Jump to content

RFP - 201 Market


walker

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, metrogrkid said:

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....  :)

Flaherty & Collins_201 Market Ave 5.jpg

Flaherty & Collins_201 Market Ave 1.jpg

Yes, in that one aerial they don't show 234 Market and they don't even show the fully built out Founders facility. Must be from an older image. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


21 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I just happen to be in Florida right now and the first thing that these pictures reminded me of was Clearwater Beach that I visited yesterday, with the giant pedestrian boardwalk, the street and the towers across the street. With the phase III River Tower looking like Opal Sands Resort. :) (minus the gulf of mexico obviously).

Aerial_708896_high.jpg?width=3000&height

Adina-001.jpg

the-boardwalk-in-front.jpg

 

This 201 projects NEEDS to get built. 

I noticed too that the one aerial rendering posted above was a truncated version. It's better to see the whole layout:

5a44f7cbab509_201Market.jpg.bcd49147fd9545843d009abef15dc0a5.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wingbert said:

Where does the skywalk connect?

That's a fascinating idea: Connect the skywalk down Market to the hotel tower in this development. Crossing 131 might be a bit tricky, though. Perhaps the skywalk could be extended as part of a future development on that huge Market/Fulton parking lot and Charley's Crab parcel (which, I'd imagine, will be an even hotter piece of real estate when it's the only thing separating the 201 Market development from the rest of downtown).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be a great idea - I know some are against skywalks but I know that I go to a conference at DeVos Place every January and the people I go to lunch with want to go anywhere “as long as we don’t have to go outside” since it’s usually frigid and we’ve checked our coats. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I like it.  Phase I and II could be a little higher, but it will be great infill for the area especially with the development across the street..  I hope this spurs more development in the area (the auto/crossfit shop, wolverine, parking lot by the woods, etc) and across the river.  Also hoping the don't fizzle out the two towers of Phase III

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, wingbert said:

Where does the skywalk connect?

I'm not really sure if you were being sarcastic, but that's a long distance to span with a skywalk. The Monroe North Embassy Suites might be closer to the system? Time for a streetcar revival?

Connecting the riverwalk would be good. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I'm not really sure if you were being sarcastic, but that's a long distance to span with a skywalk. The Monroe North Embassy Suites might be closer to the system? Time for a streetcar revival?

Connecting the riverwalk would be good. 

 

With as cold as it is right now, I could use a skywalk to my car. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I'm not really sure if you were being sarcastic, but that's a long distance to span with a skywalk. The Monroe North Embassy Suites might be closer to the system? Time for a streetcar revival?

Connecting the riverwalk would be good. 

 


 Why stop with the rapids?  Let's "Restore The Streetcars!"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I'm not really sure if you were being sarcastic, but that's a long distance to span with a skywalk. The Monroe North Embassy Suites might be closer to the system? Time for a streetcar revival?

Connecting the riverwalk would be good. 

 

I like everything you just said - except the being sarcastic part :P.  Understanding the engineering challenges, especially on these days of sub zero temps, a skywalk could provide a link to other parts of downtown but a streetcar would be cool too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Various groups have studied a Monroe streetcar in 2008 and 2014, the 2014 study (big PDF) having been commissioned by former mayor Logie's Streetcar Advisory Committee.

From what I can dig up, there are two leading candidates for a route. Both start at Monroe & Newberry by the Embassy Suites. Route #1 follows Monroe and Market and then either turns east at Cherry to a terminus TBD, or turns east at Bartlett to end at Central Station. Route #2 follows Monroe to Monroe Center and then turns south on Ionia, ending somewhere around the Downtown Market.

Certainly route #1 would make a lot of sense if this gets built and/or a project of similar scale happens at Market & Fulton.

Edited by getemngo
Link to comment
Share on other sites


10 hours ago, getemngo said:

Various groups have studied a Monroe streetcar in 2008 and 2014, the 2014 study (big PDF) having been commissioned by former mayor Logie's Streetcar Advisory Committee.

From what I can dig up, there are two leading candidates for a route. Both start at Monroe & Newberry by the Embassy Suites. Route #1 follows Monroe and Market and then either turns east at Cherry to a terminus TBD, or turns east at Bartlett to end at Central Station. Route #2 follows Monroe to Monroe Center and then turns south on Ionia, ending somewhere around the Downtown Market.

Certainly route #1 would make a lot of sense if this gets built and/or a project of similar scale happens at Market & Fulton.

I was sort of half joking. After looking at the outrageous cost of the Q-Line in Detroit, maybe a $5 Million or so expansion of the skywalk makes more sense than a $150 Million+ streetcar?  Although a big question would be, will people in this development need to get to the convention center? Or vice versa? The hotel/shopping area could probably run its own shuttle from the city center every 30 minutes or so? Maybe loop to Studio Park? 

I'll bet the Monroe North Embassy Suites will run its own shuttle bus. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2017 at 11:45 AM, scottythe1nonly said:

i still would rather have the stadium, but even I would like to live and hang out in the winning development.  

I want to see the details of the actual proposals though.  Their criticism of the Rockford proposal wasn't the quality of the drawings.  

I was thinking about the stadium proposal last night, and honestly, I think it’s a lousy design for a soccer stadium. My hope (dream) is that GRFC (or another club based in Grand Rapids) works it’s way up through the tiers and we eventually land an MLS team (maybe the best option to land a major league team in GR). If that we’re the case, this proposal would not work for MLS, or they’d have to add seating on the riverfront, defeating the purpose of being on the river.

I hope Rockford/GRFC come up with a plan and location that allows for expansion. Like a more aggressive version of what Toronto did with BMO Field, where they were able to add on several times to get to its current size (35,000 seats for soccer). Maybe start at 10,000, but have future plans and goals set in place. 

I Also don’t like stadiums with one side of seating. I think the GRFC games are much more “festive” now that they have both sides open. 

Joe

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think there is more chance of getting Amazon HQ2 than an MLS team. The stadium was designed to be 'open' to be able to host concerts, fireworks and other such events. It is my understanding any future stadium plans will be closed in on all 4 sides, which fwiw is my preference too. 

2 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

I was thinking about the stadium proposal last night, and honestly, I think it’s a lousy design for a soccer stadium. My hope (dream) is that GRFC (or another club based in Grand Rapids) works it’s way up through the tiers and we eventually land an MLS team (maybe the best option to land a major league team in GR). If that we’re the case, this proposal would not work for MLS, or they’d have to add seating on the riverfront, defeating the purpose of being on the river.

I hope Rockford/GRFC come up with a plan and location that allows for expansion. Like a more aggressive version of what Toronto did with BMO Field, where they were able to add on several times to get to its current size (35,000 seats for soccer). Maybe start at 10,000, but have future plans and goals set in place. 

I Also don’t like stadiums with one side of seating. I think the GRFC games are much more “festive” now that they have both sides open. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Llanito said:

 

I think there is more chance of getting Amazon HQ2 than an MLS team. The stadium was designed to be 'open' to be able to host concerts, fireworks and other such events. It is my understanding any future stadium plans will be closed in on all 4 sides, which fwiw is my preference too. 

Grand Rapids will never have an MLS club.  The market is too small.  The people running the team do not intend to someday try to get an MLS franchise.  fThey want to take the team to the new USL Division 3 league, or perhaps eventually to D 2.  Not unlike The Griffins with the AHL.  We are a good sized market for second and third division pro soccer.  There are investors willing to fund the team's move to the pro league.  But there are currently no venues in GR that could host a pro team.  Houseman is financially not feasible, and with the Schools using it in the spring and last summer/fall it would be impossible to play a pro season there.  

Yeah, that open sided plan was specific to the riverside site.  If you look at other minor league stadiums (such as San Antonio) they use both sides of the pitch.  If another more typical site is used it would make more business sense to run stands along both sides of the pitch.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it does feel like the approach to getting a stadium built is off a bit.  There needs to be a public case made to the fact that there are people willing to invest the money necessary to take the team pro and build the stadium.  Right now that's not happening.  Nothing is being shared publicly.  

Compare that to how Detroit approached their MLS bid.  The financial backers put a plan together and released it to the media, then continued for the past two years to push the positivies of the future MLS franchise.  It helped eventually get the county to fork over the land for the stadium (yeah i know they're not building the stadium, but the media push made countless supporters for the MLS bid)

I don't know why the team is keeping this all so quiet.  It's a bit bass-akwards.  Even when the Van was built there was a public discussion about the need and benefit of building it.  It wasn't left up to a sealed bid with a secret committee.

If you look at how other clubs in minor league soccer have pushed for their stadiums they did media pushes.  The people with the money made public appeasl to support their efforts.  That's what happened in Pittsburgh, which now has a small riverside (open on one side) USL stadium that they're planning to enlarge.  If you look at what's going on in Charlotte, NC today it's similar.  They have a USL club, playing at a small public field.  Their MLS bid fell apart, so now they're trying to get a 10k seat stadium renovated for the club to move to.  It's all out in the public because they need the support of the public to make it happen.

I actually like the way the Charlotte stadium proposal looks.  HOwever, it lacks luxery boxes and other such ammenities.  

http://www.thecharlottepost.com/news/2017/12/28/qcfc/charlotte-soccer-took-many-paths-through-turbulent-2017/

Pittsburgh has to expand their stadium to comply with RSL size requirements. 

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

 

We should have a separate thread for the proposed Grand Rapids Soccer Stadium.

Edited by scottythe1nonly
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

I was sort of half joking. After looking at the outrageous cost of the Q-Line in Detroit, maybe a $5 Million or so expansion of the skywalk makes more sense than a $150 Million+ streetcar?  Although a big question would be, will people in this development need to get to the convention center? Or vice versa? The hotel/shopping area could probably run its own shuttle from the city center every 30 minutes or so? Maybe loop to Studio Park? 

I'll bet the Monroe North Embassy Suites will run its own shuttle bus. 

Smart STREETRAIL (SRT) transit extends walking radii by connecting together popular heavily used destinations that share a common district (i.e. - greater Downtown GR for this discussion) but are still perceived as far apart from a walking standpoint.  Monroe North, the 201 Market/234 Market area, Studio Park and the Downtown Market area (with future addition of Westbank City area [GVSU-Robert Pew Campus/Dash West & YMCA Lots/Bridge Street]) are those very types of destinations or are definitely becoming so; locales that GR can apply more smartly than Detroit and that GR has right in its face and cannot see as it often does its best imitation of not being able to see the forest for the trees . . . . 

Edited by metrogrkid
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, metrogrkid said:

Smart STREETRAIL (SRT) transit extends walking radii by connecting together popular heavily used destinations that share a common district (i.e. - greater Downtown GR for this discussion) but are still perceived as far apart from a walking standpoint.  Monroe North, the 201 Market/234 Market area, Studio Park and the Downtown Market area (with future addition of Westbank City area [GVSU-Robert Pew Campus/Dash West & YMCA Lots/Bridge Street]) are those very types of destinations or are definitely becoming so; locales that GR can apply more smartly than Detroit and that GR has right in its face and cannot see as it often does its best imitation of not being able to see the forest for the trees . . . . 

People are screaming that a $10 Million parking ramp/development is a poor use of city funds, how do you think the city residents would respond to a $150 Million streetcar ($200 Million in five years probably) that anchors two high end developments to the downtown high-end hotels and convention center? When still 35% of city residents (or some number close to that) are still below poverty and almost every kid in GRPS qualifies for a free lunch. I just don't see it happening, not with the current leadership and the influx of a much more liberal population in the city (who love transit but also love to help homeless people and protect panhandlers).  They think the Downtown Market is a waste, imagine a streetcar that costs 5x as much with no one riding it, or at least, no paying riders. 

 

 

1 hour ago, scottythe1nonly said:

Grand Rapids will never have an MLS club.  The market is too small.  The people running the team do not intend to someday try to get an MLS franchise.  fThey want to take the team to the new USL Division 3 league, or perhaps eventually to D 2.  Not unlike The Griffins with the AHL.  We are a good sized market for second and third division pro soccer.  There are investors willing to fund the team's move to the pro league.  But there are currently no venues in GR that could host a pro team.  Houseman is financially not feasible, and with the Schools using it in the spring and last summer/fall it would be impossible to play a pro season there.  

Yeah, that open sided plan was specific to the riverside site.  If you look at other minor league stadiums (such as San Antonio) they use both sides of the pitch.  If another more typical site is used it would make more business sense to run stands along both sides of the pitch.  

Are these investors willing to fund a new stadium? I hear that was a big complaint about the Rockford plan, no mention at all of how the stadium would be funded. 

I have also heard there is already talk of how the city services would be relocated from 201 Market and it may not be as daunting as I expected. There are apparently several highly underutilized city sites around town. That's good news. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

People are screaming that a $10 Million parking ramp/development is a poor use of city funds, how do you think the city residents would respond to a $150 Million streetcar ($200 Million in five years probably) that anchors two high end developments to the downtown high-end hotels and convention center? When still 35% of city residents (or some number close to that) are still below poverty and almost every kid in GRPS qualifies for a free lunch. I just don't see it happening, not with the current leadership and the influx of a much more liberal population in the city (who love transit but also love to help homeless people and protect panhandlers).  They think the Downtown Market is a waste, imagine a streetcar that costs 5x as much with no one riding it, or at least, no paying riders. 

 

 

Are these investors willing to fund a new stadium? I hear that was a big complaint about the Rockford plan, no mention at all of how the stadium would be funded. 

I have also heard there is already talk of how the city services would be relocated from 201 Market and it may not be as daunting as I expected. There are apparently several highly underutilized city sites around town. That's good news. 

I hear only second hand info regarding the new Stadium.  I kept hearing that the money was there.  That it would mimic what happened with the Van when it was built.  I was very surprised to hear that the funding wasn't clear in the proposal.   Which is why I want to see the proposal.  The statements by the committee don't align with what I've been told. 

IMO the team's investors need to go public with their plans for the team or nothing will ever happen.  Frankly, we don't really need a new stadium.  We already have one that's bigger than most minor league stadiums in the USA.  It's Houseman Field. 

At one point the Soccer Team attempted to propose a massive remodel of Houseman field which would have made it "pro level" complete with luxury boxes, food service improvements, etc. etc.  And it would have meant relocating and rebuilding the track to another location (such as Union high).   It would have allowed football to continue to be played there (the deeding of the land to the schools long ago required that it always be used by the schools, IE. it can't be sold to developers).  Houseman is the perfect size and location for a future USL team.  It simply doesn't comply with the league requirements (mainly the pitch and track) and the massive fees charged by the school and lack of amenities for the team to make money (beer, food, etc.) make it untenable long term.

From what I was told the city wouldn't even discuss the Houseman proposal.   In fact, up until just a couple of months ago the team hadn't even met with the Superintendent.  Team ownership was actively looking to move matches to somewhere other than Houseman for 2018 because nearly all of the team's budget is being spent to pay for use of Houseman field.  They've recently been able to talk directly with the Superintendent and a lot of road blocks to the team holding matches at Houseman have been removed.    

The school system should seriously reconsider how Houseman is operated.   Its operated directly by the school system today.  The schools could maintain ownership, allow for outside investment to improve/alter the stadium and then contract a third party to manage the operations of the stadium.   it could result in the school system actually making money off the Stadium. That is what other municipalities do with publicly owned stadiums.    It is underutilized much of the year when it could be hosting other events.   It's a horrible waste of one of the best assets the city has.  


The people complaining about the parking ramp are the people who would support street cars.  

 
 

Edited by scottythe1nonly
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, scottythe1nonly said:

I hear only second hand info regarding the new Stadium.  I kept hearing that the money was there.  That it would mimic what happened with the Van when it was built.  I was very surprised to hear that the funding wasn't clear in the proposal.   Which is why I want to see the proposal.  The statements by the committee don't align with what I've been told. 

IMO the team's investors need to go public with their plans for the team or nothing will ever happen.  Frankly, we don't really need a new stadium.  We already have one that's bigger than most minor league stadiums in the USA.  It's Houseman Field. 

At one point the Soccer Team attempted to propose a massive remodel of Houseman field which would have made it "pro level" complete with luxury boxes, food service improvements, etc. etc.  And it would have meant relocating and rebuilding the track to another location (such as Union high).   It would have allowed football to continue to be played there (the deeding of the land to the schools long ago required that it always be used by the schools, IE. it can't be sold to developers).  Houseman is the perfect size and location for a future USL team.  It simply doesn't comply with the league requirements (mainly the pitch and track) and the massive fees charged by the school and lack of amenities for the team to make money (beer, food, etc.) make it untenable long term.

From what I was told the city wouldn't even discuss the Houseman proposal.   In fact, up until just a couple of months ago the team hadn't even met with the Superintendent.  Team ownership was actively looking to move matches to somewhere other than Houseman for 2018 because nearly all of the team's budget is being spent to pay for use of Houseman field.  They've recently been able to talk directly with the Superintendent and a lot of road blocks to the team holding matches at Houseman have been removed.    

The school system should seriously reconsider how Houseman is operated.   Its operated directly by the school system today.  The schools could maintain ownership, allow for outside investment to improve/alter the stadium and then contract a third party to manage the operations of the stadium.   it could result in the school system actually making money off the Stadium. That is what other municipalities do with publicly owned stadiums.    It is underutilized much of the year when it could be hosting other events.   It's a horrible waste of one of the best assets the city has.  


The people complaining about the parking ramp are the people who would support street cars.  

 
 

If that is true, then I really have only one word for such folk: hypocrites. How a streetcar that doesn't really do anything for the environment would gain support from the anti-city-fund crowd is beyond me. I think streetcars are cool but the time to put one in was 20 years ago. Infrastructure cost increases have made them totally a waste of money. 

Houseman Field is a terrible place for long-term investment in the GRFC program. And if they were looking at something similar to how the Van Andel Arena was funded, they must've missed the news that Grand Action has folded. So a $20 - $30 Million stadium will have to come from some other fundraising activity, with a few "champions" of sorts throwing in the first $15 Million.  If you're talking about a riverfront stadium at 201 Market. There has to be some lower cost pieces of land out there near downtown that aren't on the riverfront? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2018/05/grand_rapids_officials_target.html

Looks like the city needs an extension to continue working with the consulting firm it hired to help relocate services from 201 Market.  Also it appears they are trying to get the same giant brownfield credits for this site that Dan Gilbert received for his mega developments downtown Detroit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.