GVSU Downtown Development

[John E]

DeVries is just being greedy. He wants to renovate the building and lease it to GVSU. GVSU doesn't want to have the building renovated because it doesn't meet their needs. They need to build a new building to meet their needs. They are offering a higher than market value for the property. They can't build elswhere because they need the parking lots in the area for current and future enrollments.

~John

[jbr12]

Here's a Q&A from GVSU regarding this transaction:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/ind...ding_its_i.html

The best at the end:

I understand that the owners of 38 Front offered to remodel the building for use by Grand Valley. Why isn

[aowwt]

I say GVSU can go ahead with ED. I initally was upset that GVSU was going to go that route but after reading that just a minute ago on Mlive, a link from yahoo local, it was fine by me to see GVSU to go that route. Frankly I like them to get for 100k less to pay for the 3rd party for their work.

[GR_Urbanist]

DeVries is just being greedy. He wants to renovate the building and lease it to GVSU. GVSU doesn't want to have the building renovated because it doesn't meet their needs. They need to build a new building to meet their needs. They are offering a higher than market value for the property. They can't build elswhere because they need the parking lots in the area for current and future enrollments.

~John

Well I guess it sucks to be GVSU then, because despite what we think of the mis-use of this structure, and those folks have done a poor job all around, it's still legally his building, and GVSU has plenty of open land to build on.

They can build a ramp with a building along the exterior like on Commerce St. if they cant stand the loss of their precious parking lots.

[aowwt]

The interesting thing is how Grand Rapids City is going play this out. They can be hurt bad or given good on this. What I talking about is the 3/4 of a million dollars of taxable value that will be HISTORY if GVSU takes over that property. Now here is the thing, even though they lose the taxable value they should see a big increase in the income tax they collect with I would say 30 prof at 75k a peice with a .65 or .75% tax rate or even higher if they live in the city for a shorter commute. That is gonna be the trade off here.

BTW the tax rate for property is some wheres around 8 mills for property (2008 numbers). Now I am not sure where the DDA in Grand rapids has their borders but that could also play a factor as well. I am unsure if the DDA collects income tax or if they just collect property. If it is just property and the DDA has this building in their zone the GR city should be jumping for joy as it would pull money from the DDA to the City which can use every they need with the state cutting budgets to the cities left and right.

[GRDadof3]

How can you simultaneously say a building is "unusable" for multi-use due to the S-Curve, and collect punitive damages from us taxpayers, and then turn around and propose using the building? Sounds fishy to me.

[Raildudes dad]

I don't get why they jumped right to eminent domain. Was Devries asking way too much for the property?

My employer (a gov't agency) will sometimes file for eminent domain even if they expect negotiations to be sucessful. If negotiations break down for some reason, the time line for eminent domain is pretty long if you want to keep a project on track. We notify the owner we are filing and the reason for the filing. If they contest the "necsssity of the taking", that would enter another twist into the proceedings. Most of the time the owner doesn't contest the necessity of the project, just the compesation offered. All the court decides then is the "just compensation". In my 38 years with my employer, I can only rememeber 2 cases where the owner contested necessity, all the rest of the times, it was all about the money

Edited October 16, 2009 by Raildudes dad

[wingbert]

The number of high profile eyesores downtown has been steadily declining. I applaud any effort to get rid of this one - especially because of its location. If there were any signs at all that the current owner was making an effort to make the property useful I might feel differently but it sure looks like all theyve done is just enough to keep it from being condemned.

Next I'd like to see GVSU look for some satellite downtown locations in say... a one or two block radius around Fulton and Division. Eminent domain vs. overpriced properties owned by absentee landlords could be very helpful in a few other places. Just saying...

[joeDowntown]

One item to note with the Devries case. Part (if not most of the complaint) was that Front St. was no longer a through street as it had been before the S-Curve had been widened and that made the property much less accessible (on a cul-de sac, behind a gas station, down by the river). I don't even remember them discussing the actual proximity to the S-Curve, just the re-alignment of the street.

Joe

[MJLO]

I'm excited to see what happens, I hope whatever deal takes place, goes down quickly. do you think they'll put something multi-story on the location, say in the height of the Eberhard? Or do you think it'll be just a couple floors? I know it's to early to speculate. But the possibilities of what could be in that spot, keep me imagining.

[GRDadof3]

I'm excited to see what happens, I hope whatever deal takes place, goes down quickly. do you think they'll put something multi-story on the location, say in the height of the Eberhard? Or do you think it'll be just a couple floors? I know it's to early to speculate. But the possibilities of what could be in that spot, keep me imagining.

According to the article, 100,000 square feet of space, or 1/2 the size of the Cook Devos Center for Health Sciences. Did anyone else see the rendering of the current building renovated? I'd like to see something much more modern and unique personally. And why not include some housing while they're at it?

[gvsusean]

did GVSU buy the bicycle building? if not i could see that as a future purchase for apartments and offices

[mgreven]

From what I was told by a business prof there...

It's mostly offices and a few classrooms, probably four stories. Money is kinda tight so it won't be anything too impressive, they basically just want a building to honor Seidman. Most faculty that currently just have to walk down some stairs to get to their class will now have to walk across campus to class. He didn't seem too excited about it.

Not sure if he's right on or not, but seemed to know a good deal about it. I'm still hoping for more...I did love that rendering!

[GRDadof3]

From what I was told by a business prof there...

It's mostly offices and a few classrooms, probably four stories. Money is kinda tight so it won't be anything too impressive, they basically just want a building to honor Seidman. Most faculty that currently just have to walk down some stairs to get to their class will now have to walk across campus to class. He didn't seem too excited about it.

Not sure if he's right on or not, but seemed to know a good deal about it. I'm still hoping for more...I did love that rendering!

Oh gawd. Let's hope they at least put some brick on it. Or all glass. No EIFS of split faced block!!!!

[joeDowntown]

Call me an optimist, but I'm sure they'll do something nice. They've built such a nice campus, I don't think they'd build an eyesore while also trying to commemorate someone. I think GVSU's downtown campus is top-notch (except maybe the backside of Secchia Hall). Hopefully they'll keep the standards high.

And personally, I like the fact that students and faculty will have to get out and walk a bit. Pedestrian traffic is a good thing.

Joe

Oh gawd. Let's hope they at least put some brick on it. Or all glass. No EIFS of split faced block!!!!

[Yankee Fan]

So if GVSU is looking to tear down the old A & P Building and put a 100,000 sq. ft. building up, I am guessing that it will be a 3-4 Story building, correct? Just looking at that lot, it would seem that the building would be about that size.

[GRDadof3]

So if GVSU is looking to tear down the old A & P Building and put a 100,000 sq. ft. building up, I am guessing that it will be a 3-4 Story building, correct? Just looking at that lot, it would seem that the building would be about that size.

Yeah, about the same scale as the current warehouse.

(just an illustration)

I'm really interested to see how they clean up the riverfront and connect this to the Eberhard area. Maybe they'll finally get a decent ped crossing at Fulton.

[fotoman311]

Yeah, about the same scale as the current warehouse.

(just an illustration)

I'm really interested to see how they clean up the riverfront and connect this to the Eberhard area. Maybe they'll finally get a decent ped crossing at Fulton.

I think you would need to do more than just put in the crossing. I'll leave the what up to a traffic engineer. Traffic along there is often moving quite fast, and I don't know if some stripes on the road would slow them down that much. I would love to see that connection made, though! I think that having a good, safe crossing here is really important to opening those other parcels (aka, the parking lots) up for future development.

Edited October 19, 2009 by fotoman311

[John E]

For that location, I would like to see a flashing yellow traffic signal for traffic that turns red after somebody pushes a crosswalk signal button.

~John

[Raildudes dad]

For that location, I would like to see a flashing yellow traffic signal for traffic that turns red after somebody pushes a crosswalk signal button.

~John

Flashing yellow w/ red on demand is a recipe for disaster. I drove thru the one on Alpine in front of the old Lear ex GM plant for years. Regular users get used to flashing yellow and do not see it when it turns red. Been there done that . Strangers see it turn red, stop and get rear ended. Watched that happen several times. Watched semi's get surpised by the red and slide thru the red w/ all the tires locked up, not good.

Continous green until turned red on demand solves those problems. That's what currently is on Alpine. No incidents since the full time green has been there.

[Ted]

I'll leave the what up to a traffic engineer.

Whatever you do, don't leave it up to the traffic engineer...

[fotoman311]

Whatever you do, don't leave it up to the traffic engineer...

Haha, you are probably right. I want someone with expertise designing pedestrian facilities that are safe and welcoming to the pedestrian, but also accommodate bicyclists, cars, and users with physical disabilities. I wish more traffic engineers fit this description.

[RegalTDP]

A foot bridge would work. They're safe, they accommodate wheels... plus John would use the vantage to give us some great shots up Fulton.

[John E]

Raildudes dad,

I totally agree. A green light with red on demand would be much safer.

RegalTDP,

People are to lazy or in too much of a hurry to use a foot bridge. Who wants to climb a flight of steps when they don't have too? But yes, I sure would enjoy the photo view.

~John

[aowwt]

I heard of a few Public Schools use a tunnel to get across roads. That would not take that much effort I think plus it would be quicker for the biker and ped to cross along with being easier for ADA complaince if that comes up.