RFP - 201 Market

[GrSportsGuy]

Ahh, affordable riverfront housing.

[joeDowntown]

On 10/19/2017 at 10:34 AM, GR_Urbanist said:

It wasn't Too many DT and near DT projects keep skewing towards these "low-income" subsidized projects in order to get tax credits. It stuffs too many people on the low end, that have no disposable income to support retail we need DT.

In the end they are just going to have to hop on a bus to go out to the burbs if you cant get anything DT because the people with money (that will be the support base for these places) cant get a unit because there are simply too many LHITC units, and they make too much to live there.

Now will this have a lot of those units? I dont know. I'm just not thrilled that it is even a requirement for a project as vital as this, because that will just lead to a bunch of value engineering by the developers in order to make the numbers work if there are too many.

This projects needs to be a working part of DT first and foremost, that is contributing to the economic base down there, not just a glorified apartment complex to park people that can do little else but work, pay the rent, rinse and repeat. I'm not trying to be mean.

 

A few units are fine. Hopefully not 50%+.

Building affordable housing in downtown areas is not unique to Grand Rapids. A *lot* of cities are dealing with this problem, and finding it's could be a huge issue for the health of the city. 

My friend lives in a killer modern, 3-story townhouse complex in Chicago with some of the most amazing views of the skyline. I would imagine (haven't asked) that each unit is north of $1M. But it was mandatory for the development to add affordable housing. So each end has one unit (broken up into three separate units) that are reserved for "lower income". The units are filled with teachers, firemen and social workers. 

I used to be quite down on LIHTC / income restricted housing. A lot of downtown can't afford to live downtown without places like this (but also can't afford monthly parking- coffee shops, waitresses, hair stylist, etc. etc. etc. I don't think it's the downfall of retail in GR and it's good to have a healthy mix.

Joe

[GR_Urbanist]

1 hour ago, joeDowntown said:

Building affordable housing in downtown areas is not unique to Grand Rapids. A *lot* of cities are dealing with this problem, and finding it's could be a huge issue for the health of the city. 

My friend lives in a killer modern, 3-story townhouse complex in Chicago with some of the most amazing views of the skyline. I would imagine (haven't asked) that each unit is north of $1M. But it was mandatory for the development to add affordable housing. So each end has one unit (broken up into three separate units) that are reserved for "lower income". The units are filled with teachers, firemen and social workers. 

I used to be quite down on LIHTC / income restricted housing. A lot of downtown can't afford to live downtown without places like this (but also can't afford monthly parking- coffee shops, waitresses, hair stylist, etc. etc. etc. I don't think it's the downfall of retail in GR and it's good to have a healthy mix.

Joe

But is affordable in Chicago calculated from the same numbers as Grand Rapids?

I dont think (at least I hope not) that this project will have million dollar units in it. For them, I can only think that affordable housing likely would be insanely expensive to us.

But yeah, I hope that it isnt a huge number, and it isn't attracting people that are living on next to nothing as the norm just so they can say they live downtown. Then it should be a positive.

[scottythe1nonly]

It seems as though the focus of the Super Secret committee was ONLY to get more cheap apartments built.  There is cheaper land all over the city to build income restricted apartments.  We already have a significant percentage of our downtown rental stock allocated to low income renters.  No way will those apartments contribute any meaningful amount of property tax to the city.   Certainly not enough to offset the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars annually that would have been spent on events at a stadium.   

We had a chance to have a signature venue AND green space that integrated with the river restoration, as well as rental and retail space.    Now instead of bringing a pro sports franchise to the City and having a first class outdoor concert venue we will have some cheap apartments 5 years from now.   

In the meantime cities all over the country are moving forward with downtown venues.... like Pittsburgh which is expanding it's riverside stadium for it's USL soccer team. 

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/soccer/2017/10/19/highmark-stadium-expansion-pittsburgh-riverhounds-attendance-usl/stories/201710180226

Highmark Stadium, Pittsburgh

 

 

[joeDowntown]

21 minutes ago, scottythe1nonly said:

We had a chance to have a signature venue AND green space that integrated with the river restoration, as well as rental and retail space.    Now instead of bringing a pro sports franchise to the City and having a first class outdoor concert venue we will have some cheap apartments 5 years from now. 

I look at it differently Scott. We're not in a "If you build it, they will come" situation (like the Griffins or Whitecaps were when they started). GRFC already has a good head start. I don't think this site is the ONLY site where they can build a really nice soccer stadium in the city. I'm a pretty big soccer fan, and am very excited about the future of Soccer in GR. But I wasn't a fan of a soccer stadium on this site. I think the interest in soccer is there. I think the leagues WANT Grand Rapids. It'll happen. This site is not the death of pro soccer in Grand Rapids. I bet another plan, in another spot, will pop up "soon".  

Joe

[GRDadof3]

59 minutes ago, joeDowntown said:

I look at it differently Scott. We're not in a "If you build it, they will come" situation (like the Griffins or Whitecaps were when they started). GRFC already has a good head start. I don't think this site is the ONLY site where they can build a really nice soccer stadium in the city. I'm a pretty big soccer fan, and am very excited about the future of Soccer in GR. But I wasn't a fan of a soccer stadium on this site. I think the interest in soccer is there. I think the leagues WANT Grand Rapids. It'll happen. This site is not the death of pro soccer in Grand Rapids. I bet another plan, in another spot, will pop up "soon".  

Joe

Agree with Joe. And frankly, if the proposal that included a soccer stadium was so great, why didn't it get chosen? I heard that they ALSO included LIHTC apartments in their proposal, and it still didn't get chosen. So perhaps someone can enlighten us...  Stadiums on a riverfront look cool to the people attending the event, but they're usually very obtrusive to people not going to the event. 

If this chosen project includes "for sale" units and it reaches any kind of height of 20 or more stories, the upper units might very well go for $700,000 - $1,000,000. 

[ironyisadeadscene]

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Agree with Joe. And frankly, if the proposal that included a soccer stadium was so great, why didn't it get chosen? I heard that they ALSO included LIHTC apartments in their proposal, and it still didn't get chosen. So perhaps someone can enlighten us...  Stadiums on a riverfront look cool to the people attending the event, but they're usually very obtrusive to people not going to the event. 

If this chosen project includes "for sale" units and it reaches any kind of height of 20 or more stories, the upper units might very well go for $700,000 - $1,000,000. 

A stadium with a stage and maybe even a grass berm for stands that would also work for an outdoor amphitheater would do nice along the river. 

[EastownLeo]

On 10/20/2017 at 3:57 PM, joeDowntown said:

I look at it differently Scott. We're not in a "If you build it, they will come" situation (like the Griffins or Whitecaps were when they started). GRFC already has a good head start. I don't think this site is the ONLY site where they can build a really nice soccer stadium in the city. I'm a pretty big soccer fan, and am very excited about the future of Soccer in GR. But I wasn't a fan of a soccer stadium on this site. I think the interest in soccer is there. I think the leagues WANT Grand Rapids. It'll happen. This site is not the death of pro soccer in Grand Rapids. I bet another plan, in another spot, will pop up "soon".  

Joe

I fully agree, this is not the spot for a stadium. The Drive has a hard time pulling in fans. Pushing a "maybe" on the true start of our river front development could be a failed move.  Lets start with something that anchors and then move from there.

[gvsusean]

1 hour ago, EastownLeo said:

I fully agree, this is not the spot for a stadium. The Drive has a hard time pulling in fans. Pushing a "maybe" on the true start of our river front development could be a failed move.  Lets start with something that anchors and then move from there.

I was under the impression that large event spaces are anchors as opposed to just residential/park space.  Am I mistaken?

[scottythe1nonly]

6 hours ago, gvsusean said:

I was under the impression that large event spaces are anchors as opposed to just residential/park space.  Am I mistaken?

you're not mistaken.  there's simply a contingent that poo poos stadiums in general and soccer specifically.   Comparing, for instance, the support for Soccer in this city to the failure of a poorly funded minor league basketball team playing in a dump on the north end of town to the rapidly growing soccer scene in West Michigan only shows how out of touch some people are.   Our current amateur minor league soccer teams are already near the top in terms of attendance in D4 (men) and set attendance records for all of D2 (women) last year.  

The potential for a stadium and pro soccer in GR is directly analogous to where we were with Hockey 25 years ago.   The potential was there.  But even then there were people bemoaning the idea and using the failure of the Grand Rapids Owls (which by the way played at the same location as today's GR Drive) as a reason not to build the Arena.

The stadium isn't only intended for our Soccer team(s) to go pro.   The city lacks a good venue for many of today's large touring acts.  We do not have a good outdoor event venue.  The Van is often too small, and the design of the Arena, with only a couple of doors for unloading/loading means that really big tours, which can have dozens of trucks worth of gear, are hesitant to book in GR.  A new Stadium will be designed and built with this in mind, so that future events can set up and tear down as rapidly as possible, instead of spending days of their touring schedule stuck at the one loading dock of the Van.  

16 acres of residential income restricted housing not an "anchor."   What will it anchor, exactly?  Since all of the proposals had green space and integrated the river restoration,  what are apartment buildings anchoring?   We have apartment buildings and space for more all over the city.   You can build 16 separate buildings on 16 individual acres throughout the city without sucking up some of the most valuable riverside property that will EVER be sold in GR.





 

Edited October 23, 2017 by scottythe1nonly

[GRDadof3]

6 hours ago, gvsusean said:

I was under the impression that large event spaces are anchors as opposed to just residential/park space.  Am I mistaken?

There are many differing opinions on that, and a lot of critics of using large event spaces/stadiums as anchors, especially on riverfronts. Think of the Van Andel Arena, it certainly breathed new life into downtown and especially Heartside when it opened, but for a long time when it was the only entertainment venue downtown, it was still a ghost town downtown on non VAA nights. I know because we used to bar hop back then, and many times would be the only ones on the streets (late 90's/early 2000's).  So a soccer stadium on the riverfront? As I mentioned, it looks really cool when YOU'RE there at a soccer game or other event, but what about the other 95% of the time when it's not being used? It's a big dead spot.

And "just residential/park space?" This is a 16 acre site, the largest development site in the city's history (except maybe Vandenberg Center/Calder Plaza). With mixed use, residential and riverfront park space, it could potentially be a hub for 1000's of residents (and the retail that goes along with it). 

 

 

6 minutes ago, scottythe1nonly said:

you're not mistaken.  there's simply a contingent that poo poos stadiums in general and soccer specifically.   Comparing, for instance, the support for Soccer in this city to the failure of a poorly funded minor league basketball team playing in a dump on the north end of town to the rapidly growing soccer scene in West Michigan only shows how out of touch some people are.   Our current amateur minor league soccer teams are already near the top in terms of attendance in D4 (men) and set attendance records for all of D2 (women) last year.  

The stadium isn't only intended for our Soccer team(s) to go pro.   The city lacks a good venue for many of today's large touring acts.  The Van is often too small, and the design of the Arena, with only a couple of doors for unloading/loading means that really big tours, which can have dozens of trucks worth of gear, are hesitant to book in GR.  A new Stadium will be designed and built with this in mind, so that future events can set up and tear down as rapidly as possible, instead of spending days of their touring schedule stuck at the one loading dock of the Van.  

16 acres of residential income restricted housing not an "anchor."   What will it anchor, exactly?  Since all of the proposals had green space and integrated the river restoration,  what are apartment buildings anchoring?   We have apartment buildings and space for more all over the city.   You can build 16 separate buildings on 16 individual acres throughout the city without sucking up some of the most valuable riverside property that will EVER be sold in GR.





 

What are you talking about?  People are poo-pooing soccer?  I think it would be great to have a new soccer stadium.... NOT THERE.

And nowhere in any of the proposals was it 16 acres of income restricted apartments. In fact, I hear the soccer proposal had more LIHTC apartments than either of the other proposals. At least in the "first phase."  Again, maybe that's why it was rejected? Who knows. A vacuum of information leads to wild speculation, that's for sure.

Also, I don't think the term "anchor" fits here. It's just a continuation of downtown development. It's not going to be a "new downtown" like Faust imagined, just another "zone" like the West Side, Monroe North, etc.. 

[EastownLeo]

31 minutes ago, scottythe1nonly said:

you're not mistaken.  there's simply a contingent that poo poos stadiums in general and soccer specifically.   Comparing, for instance, the support for Soccer in this city to the failure of a poorly funded minor league basketball team playing in a dump on the north end of town to the rapidly growing soccer scene in West Michigan only shows how out of touch some people are.   Our current amateur minor league soccer teams are already near the top in terms of attendance in D4 (men) and set attendance records for all of D2 (women) last year.  

The potential for a stadium and pro soccer in GR is directly analogous to where we were with Hockey 25 years ago.   The potential was there.  But even then there were people bemoaning the idea and using the failure of the Grand Rapids Owls (which by the way played at the same location as today's GR Drive) as a reason not to build the Arena.

The stadium isn't only intended for our Soccer team(s) to go pro.   The city lacks a good venue for many of today's large touring acts.  We do not have a good outdoor event venue.  The Van is often too small, and the design of the Arena, with only a couple of doors for unloading/loading means that really big tours, which can have dozens of trucks worth of gear, are hesitant to book in GR.  A new Stadium will be designed and built with this in mind, so that future events can set up and tear down as rapidly as possible, instead of spending days of their touring schedule stuck at the one loading dock of the Van.  

16 acres of residential income restricted housing not an "anchor."   What will it anchor, exactly?  Since all of the proposals had green space and integrated the river restoration,  what are apartment buildings anchoring?   We have apartment buildings and space for more all over the city.   You can build 16 separate buildings on 16 individual acres throughout the city without sucking up some of the most valuable riverside property that will EVER be sold in GR.





 

I am not out of touch, but thanks.

True using the work "anchor" probably was going to far. 

My opinion is that using this spot of real estate for short season sports is not the best use of space.  This is the first large development to be started, where the design and use is primarily done with the river in mind.  We have not had a purpose built design that incorporated the river in a very long time.  Because of this it is important to create year rough density and draw.   With this development also comes the fact that this would be the first mixed use site south of downtown that will only push developers and the city to start looking and developing along the river on both sides south.  GVSU has already started to move along the west side and the buildings that exist along that shore are prime for removal and redevelopment.  If a stadium is built it should not be built on shore of the river but should be set back so that the use of the river can be encouraged, residential, commercial and river restoration.

I feel that putting a large venue along the river, where the focus is the venue and not the river will not push the city forward in a direction that it needs to go. But that is just my opinion.  Stadiums on rivers are often time selfish, asphalt deserts with polluting runoff and heat traps in the summer, semi useless in the winter. Not something I would want on this spot of shore.

 

river stadiums

[GRDadof3]

Also, since some of the people here seem to be in the know, was there any indication of how the stadium was going to be paid for? A decently sized first class soccer stadium would be in the $10s of Millions. Who ponies up for that? Is there already a development partner out there who is ready-to-go with building it? We know Grand Action isn't one. 

[GRLaker]

I could have gone either way on the soccer stadium, so I'm not disappointed in regards to that. My main desire is for this to be a combination of residential, entertainment, commercial, and park. I want this spot to be a a draw for the city and not just a spot full of nothing but housing. The article only stated the plan included housing for a full range of incomes (which I know translates into income restricted and market rate - excluding the middle income workers). I would think if it did include a more diverse plan, they would have stated that. Instead it said that it was chosen for its widespread use of housing. 

[Pattmost20]

47 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

Also, since some of the people here seem to be in the know, was there any indication of how the stadium was going to be paid for? A decently sized first class soccer stadium would be in the $10s of Millions. Who ponies up for that? Is there already a development partner out there who is ready-to-go with building it? We know Grand Action isn't one. 

The funding is mostly in place.

I think that it was Rockford's first choice for a stadium because it could be a stadium and a load of other development to go along with it, while the other sites being looked at leave less room for development beyond a stadium. Speaking strictly as a soccer fan, it doesn't bother me if they go with a smaller site that can't fit as much development, but I can see why they wanted 201 Market above everything else. Personally it seems like picking a different site may speed up the process, even if they did get picked for the Market site, they would have another 4-6 months of due diligence and then having to wait for the site to be vacated by the city. It may be a long process. 

[joeDowntown]

5 hours ago, scottythe1nonly said:

you're not mistaken.  there's simply a contingent that poo poos stadiums in general and soccer specifically.   Comparing, for instance, the support for Soccer in this city to the failure of a poorly funded minor league basketball team playing in a dump on the north end of town to the rapidly growing soccer scene in West Michigan only shows how out of touch some people are.   Our current amateur minor league soccer teams are already near the top in terms of attendance in D4 (men) and set attendance records for all of D2 (women) last year.  

The potential for a stadium and pro soccer in GR is directly analogous to where we were with Hockey 25 years ago.   The potential was there.  But even then there were people bemoaning the idea and using the failure of the Grand Rapids Owls (which by the way played at the same location as today's GR Drive) as a reason not to build the Arena.

I don't think you've been reading what we've been saying. I actually think there are more people FOR a soccer stadium than against. I'm an avid soccer fan, GRFC supporter, would easily buy season tickets if we get a bigger stadium (especially one that sells adult beverages). I also am a firm believer that GVSU should get of its arse and start a men's team. They have a soccer dynasty on the women's side; they need to step up their game as the largest University in GR. 

With that being said, I didn't like the site. I think this is one of the first developments that could truly feature the riverfront, and a stadium (any sport) wouldn't do that. I really hope they take a look at the west side. I still think the Padnos site would be a fantastic spot for a stadium, especially if they were able to get GVSU involved.

This is definitely not an anti-soccer thread.

Joe

[discgrab21]

1 hour ago, joeDowntown said:

I also am a firm believer that GVSU should get of its arse and start a men's team. They have a soccer dynasty on the women's side; they need to step up their game as the largest University in GR. 

Joe

Just to detour the thread a bit, the likely reason GVSU doesn't have a men's team is because of Title IX.  They have to have equal numbers of scholarships available to men and women.  There have to be multiple scholarship sports offered to women but not me to offset Football, which GVSU woudl never get rid of.  Currently GVSU has Women's Golf, Soccer and Volleyball teams, but no Men's teams. 

[GRDadof3]

6 hours ago, Pattmost20 said:

The funding is mostly in place.

I think that it was Rockford's first choice for a stadium because it could be a stadium and a load of other development to go along with it, while the other sites being looked at leave less room for development beyond a stadium. Speaking strictly as a soccer fan, it doesn't bother me if they go with a smaller site that can't fit as much development, but I can see why they wanted 201 Market above everything else. Personally it seems like picking a different site may speed up the process, even if they did get picked for the Market site, they would have another 4-6 months of due diligence and then having to wait for the site to be vacated by the city. It may be a long process. 

Exactly. After the due diligence period, which will be into 2018, then you go into the details of setting up the development agreement, which will have to be in place before the city starts spending $Millions on moving services. And where is the city going to go with those services? That's hasn't been decided yet as far as I know. They've probably got some sites in mind. I think you're looking at 2019/2020 before dirt is even turned at 201 Market and buildings begin to be torn down. Then construction time of at least 16 - 24 months. GRFC season opener in the new stadium on the riverfront, 2022.  

 

[joeDowntown]

42 minutes ago, discgrab21 said:

Just to detour the thread a bit, the likely reason GVSU doesn't have a men's team is because of Title IX.  They have to have equal numbers of scholarships available to men and women.  There have to be multiple scholarship sports offered to women but not me to offset Football, which GVSU woudl never get rid of.  Currently GVSU has Women's Golf, Soccer and Volleyball teams, but no Men's teams. 

Yep- I've always heard that's the reason as well. I keep looking at Davenport University, who has moved into GLIAC, recently started a Football program, has a men's Soccer team, and wonder why they can do it but GVSU can't? [shrug]

Joe

[SupercityGR]

This is a massive site. Not only is it a massive site (in urban thinking) it is along the river. Why not build 3 or 4 large buildings. 3 or 4 different heights. Lots of street activity.  One 10 story 12 story 16 story and maybe even a 20 story. Some office and some residential. Lots of ground floor retail.  People could easily walk to founders or the farmers market. 

[GRLaker]

13 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

Yep- I've always heard that's the reason as well. I keep looking at Davenport University, who has moved into GLIAC, recently started a Football program, has a men's Soccer team, and wonder why they can do it but GVSU can't? [shrug]

Joe

To be completely honest, GVSU has always short handed the men’s athletic programs. They employ a bum of a football coach and are content with the football team being a shell of its former self. The other programs are all funded with scholarship levels that are a small fraction of the Division II requirement while the women’s programs are all much closer to being fully funded. The money is there. They just choose not to invest in it. GV is a women’s sports school and always will be with our current leadership. So I wouldn’t expect to see a men’s soccer team anytime in the foreseeable future. 

[GRLaker]

So is the Post Office going to be the new Amazon site now? 

[GRDadof3]

14 hours ago, SupercityGR said:

This is a massive site. Not only is it a massive site (in urban thinking) it is along the river. Why not build 3 or 4 large buildings. 3 or 4 different heights. Lots of street activity.  One 10 story 12 story 16 story and maybe even a 20 story. Some office and some residential. Lots of ground floor retail.  People could easily walk to founders or the farmers market. 

How do you know that's not what is proposed?  I feel like we're on a merry go round in this thread. Maybe I should just get off, lol. 

1 hour ago, GRLaker said:

So is the Post Office going to be the new Amazon site now? 

One thing I noticed in the Amazon article here locally was that they worked closely with Cascade Township on the proposal, amongst other local municipalities. I would guess that at least one of the sites they proposed was out by the airport. 

Not go get off topic. 

[joeDowntown]

1 hour ago, GRDadof3 said:

How do you know that's not what is proposed?  I feel like we're on a merry go round in this thread. Maybe I should just get off, lol. 

Maybe we need two-step authentication for any speculation or news in this particular thread?  With some crazy, hard to read Captcha code that makes it REALLY hard to post. haha.

Joe

[mpchicago]

25 minutes ago, joeDowntown said:

Maybe we need two-step authentication for any speculation or news in this particular thread?  With some crazy, hard to read Captcha code that makes it REALLY hard to post. haha.

Joe

Or maybe the city should have released details on the "winning" proposal.   I think we all understand that things change as the process moves forward, and what may be proposed now may change, but come on give us sharks some chum.

Edited October 24, 2017 by mpchicago