Wealthy Street Mega Thread

[fotoman311]

Something is supposed to be going in to the old Rafav's spot soon over in Eastown. And across the street, there a new shop selling "glassware". Is anything going on with the new Phoenix building? It still looks rather empty to me.

Part of the Phoenix building is taken up by PT360, a physical therapy office.

http://www.pt360.net/about-the-clinic/

I think there is a massage place there as well, that helps with some of the physical therapy stuff.

Edited June 21, 2010 by fotoman311

[joeDowntown]

Speaking of the Bazzani (Phoenix Building), is anything going on with the proposed building on Lake Dr.? I thought they were going for a special use permit for a veterinarian's office. Any new news?

Joe

[Nitro]

Dead

Speaking of the Bazzani (Phoenix Building), is anything going on with the proposed building on Lake Dr.? I thought they were going for a special use permit for a veterinarian's office. Any new news?

Joe

[uncus]

Dead

Why?

[mgreven]

Dead? That makes me very sad. I hope something replaces that 5/3 building.

[zenstyle]

So, insiders, what is going to happen with the old fifth/third site? Surely something's going in there.

[Nitro]

Why do all developments die in this day and age? Access to reasonable capital and lack of tenants.

Why?

[x99]

This one needed to die a swift death. The apartments were grossly overpriced with inadequate parking. Richard Terrace is already a parking nightmare, and with only 1.5 spots per 2 bedroom apartment, this development threatened to turn a bad situation into something entirely unmanageable. It's a fairly narrow street with a restaurant at one end, and multiple unit rentals with minimal off-street parking. The whole concept of a "terrace" was to cram lots of really big houses onto really narrow lots. There were never many areas like this developed in Grand Rapids, and when they become rental splits, the problems multiply like wildfire. Similar problems exist on the terraces in the north end of Heritage Hill. Here, Carlton could have handled some of the excess, but not much.

I'm not normally one to angle for more parking lots, but when it's a new building on a bulldozer site, I don't have a lot of sympathy. Bazzani has done a lot of great things for Eastown, but this project wasn't going to be one of them.

That said, much of it probably wasn't his fault. The city has ridiculous requirements for lawn area in the City Code which are more suited to the 'burbs than a dense urban environment. Putting in off street parking for a typical existing two family or a new multifamily development is a pain in the neck because the city wants insane amounts of grass planted everywhere. They've zoned and written a code for the suburban environment with sprawling lots they want, not the urban environment they have. If they were pushing for green space on this project, which I suspect, it could easily have killed the necessary unit density to make the project feasible. Lack of tenants would not be a problem in this area.

Why do all developments die in this day and age? Access to reasonable capital and lack of tenants.

Edited July 16, 2010 by x99

[Nitro]

This one needed to die a swift death. The apartments were grossly overpriced with inadequate parking.

I'm not normally one to angle for more parking lots, but when it's a new building on a bulldozer site, I don't have a lot of sympathy. Bazzani has done a lot of great things for Eastown, but this project wasn't going to be one of them.

That said, much of it probably wasn't his fault. The city has ridiculous requirements for lawn area in the City Code which are more suited to the 'burbs than a dense urban environment. Putting in off street parking for a typical existing two family or a new multifamily development is a pain in the neck because the city wants insane amounts of grass planted everywhere. They've zoned and written a code for the suburban environment with sprawling lots they want, not the urban environment they have. If they were pushing for green space on this project, which I suspect, it could easily have killed the necessary unit density to make the project feasible. Lack of tenants would not be a problem in this area.

Funny, I don't remember ever seeing any figures on rental rates for these apartments. Not sure how you figure they were "grossly overpriced", considering you have no idea what the level of finish was going to be. As far as the parking issue, it met the zoning code at three stories and when the project was cut back to two stories the size of the parking lot didn't change thus making the parking ratio that much better. In fact, despite your musings this project met so much of the zoning code it didn't even require planning commission approval. It was staff approved.

Bazzani has done a lot of great things for the area. And I'm sure you'll agree that the vacant bank site is much better for the area than fresh urban redevelopment bringing that much more new investment into the area. Yeah, I'm right with ya.

[joeDowntown]

joeDowntown Likes this comment.

Bazzani has done a lot of great things for the area. And I'm sure you'll agree that the vacant bank site is much better for the area than fresh urban redevelopment bringing that much more new investment into the area. Yeah, I'm right with ya.

[x99]

From what I was told, it was going to be $1000 or more for a two unit, and parking was going to be less than one spot per unit. If that isn't accurate, I would happily stand corrected. What zoning doesn't see is that the 5/3 lot is used by Bombay Cuisine for parking, and unless Carlton can accommodate a lot of cars, there is no on street parking left to use. As an alternative, perhaps Uptown Ministries could be talked out of one of its empty lots, unless they're just being held for ransom. Even on Sunday they sit empty. That spot on Wealthy could be turned into a great mixed-use development with plenty of resident AND church parking on the Atlas lot.

Funny, I don't remember ever seeing any figures on rental rates for these apartments. Not sure how you figure they were "grossly overpriced", considering you have no idea what the level of finish was going to be. As far as the parking issue, it met the zoning code at three stories and when the project was cut back to two stories the size of the parking lot didn't change thus making the parking ratio that much better. In fact, despite your musings this project met so much of the zoning code it didn't even require planning commission approval. It was staff approved.

Bazzani has done a lot of great things for the area. And I'm sure you'll agree that the vacant bank site is much better for the area than fresh urban redevelopment bringing that much more new investment into the area. Yeah, I'm right with ya.

[AlexPKeaton]

Who says "adequate" parking is a good thing? All the best urban neighborhoods have a severe lack of it, and they're better for it.

[Ted]

From what I was told, it was going to be $1000 or more for a two unit, and parking was going to be less than one spot per unit. If that isn't accurate, I would happily stand corrected. What zoning doesn't see is that the 5/3 lot is used by Bombay Cuisine for parking, and unless Carlton can accommodate a lot of cars, there is no on street parking left to use. As an alternative, perhaps Uptown Ministries could be talked out of one of its empty lots, unless they're just being held for ransom. Even on Sunday they sit empty. That spot on Wealthy could be turned into a great mixed-use development with plenty of resident AND church parking on the Atlas lot.

Current City of GR Zoning doesn't require a parking space for every bedroom - nor should it. There will never be enough parking. Stop worrying about parking and ride your bike.

[grbrit]

Current City of GR Zoning doesn't require a parking space for every bedroom - nor should it. There will never be enough parking. Stop worrying about parking and ride your bike.

Even someone who rides their bike to work every day is entitled to own a car for those necessary out-of-town trips, and they have to park it somewhere.

[andrew.w]

Even someone who rides their bike to work every day is entitled to own a car for those necessary out-of-town trips, and they have to park it somewhere.

At least in the absence of a transit system. Though when you think about it, a car that is only driven occasionally is still rather wasteful: in that it takes up a lot of space, (may have) cost a lot of money, and took a lot of resources to make for the little use it gets.

[walker]

At least in the absence of a transit system. Though when you think about it, a car that is only driven occasionally is still rather wasteful: in that it takes up a lot of space, (may have) cost a lot of money, and took a lot of resources to make for the little use it gets.

But if we had a zipcar type car share system available then that big fixed annual cost of having a car along with having to have a parking space would go away. Maybe when the Rapid is looking around for alternate ways of spending their money, they might want to look at subsidizing a zipcar franchise. It seems to me one of the things that holds back public transit is that most people around here need to buy a car anyway for where the bus doesn't go. So once they make that purchase, the mariginal cost of any trip isn't anymore expensive in a car than in a bus and you don't need to wait on a corner. But zipcar would make that need for a car for those occassional trips go away.

zipcar wikipedia

Edited July 22, 2010 by walker

[AlexPKeaton]

Even someone who rides their bike to work every day is entitled to own a car for those necessary out-of-town trips, and they have to park it somewhere.

I disagree. Parking costs money, and you're not entitled to a parking space, though you're free to pay for one. You can choose to live somewhere with more/cheaper parking if it's important to you.

Also, it would be silly to require a space for every bedroom. If you assume 2 and 3 bedroom apartments will contain children who don't drive then the extra spaces just aren't needed.

Edited July 22, 2010 by AlexPKeaton

[Ted]

Even someone who rides their bike to work every day is entitled to own a car for those necessary out-of-town trips, and they have to park it somewhere.

Nobody is 'entitled' to a car. And, certainly, nobody has a right or an entitlement to store it on public streets.

[grbrit]

Nobody is 'entitled' to a car. And, certainly, nobody has a right or an entitlement to store it on public streets.

That's as ridiculous as saying nobody is entitled to drive on public streets. I see I'm not going to get any sense out of you, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[gvsusean]

That's as ridiculous as saying nobody is entitled to drive on public streets. I see I'm not going to get any sense out of you, but you're entitled to your opinion.

actually thats a terrible comparison.... Entitlement means granted by law, and last I checked there are no laws granting each person a car... However, living in GR almost requires a person to own a car. Maybe one car spot per residence as opposed to one spot per room?

[Ted]

That's as ridiculous as saying nobody is entitled to drive on public streets. I see I'm not going to get any sense out of you, but you're entitled to your opinion.

That's not an equivalence and it's not the case in point. And, whether you agree with it or not, my original statement was a statement in fact not a statement of opinion.

[GRDadof3]

That's not an equivalence and it's not the case in point. And, whether you agree with it or not, my original statement was a statement in fact not a statement of opinion.

Actually, I would say that for much of the country, there is now an inherent "right" to own a car (I know it's not a "right" now but a privilege granted by the State). I'm guessing a big chunk of the country would be unable to access food, healthcare, and employment without the use of a car, especially since more than 1/2 the country now lives in suburban/exurban areas not served by transit.

So in a way, grbrit is right.

[Ted]

Actually, I would say that for much of the country, there is now an inherent "right" to own a car (I know it's not a "right" now but a privilege granted by the State). I'm guessing a big chunk of the country would be unable to access food, healthcare, and employment without the use of a car, especially since more than 1/2 the country now lives in suburban/exurban areas not served by transit.

So in a way, grbrit is right.

As a matter of opinion, I disagree. As a matter of custom, you're correct, that is the way the country has been designed. That doesn't make it right. And, that doesn't make it a Right. And, that certainly doesn't mean that the 5/3 site shouldn't be built on because of the parking impact to the neighborhood.

[AlexPKeaton]

Actually, I would say that for much of the country, there is now an inherent "right" to own a car (I know it's not a "right" now but a privilege granted by the State). I'm guessing a big chunk of the country would be unable to access food, healthcare, and employment without the use of a car, especially since more than 1/2 the country now lives in suburban/exurban areas not served by transit.

So in a way, grbrit is right.

In this case we're talking about a walkable urban neighborhood. I'm sure most residents will still want a car, and this development would have accommodated them. But to require more more parking than necessary only serves to suburbanify the city. If we want to move toward a more dense, transit-oriented city, we have to stop building acres of empty parking lots (which are usually required by regulations, not from free-market demand).

[Veloise]

From what I was told, it was going to be $1000 or more for a two unit, and parking was going to be less than one spot per unit. If that isn't accurate, I would happily stand corrected. What zoning doesn't see is that the 5/3 lot is used by Bombay Cuisine for parking, and unless Carlton can accommodate a lot of cars, there is no on street parking left to use. As an alternative, perhaps Uptown Ministries could be talked out of one of its empty lots, unless they're just being held for ransom. Even on Sunday they sit empty. That spot on Wealthy could be turned into a great mixed-use development with plenty of resident AND church parking on the Atlas lot.

In the downtown skyscraper zoning district (my copy of the zoning ordinance is downstairs), there are no requirements for parking. And it's very typical to contract with the owner of a nearby lot or structure for shared spaces.

A parcel's owner should not be expected to continuously provide for rogue uses by whoever feels like it. (See the westside thread where the neighbors pushed back, "our children play on this vacant lot.")