Sign in to follow this  
walker

RFP - 201 Market

Recommended Posts

It's 16 acres.  A baseball field is typically around 3 acres.  A football or soccer field is only about 2 acres or less.   You could pick up Houseman Stadium and fit it onto that property three times over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


4 hours ago, scottythe1nonly said:

It's 16 acres.  A baseball field is typically around 3 acres.  A football or soccer field is only about 2 acres or less.   You could pick up Houseman Stadium and fit it onto that property three times over.

5/3 ballpark itself is 13 acres with the stands, and 27 acres with all of the parking. Not sure where you're getting 3 acres? Plus it's almost 1000 feet across (the stadium) in either direction and the city-owned land is a long narrow 16 acres, only about 620 feet across. 

Although maybe a ballpark would fit. I don't think it would ever happen though. 

59580330409f4_53parkon16acres.jpg.c8d6eec5f79b4271023229279555aa7b.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm talking about the field itself. a pro diamond is 3-4 acres in size.  I'm surprised to hear that the entire stadium is 13 acres.  That would be almost 600k sq ft. That would have to include the berms and landscaping outside the park. The way that place is constructed is such that it kind of sprawls out. 
 

Edited by scottythe1nonly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2017 at 10:47 PM, scottythe1nonly said:

i'm talking about the field itself. a pro diamond is 3-4 acres in size.  I'm surprised to hear that the entire stadium is 13 acres.  That would be almost 600k sq ft. That would have to include the berms and landscaping outside the park. The way that place is constructed is such that it kind of sprawls out. 
 

I did include a lot of the auxiliary part of the stadium, which in order to be a successful ballpark these days, you need hospitality buildings, decks, grass areas, etc.. And you have ot add parking. Very few people can walk to that 201 market site.

But here it is re-measured using a little less area. 

 

595a4dbfb366b_Ballfieldacreage.JPG.fdd531a627e9c1b0cfab44296da4f379.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about the site.  All that green around the stadium is an earth berm, which i'm sure they did to make the construction of the stands easier. I measured it without the berms and it's about 7.7-8 acres    If you were to build on a tighter, flat site you could fit it in a smaller space.  Lots of ballparks with a smaller footprint.  check out the Lugnuts stadium in Lansing.  The stadium itself is only about 6 acres.  

Look at Providence Park in downtown Protland, OR.  it was used for baseball for half a century (now soccer) and it seats 20,000.  The entire stadium takes up just under 8 acres.  

Comerica Park in Detroit is about 13.5 acres.

Baseball fields (the actual playing field) are pretty large, though.  In comparison a minor league soccer field like Toyota Park in San Antonio, which seats 8-10k people takes up only 6 acres.  

Edited by scottythe1nonly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what exactly makes it a "dump"?  It's well maintained.  Concessions are pretty good.  It even has a Founders Beer concession  counter.  Bathrooms are close to the seats.  Parking is easy.  Good views all the way around the park.  Its been recognized repeatedly as a top tier venue for single A ball.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I always wished the Chamberlain and Baxter would have been able to build the stadium downtown, they never got help from ANYONE in their quest. There is no way in hell they would give up having a fully owned stadium with a fully owned parking lot. GR blew it 23+ years ago. Also why on earth would GVSU play downtown? Makes zero sense. There are very few colleges that play off campus and those stadiums are usually 80% empty.

 

Edited by GrSportsGuy
Added info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GrSportsGuy said:

While I always wished the Chamberlain and Baxter would have been able to build the stadium downtown, they never got help from ANYONE in their quest. There is no way in hell they would give up having a fully owned stadium with a fully owned parking lot. GR blew it 23+ years ago. Also why on earth would GVSU play downtown? Makes zero sense. There are very few colleges that play off campus and those stadiums are usually 80% empty.

 

Downtown isnt exactly off campus for GVSU... I wouldnt be shocked to see it hapoen when GVSU goes D1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GVSU is not going to go D1.  This has been discussed repeatedly over the past 2 decades.  It would cost the university many millions of dollars per year to move the football team up to D1.  There is no stomach for that much increased spending.  

Here's a good explanation of why they'll never move to D1.  Not only could it bankrupt the budget, they would be uncompetitive against schools with budgets 500% larger.  

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20160612/NEWS/160619946/outgoing-grand-valley-athletics-director-division-ii-is-the-right

 

Quote

Namely, it's about money. GVSU spends about $11 million, or less than 2 percent of the university's overall budget, annually on athletics.

To move up to the Mid-American Conference with Eastern, Western and Central Michiganuniversities, would mean students would be tapped for an increase of at least $20 million more annually for the athletics budget. And schools in the Big Ten Conference have budgets well past $100 million.

 

the people who advocate such a move are football pundits who don't have to pay the bills with our tax money and tuition hikes
 

Edited by scottythe1nonly
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scottythe1nonly said:

GVSU is not going to go D1.  This has been discussed repeatedly over the past 2 decades.  It would cost the university many millions of dollars per year to move the football team up to D1.  There is no stomach for that much increased spending.  

Here's a good explanation of why they'll never move to D1.  Not only could it bankrupt the budget, they would be uncompetitive against schools with budgets 500% larger.  

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20160612/NEWS/160619946/outgoing-grand-valley-athletics-director-division-ii-is-the-right

 

 

the people who advocate such a move are football pundits who don't have to pay the bills with our tax money and tuition hikes
 

Never sure is a long time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gvsusean said:

Downtown isnt exactly off campus for GVSU... I wouldnt be shocked to see it hapoen when GVSU goes D1

It is to reasonable-thinking people. Also, just because something is a pipe dream to you doesn't mean it will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GVSU has chosen a more sound and conservative fiscal course compared to other Public universities when it comes to considering Div1 sports.  I for one am glad that the leadership of GVSU has take a sane approach over the past two decades.   

http://www.mlive.com/sports/2016/08/post_52.html

 

Quote

despite a unique confluence of circumstances that would scream Division I in many places: Peerless in Division II, the Allendale-based school also rests in the heart of the largest U.S. metropolitan statisical area without Division I sports, Grand Rapids-Muskegon. Grand Valley has won the last three Directors' Cups, and 11 of the last 14, as the premier all-sports program in Division II. Grand Rapids-Muskegon is the 52nd-ranked metro area, according to 2015 U.S. Census estimates, with the top 50 all hosting full Division I universities, and No. 51 Rochester, N.Y., hosting Division I hockey (Rochester Institute of Technology). Yet GVSU presidents and athletic directors, dating to president Arend Lubbers, have been steadfast in retaining a dominant, cost-effective Division II program, at $486.12 per student in 2014-15.

 

Quote

Eastern Michigan plays football in the shadow of U-M, before a largely empty stadium at home. Its football team has not played a bowl game since 1987. Among programs playing Division I football continuously during that time, only one other has suffered even close to that kind of drought, New Mexico State (1960). Those two teams commonly rank among the worst in Division I. Yet EMU's total expenditure of more than $27 million in institutional funds to subsidize athletics led all state NCAA institutions in the study year. At $1,219.14 per student, four-year costs will tack on about $5,000 in financial burden.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be interested to see what happens in a few years now that Davenport plays in the same conference. I don't think GVSU is going to like its "scuzzy step brother" (this is how I imagine GVSU thinking of Davenport athletics, not me reflecting on Davenport, or its sports program). Heck, Davenport has only had a sports program for a dozen years (or less w/ some sports). And they are already D2. It's purely speculation, but I see someone pushing/making a big donation to move them to D1 at some point.

And everyone says they "like" the division that they're playing in. Until they don't. ;) Hard to say "yeah, we should be D1 but we like winning against smaller schools. Look at our trophy case!".

Joe

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, scottythe1nonly said:
  Quote

despite a unique confluence of circumstances that would scream Division I in many places: Peerless in Division II, the Allendale-based school also rests in the heart of the largest U.S. metropolitan statisical area without Division I sports, Grand Rapids-Muskegon. Grand Valley has won the last three Directors' Cups, and 11 of the last 14, as the premier all-sports program in Division II. Grand Rapids-Muskegon is the 52nd-ranked metro area, according to 2015 U.S. Census estimates, with the top 50 all hosting full Division I universities, and No. 51 Rochester, N.Y., hosting Division I hockey (Rochester Institute of Technology). Yet GVSU presidents and athletic directors, dating to president Arend Lubbers, have been steadfast in retaining a dominant, cost-effective Division II program, at $486.12 per student in 2014-15.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Ferris also plays D1 in hockey.  Although Big Rapids isn't exactly part of the GR-Muskegon MSA.  

All this "peerless in Division II" / "dominant in Division II" stuff is humorous.  Kind of like when formerly top bands that used to fill stadiums and arenas and are now touring in theaters and casinos talk about how they prefer the smaller, more intimate venues because it brings them closer to their fans.  Personally, I think a lot of the Grand Valley administration's reticence is based on a fear that D1 might invite more scrutiny and require a higher level of intelligence, professionalism and acumen than they can provide.

Remember what Upton Sinclair used to say, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wingbert said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Ferris also plays D1 in hockey.  Although Big Rapids isn't exactly part of the GR-Muskegon MSA. 

Correct. They are generally pretty good. Hockey takes up roughly half the athletic budget. And about 80% of the sports passion. They also have a lot of golf and fundraising events to help fund the program.

Back on topic, I pray whatever it built here fills the site well and adds some height. It irks me that the tallest building in that part of town is Founders. That close to the core, I don't want manufacturing being the talllest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tall or short I'm more concerned that it connects well with the river.  I agree with the City leadership that this shouldn't just be another set of 10-14 story apartments.  For the rest of this century the River will have a more defining physical presence on the city than it did for most of the last 100 years.  It won't be used to float logs to mills like it did in the 1800s, but the restoration of the rapids and removal of Dams is going to make downtown a tourist destination for more than just beer. And I think that we'll be hearing the phrase "River City" more and more in the future.  This property is key for that and I hope they do it right.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

The key to making that site great is not going to be the buildings or their height, it's going to be the public realm, parks and how it ties into the riverfront. The budget for that should be as much if not more than the buildings themselves. I mean really, when was the last time you saw a high rise residential building that blew you away? There are a few in Chicago... a few. Most all start to look the same. 

But I will say that the rapids restoration is not going to reach this far South. It will pretty much stop at the Pearl St bridge I believe. However, a world-class park with a really cool pedestrian bridge over to the GVSU side to provide a loop around the riverfront would get my vote. Even Lansing and Kalamazoo have parks along their rivers, let's for once try to go above and beyond that lame same ol same ol that everyone does and has.  

I agree, I also hope that there are well spaced and attractive focal points along the river shore to continue interest along the whole riverfront.  A reason to walk another 400 yards.  Park area interrupted by retail or food and drink, recreational elements, residential and the like.  Not just one long stretch of park that continues down the whole shore, or at least something close off the path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting looking at a city like Nashville, with a central river and the similar problems we have. Industry took spots on the river and the city turned its back on the water.  Now  only touch points are being developed with not much to connect them together.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this just needs to be a complete and solid extension of the rest of DT.

It needs buildings with ground floor activity, along the street, and maybe a new street carved-out of the interior of the property to fit even more. Something "intense" enough that it will spur spin-off development all around that will grow back towards Fulton.

Dedicating the bulk of the property to plazas, parks or event spaces/sporting venues makes me nervous. If those places dont "take", like Calder Plaza, and Monroe Mall didn't, then it is a major opportunity blown.

Connecting to the river is nice, but we have to remember that the river at this location is several meters below and isnt like what you have north of the Fish Ladder. So on most days you are going to be staring at a ditch with concrete walls.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something like Studio C would be nice. Two separated  mixed use buildings with a glass roof over the open commons area that can be used for events. Apartment/condo tower on one end with a new GRFC soccer stadium on the other. Along the river is a walking/biking trail, green space, a boat launch, and a marina for boats coming in from the newly dredged river. On the north side is a walking bridge connecting to GVSU's business school. That would make for a great entertainment/housing district.

Studio_C.jpg

Edited by GRLaker

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  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.