Hinman project - new 13 story hotel at 10 Ionia

[WMrapids]

3 hours ago, x99 said:

So I think it's worth posting again the world's most beautiful recently proposed tower that still has a boatload of glass.  I posted it before, but here it is again:

So beautiful.  Something like this would be so amazingly, deliciously perfect.  It woudn't be like dumping a giant sore thumb in the middle of Heartside.  It would be the perfect cherry on top of the whole area.  A stunning rebuke to the mediocrity that has been the last 40 years of "meh".  

I should cross post this thing on every article about this this tower.  Maybe someone from Hinman will see it and fall in love with this sort of amazing design work.  I often say I could do better than a lot of the bland cubes being guilt in Grand Rapids.  I couldn't do better than this.  This is architecture.  This is talent.  This is the modern and the traditional all rolled up into one amazing package.  Hopefully Hinman blows us away ... 

Put that on every article about Warner Tower. That needs so much more help and might fit on that lot better (and it's somewhat reminiscent of the old proposal over ten years ago).

On another note, I do agree with them saying that it looks too much like a "grid". That is why I thought they needed something giving it a more vertical appearance before they went back. Oh well, fingers crossed on this one since this is the development most of us wait for!

[x99]

34 minutes ago, ironyisadeadscene said:

Here here. What's wrong with modern? What's wrong with sticking out? It doesn't have to blend in with the surroundings. Everything looking old would be boring. A touch of modern would give the skyline more character.

Just because you might not like the rules does not mean you get to pretend they don't exist.  Unfortunately, architects do this all the time. New construction is reviewed for its impact on the historic architectural character of the district, and its compatibility with the existing historic buildings.  It's the same thing with zoning. No matter how stupid they or we might think the rules are, they are what they are. 

[joeDowntown]

27 minutes ago, WMrapids said:

Put that on every article about Warner Tower. That needs so much more help and might fit on that lot better (and it's somewhat reminiscent of the old proposal over ten years ago).

WMrapids, Have you seen renderings of the Warner Tower? We haven't. You probably haven't either. How can you continue to bitch about it?!

As far as Hinman is concerned, they have a great recent example of what satisfies the HPC- 12 Weston. That was a big transparent glass box with a couple of stories of brick to blend in with surrounding buildings. I'd use that as a guideline. Differentiate the first 3-4 stories (I don't think they'd have to change materials, maybe more traditional windows, add some cornices and re-submit.

Joe

[x99]

2 minutes ago, joeDowntown said:

As far as Hinman is concerned, they have a great recent example of what satisfies the HPC- 12 Weston. That was a big transparent glass box with a couple of stories of brick to blend in with surrounding buildings. I'd use that as a guideline. Differentiate the first 3-4 stories (I don't think they'd have to change materials, maybe more traditional windows, add some cornices and re-submit.

Joe

HPC never approved that design as appropriate.  It moved forward on a weird technicality because they actually found it inappropriate.  So that would be a pretty bad guidelines to use, unless you want an example of what not to do.  

[WMrapids]

1 hour ago, joeDowntown said:

WMrapids, Have you seen renderings of the Warner Tower? We haven't. You probably haven't either. How can you continue to beotch about it?!

I'm not, I just think that Warner needs more of what x99 put up over there than what the Hinman development needs because it'd be nice to see something bigger there. Just sharing my thoughts like others here, no beotching. 

[ironyisadeadscene]

2 hours ago, x99 said:

Just because you might not like the rules does not mean you get to pretend they don't exist.  Unfortunately, architects do this all the time. New construction is reviewed for its impact on the historic architectural character of the district, and its compatibility with the existing historic buildings.  It's the same thing with zoning. No matter how stupid they or we might think the rules are, they are what they are. 

Arbitrary rules hindering development deserve scrutiny  and residents deserve to be heard. Not at the whim of a tone deaf organization.

[x99]

48 minutes ago, ironyisadeadscene said:

Arbitrary rules hindering development deserve scrutiny  and residents deserve to be heard. Not at the whim of a tone deaf organization.

For better or worse the legislature determined that both zoning and historic preservation serve a valuable public purpose.  I'm a big property rights and development guy, but the people on HPC are just doing their job.  Enforcing rules that have been in place on this site since 1979 is not exactly "tone deaf".  I would submit that proposing a building which fails to comply with the rules is as equally tone deaf.  And don't forget that if Hinman doesn't like the HPC rules, they do happen to own a parking ramp across the street on a lot that is even bigger.  If they are so strongly attached to this design, they could just build it over there.  Yeah, it may seem bizarre, but the line is drawn where the line is drawn.  Preservation is no more arbitrary than zoning, in that respect.

 

[ironyisadeadscene]

There's nothing to preserve. It's a parking lot. When it gets in the way of progress, on a pretty good looking building, it's a problem.

[GR8scott]

I kind of got mixed signals watching the wzzm clip. Its like the commission wants a mc kay like tower, which isnt even in their area. I think this design looks very similar to the base of One Detroit Center, obviously without the crown atop but that building is done very well as a modern classic

 

Also maybe an easy fix is change the color scheme to be more like 38 commerce and add brick to the street level presence while keeping the basic structure the same?

Edited August 18, 2016 by GR8scott

[joeDowntown]

3 hours ago, x99 said:

For better or worse the legislature determined that both zoning and historic preservation serve a valuable public purpose.  I'm a big property rights and development guy, but the people on HPC are just doing their job.  Enforcing rules that have been in place on this site since 1979 is not exactly "tone deaf".  I would submit that proposing a building which fails to comply with the rules is as equally tone deaf.  And don't forget that if Hinman doesn't like the HPC rules, they do happen to own a parking ramp across the street on a lot that is even bigger.  If they are so strongly attached to this design, they could just build it over there.  Yeah, it may seem bizarre, but the line is drawn where the line is drawn.  Preservation is no more arbitrary than zoning, in that respect.

 

That's actually pretty ingenuous x99. Don't like our building? Fine we'll flip flop our properties- here's a parking ramp instead with a nice little accent to make it historic.  

I've always said, this spot NEEDS a building. I hate the disconnect between South Fulton and North Fulton. With that big nasty police station wall, you feel like you are in no man's land walking from Fulton to Monroe Center.

I'd also like to see CWD build on the land they optioned at Fulton and Ionia. Somebody send a memo.

Joe

[MJLO]

Again I ask why is the HPC even needed?  They function on the same discretion and common sense a computer has.  This is our charter...our charter says no.....Please resubmit.   They are the developmental equivalent of the blue screen of death.  I don't care about the wisdom behind their creation I get it.  The HPC functions equally as a safegaurd to the past, as much as they can be a hinderance to progress.  Is the charter unable to be tweaked?  I imagine so.  Giving them the ability to adapt and create a better functioning document would be common sense, so it must not be an option.  

I say replace the HPC with a spreadsheet and let the chair woman go be a suffragette, or some other form of historical activist.   

[jas49503]

8 hours ago, MJLO said:

Again I ask why is the HPC even needed?  They function on the same discretion and common sense a computer has.  This is our charter...our charter says no.....Please resubmit.   They are the developmental equivalent of the blue screen of death.  I don't care about the wisdom behind their creation I get it.  The HPC functions equally as a safegaurd to the past, as much as they can be a hinderance to progress.  Is the charter unable to be tweaked?  I imagine so.  Giving them the ability to adapt and create a better functioning document would be common sense, so it must not be an option.  

I say replace the HPC with a spreadsheet and let the chair woman go be a suffragette, or some other form of historical activist.   

The problem, and the reason there is a committee, is that the guidelines are very vague. Developers are somewhat at the mercy of the comittee members personal biases but at least with a comittee, you would hope that there is a discussion and an outlying opinion is overruled.  Clarifying the guidelines would go a long way towards improving the process and making things easier for developers. Knowing expectation in advance would make the approval process much smoother. 

[GRLaker]

Here's my take on historical preservation...And I say this as a history geek and supporter of historical districts...

Historical preservation should be there for the sole purpose of PRESERVING. Preserving means that you are preserving something that currently exists. In this case, we have a small parking lot that hasn't had a building sitting on it in decades. It is a parking lot that is surrounded by a modern arena, a mid-20th century box serving as a police station, a small parking ramp, a modern metal building, a modern parking ramp, a giant metal pile of crap across the street, and soon to be a modern apartment tower. There is nothing on this land to preserve. It's empty and aside from the buildings on Ionia, it's surrounded by modern architecture. 

Therefore, IMO, the HPC should have no say on the matter. They should be worrying about actual historical areas - preserving what currently stands and ensuring that anything that currently stands and is torn down is replaced by something that goes well in the area.  

Edited August 19, 2016 by GRLaker

[sparky05]

Just out of curiosity, what are the qualifications of the members of the HPC? Watching the clip on WZZM, I can't say that they strike me as seasoned historians and architectural critics. What sort of background does one have to have in order to be a member?

[GRLaker]

15 minutes ago, sparky05 said:

Just out of curiosity, what are the qualifications of the members of the HPC? Watching the clip on WZZM, I can't say that they strike me as seasoned historians and architectural critics. What sort of background does one have to have in order to be a member?

This from the Grand Rapids website:  "The Commission is composed of seven (7) members who represent the citizens of the City.  One (1) member must be a state registered architect and two (2) members are appointed from a list submitted by the Kent County Council for Historic Preservation or other existing preservation societies."

[x99]

7 hours ago, GRLaker said:

Here's my take on historical preservation...And I say this as a history geek and supporter of historical districts...

Historical preservation should be there for the sole purpose of PRESERVING. Preserving means that you are preserving something that currently exists. 

The technical way to view this is that what "exists" is a historic district.  By analogy, you aren't preserving trees, you are preserving the entire forest.  If the forest is a pine forest, you don't want to plant a bunch of oak trees in a clearing.  A vacant lot is basically a clearing.  Since  HPC has to protect the forest, they do have to review what is built, and it cannot be anything.  You risk ruining the forest.  The standard is that new buildings must be reviewed for compatibility with the architectural character of the entire district to prevent that.   If you don't want to do that, the simplest way around this is to build elsewhere.  While this site is on the edge of a historic district, it will be so large that it will be visible from the entire district.  That makes the constraints on them quite significant.  

 It seems screwy because Hinman could build across the street and be fine.  But when lines are drawn, odd things like that occur.  By constantly asking for feedback, I think Hinman really wants to understand what the rules are, and will probably be happy to build something that meets them.

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by x99

[RegalTDP]

Hate to say it but I agree with x99 on this.  I think the design of the building is great.  But the HPC is just doing its job.  I very gravely question the wisdom of why this lot was ever included in the Heartside Historic District in the first place - I'm pretty sure it was a parking lot by 1979, when the district was established. But alas, it was included, so it's subject to the same scrutiny.  I know you can petition to have landmarks removed from the Registry (though I'm not certain the same process would apply to parcels within a district).  This would seem like a pretty easy lot to petition, though I'm sure the process would take longer than the developer would like.

Just because they let Gallery and 12 Weston slide doesn't mean they should let all buildings slide.

I think we should all calm down a bit and lay off the HPC.  This was right on the money:

On 8/18/2016 at 8:47 AM, x99 said:

And let's not forget that Hinman was not asking for approval.  They were asking for feedback.  They want to get this right.  Let's not be too hard on HPC.  Hinman asked for their opinion, and they got it.

This was an informal advisory session.  Let the process continue.

GRDad posted this earlier:

It wouldn't be that hard to take elements and details from this example and incorporate them here.  It would fit in with Heartside just fine.

Edited August 19, 2016 by RegalTDP

[GRCentro]

On August 18, 2016 at 11:16 AM, GR_Urbanist said:

This is a prime example of the city thinking we are the living ****, and that we can play games like this as if we have 45 other developers waiting to get their hands on this lot. If these guys mess this up, then there needs to be a real movement to redefine the HPC's role, or disband them or this "historical district". They are playing with fire on this one, and they need to be read the Riot Act. If they are just putting on a little show to save face, then make it quick and get out of the way or the city needs to step in and put a stop to it so this thing can get going.

 

On August 18, 2016 at 10:48 PM, MJLO said:

Again I ask why is the HPC even needed?  They function on the same discretion and common sense a computer has.  This is our charter...our charter says no.....Please resubmit.   They are the developmental equivalent of the blue screen of death.  I don't care about the wisdom behind their creation I get it.  The HPC functions equally as a safegaurd to the past, as much as they can be a hinderance to progress.  Is the charter unable to be tweaked?  I imagine so.  Giving them the ability to adapt and create a better functioning document would be common sense, so it must not be an option.  

I say replace the HPC with a spreadsheet and let the chair woman go be a suffragette, or some other form of historical activist.   

Good gravy! Can we lay down the pitchforks and torches?

Full disclosure: I am an HPC Commissioner (even we enjoy online forums from time to time). I'm not going to comment on pending applications, of course, though I will remind everyone that the last meeting was an Advisory Discussion, at the request of the applicant. Meaning, they were requesting feedback. There was no vote, no binding decision, nothing was approved or denied. Also consider that a 45 minute conversation is probably far more complex and interesting than a couple 10-second news clips. A large project takes a lot of time to fully develop. A well-financed, well-thought out project with an earnest desire to succeed usually does. Have some patience and a little grace.

On that note, why would any conversation here benefit from clenched fists and spitting words? By all means debate projects, Commission decisions and preservation theory, but leave the character assassinations and assumptions of Commissioner motivations out of it. MJLO, you really topped it off with a sprinkle of misogyny. That is shameful. This forum can do better.

Edited August 20, 2016 by GRCentro

[MJLO]

2 hours ago, GRCentro said:

 

Good gravy! Can we lay down the pitchforks and torches?

Full disclosure: I am an HPC Commissioner (even we enjoy online forums from time to time). I'm not going to comment on pending applications, of course, though I will remind everyone that the last meeting was an Advisory Discussion, at the request of the applicant. Meaning, they were requesting feedback. There was no vote, no binding decision, nothing was approved or denied. Also consider that a 45 minute conversation is probably far more complex and interesting than a couple 10-second news clips. A large project takes a lot of time to fully develop. A well-financed, well-thought out project with an earnest desire to succeed usually does. Have some patience and a little grace.

On that note, why would any conversation here benefit from need clenched fists and spitting words? By all means debate projects, Commission decisions and preservation theory, but leave the character assassinations and assumptions of Commissioner motivations out of it. MJLO, you really topped it off with a sprinkle of misogyny. That is shameful. This forum can do better.

Please tell me where in the wording of my post that I engaged in character assassination?  The HPC is a high profile public organization.  It is subject to the same scrutiny as anything else in public service is.  If you are a commissioner you should know full well that anything in the public eye comes with the risk of having people interpret any action or word to their own benefit.  Just as you have done so with a thinly veiled attempt at leveraging political correctness as a weapon, over a commentary that even without context can clearly be read as tongue in cheek.  The HPC has ALWAYs been a subject of contention on this forum.  I highly doubt that anything said in this thread comes even remotely close to the worst thing said about the HPC, the people who run it.  or anyone else in public service.  Shame on you for being in the political fringe and not having the stomach for the scrutiny that it accompanies.  You should know better.

[GRCentro]

6 minutes ago, MJLO said:

Please tell me where in the wording of my post that I engaged in character assassination?  The HPC is a high profile public organization.  It is subject to the same scrutiny as anything else in public service is.  If you are a commissioner you should know full well that anything in the public eye comes with the risk of having people interpret any action or word to their own benefit.  Just as you have done so with a thinly veiled attempt at leveraging political correctness as a weapon, over a commentary that even without context can clearly be read as tongue in cheek.  The HPC has ALWAYs been a subject of contention on this forum.  I highly doubt that anything said in this thread comes even remotely close to the worst thing said about the HPC, the people who run it.  or anyone else in public service.  Shame on you for the being in political fringe and not having the stomach for the scrutiny that it accompanies.  You should know better.

The thickness of my skin is not the issue. I'm fine with your preoccupation that HPC be disbanded, though I believe your rational is based on misconceptions and your expression is needlessly inflammatory. 

However, tongue in cheek or not, singling out a Commissioner for being a woman and suggesting that she take up a cause of women's voting rights instead of performing her appointed public service has nothing to do with a proposed urban development. It is wrong in any context and I will call you out for it.

[MJLO]

14 minutes ago, GRCentro said:

The thickness of my skin is not the issue. I'm fine with your preoccupation that HPC be disbanded, though I believe your rational is based on misconceptions and your expression is needlessly inflammatory. 

However, tongue in cheek or not, singling out a Commissioner for being a woman and suggesting that she take up a cause of women's voting rights instead of performing her appointed public service has nothing to do with a proposed urban development. It is wrong in any context and I will call you out for it.

The commissioner being a woman is incidental, as is the fact that suffrage is a historical cause.  Your assumption that I used suffrage because she is a woman is equally misogynistic.  If the commissioner were a man and the same statement been made, how would you interpret it then in order to morally posture yourself? Get off the cross, the HPC needs the wood to preserve the character of the Heartside.

[GRCentro]

Just now, MJLO said:

The commissioner being a woman is incidental, as is the fact that suffrage is a historical cause.  If the commissioner were a man and the same statement been made, how would you interpret it then in order to morally posture yourself? Get off the cross, the HPC needs the wood to preserve the character of the Heartside.

For the most part, I really enjoy reading UrbanPlanet, though it is often said that online debates are a fruitless waste of energy. I believe that is here the case. 

I'll stay out your way.

[GR_Urbanist]

When the HPC steps over the line into unreasonable meddling that leads to perfectly viable projects with popular public support to be scrapped because of their insistence on demands that border on pure unnecessary absurdity, then they ought to be lambasted.

Now I'm not going to get into personal character assassination. I do fully believe that some of that board's actions have earned it deserved scorn when in the name of  "historical" preservation, and they sometime become hysterical zealots that are all too happy to sacrifice economic development and the public good for their frankly selfish adherence of old for the sake of old.

I'll give them due kudos for not blocking the new project on Wealthy or the Clark's building, but I hope they are learning better where to lean and when to strategically back off if they are endangering good development because of some styling cues that in the end are just first world nit-picking.

I mean look at the building at the corner of Wealthy and Fuller. THAT is considered to be "historic", and would the HPC block a far better development there just to preserve the worthless box remains of an old service station? If yes, to the general public, that makes you guys seem like (justified or not) complete nutcases.

When you see what will be the tallest building ever built in GR, and perhaps a real defining project for the city ((potentially)) being held up, and perhaps scrapped, because of some unjustifiable demands to make it look like a building from 1910-ish, then you guys have got to be a bit more aware of what you are doing in the arena of public perception. The language I'm seeing (and I'll admit it's via the media) seems to be a tone-deaf group of people with zero self-awareness and only a greatly inflated image of themselves and their duties. And I do believe that if the HPC ends up being the reason for this to end up not being done, then the HPC will need to be greatly reformed, and their scope greatly reduced.

But you are right that it is really the opening stages, but I hope the HPC understands that people are definitely paying close attention to this one to see how they handle it. I think it's a great opportunity for them to more clear about their procedures and rationale so that the perception doesn't  do the talking for them.

 

 

 

[GRDadof3]

I think someone has to make a ruling on this and I side with the HPC supporters and not the skyscraper fanboi's. Everyone cool their jets or I'll shut the thread down for a while. It's just a friggin building that no one here has any stake in. 

Thanks,

 

On 8/19/2016 at 5:30 PM, RegalTDP said:

Hate to say it but I agree with x99 on this.  I think the design of the building is great.  But the HPC is just doing its job.  I very gravely question the wisdom of why this lot was ever included in the Heartside Historic District in the first place - I'm pretty sure it was a parking lot by 1979, when the district was established. But alas, it was included, so it's subject to the same scrutiny.  I know you can petition to have landmarks removed from the Registry (though I'm not certain the same process would apply to parcels within a district).  This would seem like a pretty easy lot to petition, though I'm sure the process would take longer than the developer would like.

Just because they let Gallery and 12 Weston slide doesn't mean they should let all buildings slide.

I think we should all calm down a bit and lay off the HPC.  This was right on the money:

This was an informal advisory session.  Let the process continue.

GRDad posted this earlier:

It wouldn't be that hard to take elements and details from this example and incorporate them here.  It would fit in with Heartside just fine.

I think that at 42 stories would be a very sharp building. And to me it looks "do-able" with current market conditions and construction costs. 

[x99]

On 8/20/2016 at 1:06 PM, GR_Urbanist said:

The language I'm seeing (and I'll admit it's via the media) seems to be a tone-deaf group of people with zero self-awareness and only a greatly inflated image of themselves and their duties. And I do believe that if the HPC ends up being the reason for this to end up not being done, then the HPC will need to be greatly reformed, and their scope greatly reduced.

But you are right that it is really the opening stages, but I hope the HPC understands that people are definitely paying close attention to this one to see how they handle it. I think it's a great opportunity for them to more clear about their procedures and rationale so that the perception doesn't  do the talking for them.

While the discussions are just advisory, they seem to be applying the same standard to a a multi-multi million dollar project as they apply to the dozens of $10,000 projects they deal with every month.  That's admirable. 

GRDad asked what stake any of us have in this building.  Well, it's a matter of fairness for those who live in historic districts.  We never get a pass.  Not for glass blocks, not for siding, not for vinyl windows, not for you name it.  Some tiny little window you can barely see from the street is going to have an impermissible impact on historic character, but then they get to build Gallery on Fulton?  That sort of thing does far worse damage to an entire district than any little piece of glass block could ever hope to do.  All of the thousands and thousands of people who own property in historic districts have a stake in this, to some extent, and I think it's important to acknowledge that.  The rules have not always been applied in an even-handed fashion in the past.  Recently, I think that has gotten a lot better, and I am very happy to see it.