RFP - 201 Market

[metrogrkid]

5 hours ago, wingbert said:

Maybe it was just me, but there were a couple of comments from F&C in that article that seemed to tiptoe around saying that as an outsider that has worked with larger metros and projects, the city's process displayed a little naiveté about how to handle a project like this.  

EXACTLY!  The quicker WE in GR stop tiptoeing around calling out our penchant for naiveté/arrogance in the face of handling projects while being a place that's never been a big city before, the better off we will be.  The sense of "knowing everything better than anyone else" that certain GR citizens display is nauseating and has always been counter-productive.  EJECT THAT MINDSET QUICKLY!  Move on with open minds and a focus on truly attaining GRAND; we will be exponentially better off for it.

Edited December 13, 2017 by metrogrkid

[GRDadof3]

On 12/13/2017 at 9:07 AM, scottythe1nonly said:

For the F&C bid to be dropped the city would have to find in the next phase that the proposal is somehow unfeasible.  It now comes down to money and the technical details on moving the city services from that site.  It's not only moving the garage, offices, trucks, etc., but also any infrastructure that's underground.  Notice that F&C is now saying that they need millions of dollars from the City to make their proposal work.

It will be years, probably many years, before the project is completed.  

I don't feel like I know much at all.  I got a few paragraphs of second hand commentary and a couple of make believe drawings.  

I want to see the two final bids in their entirety.  What I'm hearing around town regarding the Rockford bid does not match the comments from the committee that were included in the MiBiz article.    Something sounds very off here.

Yep, there are still a lot of unknowns on this. I don't think they were saying they need $millions from the city to make this work, but that they will need $million in incentives from somewhere to make this work (State, MEDC, etc..) There is really no reason that I can see that the developer should bare any of the cost of relocating city services. That alone would probably take much of the profit out of the project, and increase risk exponentially. 

But I also suffer from a bit of naivete on things like this, admittedly.

[scottythe1nonly]

3 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Yep, there are still a lot of unknowns on this. I don't think they were saying they need $millions from the city to make this work, but that they will need $million in incentives from somewhere to make this work (State, MEDC, etc..) There is really no reason that I can see that the developer should bare any of the cost of relocating city services. That alone would probably take much of the profit out of the project, and increase risk exponentially. 

But I also suffer from a bit of naivete on things like this, admittedly.

Why shouldn't the buyer be on the hook for that?  it's part of the bid.  They buy the land, move the city services and redevelop the property.  That was the deal to begin with.

[jthrasher]

9 minutes ago, scottythe1nonly said:

Why shouldn't the buyer be on the hook for that?  it's part of the bid.  They buy the land, move the city services and redevelop the property.  That was the deal to begin with.

It's not the developers responsibility to move services of the city.  If the city wants to sell that land, they have to relocate any services on their own and not expect to have someone else pay for that.  

[GRDadof3]

48 minutes ago, scottythe1nonly said:

Why shouldn't the buyer be on the hook for that?  it's part of the bid.  They buy the land, move the city services and redevelop the property.  That was the deal to begin with.

Why would the buyer be on the hook? For the "privilege" of developing the site? The site isn't that special. 

I need to go back and reread the RFP apparently. I thought the city was hoping to get enough for the 16 acres of land to offset much of the relocation expenses.

 

[MJLO]

41 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

Why would the buyer be on the hook? For the "privilege" of developing the site? The site isn't that special. 

I need to go back and reread the RFP apparently. I thought the city was hoping to get enough for the 16 acres of land to offset much of the relocation expenses.

 

Do we really have market conditions that would be favorable to the city selling all of this land with enough to relocate,  while still being able to justify and finance what will undoubtedly be a development price tag in the hundreds of millions?   I feel like this type of development will act as a catalyst and help facilitate the greater vision of the city being more connected to the river.  Admittedly there's a lot I don't understand on how all of this works, but my gut is telling me for something of this magnitude to come to fruition, the city incentivizing it would be along term investment.    I don't see this happening under normal market conditions at the moment.

[GRDadof3]

55 minutes ago, MJLO said:

Do we really have market conditions that would be favorable to the city selling all of this land with enough to relocate,  while still being able to justify and finance what will undoubtedly be a development price tag in the hundreds of millions?   I feel like this type of development will act as a catalyst and help facilitate the greater vision of the city being more connected to the river.  Admittedly there's a lot I don't understand on how all of this works, but my gut is telling me for something of this magnitude to come to fruition, the city incentivizing it would be along term investment.    I don't see this happening under normal market conditions at the moment.

Exactly, but the developer HAS to make money (profit) on it, a lot of money, to satisfy investors and the lenders on it. Land downtown now is going for multi-$millions per acre, which makes profitability challenging alone (not everyone is Devos and Van Andel that can pay outrageous prices). Now add $20 Million or whatever the number is to move city services to all new facilities? That comes right off the developer's bottom line.  That comes right off the developer's bottom line, if they're asked to foot the bill for it. No profit = no project. 

In other words, no developer NEEDS to do this project, the city doesn't NEED to do this project, so someone somewhere is going to have to pony up to pay for the move. I really would be surprised if the city commission will go along with this if they have to spend a bunch of taxpayer dollars out-of-pocket. People are screaming against a new parking ramp that will make a profit the day the city opens it, like the rest of the city ramps and lots do. Will there be enough return to the city on this? 

[GRLaker]

I'm admittedly naive when it comes to developments. My interests have mainly been in architecture. But...Wouldn't it be possible for the developer to partner with a big player in town like the Amway Hotel Group to fund a portion of the development? If there is going to be a hotel in their plans, I would think that bringing in the DeVos' would soften some of the financial blow and also require less of a hand-out from the city.  

[scottythe1nonly]

On 12/14/2017 at 3:40 PM, GRDadof3 said:

Exactly, but the developer HAS to make money (profit) on it, a lot of money, to satisfy investors and the lenders on it. Land downtown now is going for multi-$millions per acre, which makes profitability challenging alone (not everyone is Devos and Van Andel that can pay outrageous prices). Now add $20 Million or whatever the number is to move city services to all new facilities? That comes right off the developer's bottom line.  That comes right off the developer's bottom line, if they're asked to foot the bill for it. No profit = no project. 

In other words, no developer NEEDS to do this project, the city doesn't NEED to do this project, so someone somewhere is going to have to pony up to pay for the move. I really would be surprised if the city commission will go along with this if they have to spend a bunch of taxpayer dollars out-of-pocket. People are screaming against a new parking ramp that will make a profit the day the city opens it, like the rest of the city ramps and lots do. Will there be enough return to the city on this? 

If the city has to literally pay someone to buy some of the most desireable land in Western Michigan, maybe they shouldn't sell it.   

FTR the city could simply move the services located there to somewhere outside of down town (a small office and truck garages) and turn the 16 acres into a park, probably for the same amount of money that the winning bidder is now suggesting they'll need from Government.  Then the entire thing would be green space.

I don't think it's wrong for the public to ask why the heck the tax payers should pay a dime for developers to build a for profit set of buildings downtown.   

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by scottythe1nonly

[Raildude's dad]

Quote

Now add $20 Million or whatever the number is to move city services to all new facilities? 

I'm guessing you are off by a factor of 3 or 4.

[GRDadof3]

3 hours ago, scottythe1nonly said:

If the city has to literally pay someone to buy some of the most desireable land in Western Michigan, maybe they shouldn't sell it.   

FTR the city could simply move the services located there to somewhere outside of down town (a small office and truck garages) and turn the 16 acres into a park, probably for the same amount of money that the winning bidder is now suggesting they'll need from Government.  Then the entire thing would be green space.

I don't think it's wrong for the public to ask why the heck the tax payers should pay a dime for developers to build a for profit set of buildings downtown.   

 

Nobody said it was wrong to ask.  But they wouldn't be paying a developer to buy the land, the developer would pay market value for the land, probably in the neighborhood of $tens of millions of dollars. But they shouldn't expect the buyer to pay for the move of city services.  

But I have an answer for you on your park premise: the city doesn't have the money to do that. They're bootstrapped financially. They're hoping that the tax capture from a development project would help offset the costs of moving services. In fact, in addition to reigniting this section of the riverfront, they're hoping that the $100's of million in development will bring in residents and workers who pay city income tax. $millions in city income tax, where the city gets most of its revenue.

And I would guess it's a lot more expensive than you think it will be.  They most likely won't find the buildings for it (because there aren't a whole lot of them that big and that clustered) so they would have to build. In order to build they would probably have to purchase the land, which takes it from private tax revenue generating property to non tax revenue generating property.

This whole thing might be a damn pipe dream the more I think about it, lol.  But turn it into a park, if the city can afford it. F&C, Rockford and the other company will just say "Oh well, nice knowing ya guys."   ie, the city really has no leverage here on this deal, other than they really should get fair market value on the bare raw land, with all services moved off of it. 

[MJLO]

Agreed.  To only assume the city should not sacrifice a dime in executing a deal like this, doesn't at all consider how these types of anchor developments generate future cash and can pay for themselves.   Look at the dividends all of the incentives in the mid 2000's are paying between new residents, workers, and tourists.  Even with all of the new hotel rooms coming online the county is still posting record occupancy numbers.  This didn't happen from the city staying neutral on incentives. The city is on FAR more stable footing now than it was in 2006.   If the region is going to continue that momentum and stability then investments like this need to continue to be made.   You're not just spending city funds to move services.  You're taking a portion of land that consumes revenue,  on land that is premium in terms of location, and turning it into a revenue generator.   Something of this scale will have ripple effects on a neighborhood that is mostly a dead zone, and make it revenue generating in other areas as well.  I would hope the city would be aggressive in trying to get this done.  The adage of having to spend money to make money isn't just applicable to the private sector.  There's a reason cities are "incorporated" and not "coronated". 

[metrogrkid]

7 hours ago, MJLO said:

Agreed.  To only assume the city should not sacrifice a dime in executing a deal like this, doesn't at all consider how these types of anchor developments generate future cash and can pay for themselves.   Look at the dividends all of the incentives in the mid 2000's are paying between new residents, workers, and tourists.  Even with all of the new hotel rooms coming online the county is still posting record occupancy numbers.  This didn't happen from the city staying neutral on incentives. The city is on FAR more stable footing now than it was in 2006.   If the region is going to continue that momentum and stability then investments like this need to continue to be made.   You're not just spending city funds to move services.  You're taking a portion of land that consumes revenue,  on land that is premium in terms of location, and turning it into a revenue generator.   Something of this scale will have ripple effects on a neighborhood that is mostly a dead zone, and make it revenue generating in other areas as well.  I would hope the city would be aggressive in trying to get this done.  The adage of having to spend money to make money isn't just applicable to the private sector.  There's a reason cities are "incorporated" and not "coronated". 

Another EXACTLY!    Progress requires investment and belief in the worthiness of investing in your own future; NO developer will do what you won't for yourself.

[GRDadof3]

Ummmm, guys...

 

 

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/12/see_the_201_market_proposal.html

[organsnyder]

So much to love about these renderings. I hope this gets built.

[egrguy]

That adds a lot to the story.  This proposal was the clear winner and to be honest, the only company that appeared to really take the initial process seriously. I like the plan a lot and this would be a huge anchor development for the south end of DT GR.

[HavingAhoot]

28 minutes ago, jdkacz said:

That adds a lot to the story.  This proposal was the clear winner and to be honest, the only company that appeared to really take the initial process seriously. I like the plan a lot and this would be a huge anchor development for the south end of DT GR.

Agree this was the clear winner. I liked the bridge to the wooded island but other than that rockfords seemed bland.  

[GR8scott]

Obviously anything is better than what’s currently there but Not a game changer without better river utilization....underwhelmed with the river but only one that looks legit, also too bad it’s out of state. At least they could improve the river front later like pedestrian bridge to connect to gvsu, use the island as a park and maybe someday a marina. I hope the city has a clause for that 

[organsnyder]

Things I like:

1. Engages with the frontage on Market.
2. Parking is concealed.
3. Designs look good, to my amateur eye. The northernmost building seems to be taking cues from the JW Marriott.

Things that I'm meh on:

1. River engagement could perhaps be more inspired (but it's not bad, IMHO).

Things I don't like:

(this space intentionally left blank)

[mjak68]

I think it's completely awesome.  Really hope this get's done.

[GrSportsGuy]

It looks pretty good I suppose, but as others said I would have liked more river engagement. I probably will never really go there. I was hoping for things like canoe rental, a zip line to the island where there would be a park, etc. Who knows, these things could still come.

[Prankster]

3 hours ago, GR8scott said:

At least they could improve the river front later like pedestrian bridge to connect to gvsu, use the island as a park and maybe someday a marina. I hope the city has a clause for that 

7 minutes ago, GrSportsGuy said:

I was hoping for things like canoe rental, a zip line to the island where there would be a park, etc.

Kind of hard to have a park when it is completely submerged every spring. 

[GR_Urbanist]

Look for a nit-pick, and I really cant find one. We even have a large building to the south that wasn't visible in the original leaked rendering!

 

I'm not remotely concerned about the river access. It is as good as it honestly should be. The Grand River simply isnt a place for a marina. Its levels are not consistent enough to devote money to building one right now.

[localtalent]

3 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

Look for a nit-pick, and I really cant find one. We even have a large building to the south that wasn't visible in the original leaked rendering!

 

I'm not remotely concerned about the river access. It is as good as it honestly should be. The Grand River simply isnt a place for a marina. Its levels are not consistent enough to devote money to building one right now.

It must be the merriest season of the year.

I don’t generally find myself in alignment with your perspective (though I respect the consistency and knowledge you share).

I was also ready to go full guns against some out of state interloper who tried to tell us what we needed when perfectly capable developers have been pulling us along for a decade and deserve preference for such a significant opportunity.

But, just like you, I’m having a hard time coming up with a complaint with this plan.

And it’s clearly the winner from what we’ve seen so far.

 

[metrogrkid]

The two Flaherty & Collins shots here are what moved me* to pop my thumb up in the air with added hope for Downtown GR's future as the hub of America's #52 metro area (*: someone from SE GR who rarely allows himself to believe that GR actually WANTS to attain the GRAND part of its name).  The first image of the Phase III 15?-story housing tower/grocery/retail base and the Phase I housing/retail base at the bricked-in intersection of Williams SW and Market SW (with GVSU Seidman School and S-Curve across the river peaking through at the end of the block at the new Shore Drive SW?) is what convinced me that we might be on the verge of being serious about our location midway between Chicago and Detroit.  The second image reminds me that right on the east side of 201 Market is the 234 Market development and its connecting tissue to the Studio Park development and its complimentary destination-generating mix (just a 5-7 minute walk away); it is an image that says "not in Hooterville any more".

Arena South, MarketVille Triangle (Market-Oakes-Grandville) and Fulton-Market Site may soon be under greater pressure to add-on to the destination uses coming together adjacent to them; this could inspire a tweek to the long-proposed Market-SouthDowntown/CBD/MonroeNorth streetrail alignment.

I'll reserve the use of "Urban Development Swag" until this and Studio Park are humming on most any night.... 

Edited December 28, 2017 by metrogrkid