The design below integrates much better into an urban environment than the initial rendering.  Breaking up the facade into a bunch of small buildings, even if they are internally integrated, helps to add a lot of visual interest and creates a far more pedestrian-friendly environment.  It's ironic that a two story Meijer in Cascade actually "looks" taller, proportionally, than a 5 story proposal for downtown.

Since we've moved to a form-based zoning code, it would be quite possible to integrate some sort of facade height to width ratio right into the code for retail buildings in certain zone districts, and might not be a bad move.  Putting a horizontally-oriented instead of vertically-oriented built environment into dense urban areas really is a pretty bad fit, IMO.

Interesting thoughts, but I don't agree.  It won't look squat at all.  It's 5 stories.  Across the street is a Dollar General, and the other side is El Sombrero's giant surface lot.  The long one-story fire station is just past it, plainly visible from that corner.  From a pedestrian level, it will dwarf its surrounding buildings, both horizontally and vertically.  The Westside Gateway, once that's completed, will too.  Maybe THAT would bother you from a design perspective, but that's development for you.  Sometimes new buildings are way big.

I don't agree with resurrecting the Village Square concept.  If it looks hokey and fake in Cascade, it would look like utter trash on Bridge Street.  I don't see how trying to impose such artificiality is good design philosophy.  I appreciate your concern for neighborhood coherence, which is always a worthy consideration, but lately you've turned it into this all-or-nothing crusade that strikes me as irrespective of design, the needs of the neighborhood, or architectural history.  Form still follows function.

That being said, we only have a good idea what Building A will look like.  I'm curious to see if B and C will look exactly the same, or mix it up.  Based on the images provided, it seems like A and B will be the same design, and C will look different.

When it comes to integrating a grocery store with its urban environment, the key is WINDOWS.  My hope is that the Meijer will have as much glass facing Bridge Street as possible, with the checkout lanes visible from the street.  It might be tricky to orient the layout that way, but that is how you design an urban grocery store.

Edited June 30, 2016 by RegalTDP

[x99]

48 minutes ago, RegalTDP said:

Interesting thoughts, but I don't agree.  It won't look squat at all.  It's 5 stories.  Across the street is a Dollar General, and the other side is El Sombrero's giant surface lot. 

I don't agree with resurrecting the Village Square concept.  If it looks hokey and fake in Cascade, it would look like utter trash on Bridge Street.  I don't see how trying to 

It doesn't have to be duplicated "exactly", but not presenting a single, massive building is a concept used regularly by respected urban design firms in numerous successful urban reinvention projects.  You might think Cascade Meijer still looks better than what a suburbanesque Costco with windows cut into it and made taller with some goofy colored Hardipanels running to and fro.  In another context, where you've got a huge parking lot surrounding it, I would be fine with it.  Putting the parking lot in the middle of a warehouse building and tacking glass onto the first floor does not make the rest of the building any less inappropriate in an urban fabric.  

[civitas]

The 3D image in the submittal is a simple massing model.  It is not an architectural design.  

[joeDowntown]

2 hours ago, x99 said:

It doesn't have to be duplicated "exactly", but not presenting a single, massive building is a concept used regularly by respected urban design firms in numerous successful urban reinvention projects.  You might think Cascade Meijer still looks better than what a suburbanesque Costco with windows cut into it and made taller with some goofy colored Hardipanels running to and fro.  In another context, where you've got a huge parking lot surrounding it, I would be fine with it.  Putting the parking lot in the middle of a warehouse building and tacking glass onto the first floor does not make the rest of the building any less inappropriate in an urban fabric.  

So we've now figured out that x99's architectural taste leans more towards the "Castle" apartment building in Grandville and the faux town look of the Cascade Meijer. But no glass! Interesting...  Maybe we can go all out Vegas and have a Pyramid (but no glass!) next to a fake castle. Maybe throw in a fake volcano and a pirate ship for good measure. Aye Matey!

Joe

1 hour ago, civitas said:

The 3D image in the submittal is a simple massing model.  It is not an architectural design.  

Somebody said something on Facebook about how they didn't like the amount of transparency. Totally reminded me of the movie Zoolander:

Derek Zoolander: What is this? A center for ants? How can we be expected to teach children to learn how to read... if they can't even fit inside the building?

Mugatu: Derek, this is just a small...

Derek Zoolander: I don't wanna hear your excuses! The building has to be at least... three times bigger than this!

Joe

[RegalTDP]

3 hours ago, x99 said:

It doesn't have to be duplicated "exactly", but not presenting a single, massive building is a concept used regularly by respected urban design firms in numerous successful urban reinvention projects.  You might think Cascade Meijer still looks better than what a suburbanesque Costco with windows cut into it and made taller with some goofy colored Hardipanels running to and fro.  In another context, where you've got a huge parking lot surrounding it, I would be fine with it.  Putting the parking lot in the middle of a warehouse building and tacking glass onto the first floor does not make the rest of the building any less inappropriate in an urban fabric.  

Your previous post had a picture of Cascade Meijer with the words "The design below integrates much better into an urban environment than the initial rendering."  That means you would prefer the artificial storefronts with fake windows displaying enlarged images of food to whatever the design of this will be (which BTW is not even a rendering). That is what you posted.  You shouldn't make such broad pronouncements if you don't want to be taken at your word.

While your more general assertion "not presenting a single, massive building is a concept used regularly by respected urban design firms in numerous successful urban reinvention projects" is true, there are plenty of successful singular concepts comparable to this project's scope and stature as well.  It's not uncommon at all.  Perhaps we can agree to disagree, but I don't get why you're seeing such harm to the urban fabric by this, and the suggestion of imposing height-to-width ratios of retail facades into the building code would be a mistake.  These are cities.  Buildings vary.

Edited June 30, 2016 by RegalTDP

[walker]

51 minutes ago, joeDowntown said:

. . . Totally reminded me of the movie Zoolander:

Derek Zoolander: What is this? A center for ants? How can we be expected to teach children to learn how to read... if they can't even fit inside the building?

Mugatu: Derek, this is just a small...

Derek Zoolander: I don't wanna hear our excuses! The building has to be at least... three times bigger than this!

Joe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSBfL99VHI

Edited June 30, 2016 by walker

[GR_Urbanist]

I think I understand where X99 is coming from.

That building one big singular building, in the utilitarian style that is popular these days, may seem imposing and could potentially (psychologically?) suck the life out of the street and give the impression that it is a soulless superblock if it is done carelessly.

At some point in the future, the entire building may have to come down because it is one single product inside and out, whereas the Meijer route, assuming that it is designed to be done, could see those individual facades be the fronts of multiple buildings that are now carved out of a much larger building that no longer needed to be a singular structure.

 

Of course the Meijer in Cascade is a somewhat cartoonish representation of a "main street", and would never work if it was done in an urban setting because it looks totally Stepford Wife-y, and it would add an unnecessary cost for the developer as the project may never be subdivided, but the facades will remain for what are essentially fake structures, and will have to be maintained. Since they are fronts for non-existing businesses, with non-functional doors and opaque windows, it will end up looking like Main St. is experiencing a recession all the time!

Edited June 30, 2016 by GR_Urbanist

[GR8scott]

But there are least a few existing buildings along that stretch of bridge with nice enough facade that perhaps they could salvage the street side two story buildings and fill in the rest behind them? 

 

Also if they were to get really creative, they could utilize some of the storefronts along bridge street for things like the pharmacy, bank branch, Starbucks, ect with a street entrance and back entrance to the meijer being on the inside of the block.  I would think the Meijer store would need a second level like some of the urban targets and Whole Foods I've seen, especially if they want retail. 

[GRDadof3]

8 hours ago, GR8scott said:

But there are least a few existing buildings along that stretch of bridge with nice enough facade that perhaps they could salvage the street side two story buildings and fill in the rest behind them? 

 

Also if they were to get really creative, they could utilize some of the storefronts along bridge street for things like the pharmacy, bank branch, Starbucks, ect with a street entrance and back entrance to the meijer being on the inside of the block.  I would think the Meijer store would need a second level like some of the urban targets and Whole Foods I've seen, especially if they want retail. 

Here's the current lineup of storefronts on that block. The one on the far left is some schocky building that I can't remember who did a few years ago. Pull off some of that faux siding on the others and there may be some facades worth keeping. The old tattoo parlor, think anything worthwhile is under that?  It's expensive and tricky to hold up facades and build behind them though. 

 

 

I do agree that breaking the storefront into sections would be better than one long contiguous glass wall. Add some whimsical shingle signs all designed by different people so it looks like individual retailers (even if you're just advertising tenants in the Meijer like Huntington, a pretzel place, glass shop, etc..)

[Chester Cheeto]

7 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

Here's the current lineup of storefronts on that block. The one on the far left is some schocky building that I can't remember who did a few years ago. Pull off some of that faux siding on the others and there may be some facades worth keeping. The old tattoo parlor, think anything worthwhile is under that?  It's expensive and tricky to hold up facades and build behind them though. 

 

My wife and I flew to New Zealand a few years back, about a year after the big earthquake in Christchurch, here's how they held up the facades after the buildings behind them collapsed. (picture isn't mine)

I'm guessing this wouldn't fly in the good ole USA, but it was a pretty ingenious way to temporarily support some pretty historic building facades, and fairly cheap.

On top of that, the shipping containers that were no longer needed to shore up some buildings were turned into an outdoor shopping mall:

 

[Allison Slater]

All this assumes this urban format Meijer will even have those little shops.  It could very well be a bit more bare-bones.

[x99]

1 hour ago, tSlater said:

All this assumes this urban format Meijer will even have those little shops.  It could very well be a bit more bare-bones.

True.  I am assuming that they will have door on the street front every so often, with ground floor retail.  That was how I interpreted the plan.  If that will not exist, the individual store front concept would not make as much sense.  I would still probably try to make the building feel less massive though, simply to avoid the feeling that they are dumping a 5 story Costco with some extra glass into an urban environment. 

 

17 hours ago, RegalTDP said:

Your previous post had a picture of Cascade Meijer with the words "The design below integrates much better into an urban environment than the initial rendering."  That means you would prefer the artificial storefronts with fake windows displaying enlarged images of food to whatever the design of this will be (which BTW is not even a rendering). That is what you posted.  You shouldn't make such broad pronouncements if you don't want to be taken at your word.

Oh, now you're just being difficult.  I think it was fairly obvious I meant the design concept of having individual store fronts and breaking this massive building up into smaller visual components.  If the original street fronts were cleaned up and rejuvenated, they would seem, at least to me, like a much nicer place to spend some time shopping in a downtown environment than the 5 story Costco-esque proposal.  

[x99]

Here's my version of a fairly large urban store which isn't split into smaller buildings.  It's big, it has glass, but it's a nice urban design: 

Which they actually built: 

That's an absolutely beautiful, skilled piece of design work.  If anyone proposed something that amazing for Grand Rapids, I would be totally willing to overlook the massiveness of it.  The differentiated corner, the cornice line at the second floor, the three stories in the middle, the secondary and top cornice, the variations in the facade .. They all help to break it up into a building that just looks fantastic in an urban environment.  

 

My preference, though, does admittedly lean a little more toward this sort of thing when you're dealing with an area that has very narrow existing buildings: 

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by x99

[Allison Slater]

In the midst of complaining about the loss of Hill Dash I noticed that currently there is no bus service at all where the transit stop is located in this plan.  No bus in the city travels the stretch between Seward & Stocking.  The most useful for Downtown residents to here, the Hill Dash, comes closest with a stop at Bridge & Winter but that route is being replaced by a changed Dash West.

This means that unless routes are changed or a new route is added, the transit stop in the plan for this site won't happen.

[RegalTDP]

1 hour ago, x99 said:

Here's my version of a fairly large urban store which isn't split into smaller buildings.  It's big, it has glass, but it's a nice urban design: 

Which they actually built: 

That's an absolutely beautiful, skilled piece of design work.  If anyone proposed something that amazing for Grand Rapids, I would be totally willing to overlook the massiveness of it.  The differentiated corner, the cornice line at the second floor, the three stories in the middle, the secondary and top cornice, the variations in the facade .. They all help to break it up into a building that just looks fantastic in an urban environment.  

 

My preference, though, does admittedly lean a little more toward this sort of thing when you're dealing with an area that has very narrow existing buildings: 

 

Yesss... Concur.  Dig the Walmart.  That is an urban design.  That's what I'm talking about.

Honestly, I prefer the Walmart over the other 3.  I know where that store is, it's in DC.  You can tell it was built for an urban environment.

I know where the other 3 are too; the first is Rockville Town Square in Maryland, the 2nd is Southlake Town Square in Texas (near Fort Worth), and the 3rd is in the new Crown Development in Gaithersburg, MD.  I don't know about you, but they just look artificial to me.  Somehow I can just tell these are suburban developments, whereas I can tell the WalMart is in a real city.  Which is fine, I think those developments are beautiful, and work great for the towns they are in.  But I don't think Bridge Street needs to impose that kind of artificiality on itself to look urban.

EDIT: No I'm not being difficult!  You posted a picture of Cascade Meijer and called it "forward-thinking New Urbanist style design!"  How do you expect someone to interpret that!? 

Edited July 1, 2016 by RegalTDP