The Grand River?! You mean GR has a River?

[blueradon]

Oh that is just ridiculous

Unless they are predicting an upcoming winter storm/ice jam?

[Rhino6885]

Just last week (I think), the water was up over the walkway. Maybe that has something to do with it???

[Eridony]

Just last week (I think), the water was up over the walkway. Maybe that has something to do with it???

I see, maybe it does, but it wasn't that way this weekend so hopefully they'll open it up soon.

[Gorath]

There are a couple of planks/boards, whatever you call them, missing from the boardwalk. But this was a week ago and I haven’t been by to see if they had put them back yet. “Spring” in this case must mean; opens when they spring for buying new boards. <grins>

Edited May 5, 2008 by Gorath

[Raildudes dad]

I had frost on the car a couple mornings last week, that means it's still below freezing at night

[Gorath]

The boardwalk was open yesterday (May 15). The gate at the Marriott was still closed but you could walk from Devos Place all the way to Plaza Towers. Will they open the gate at the Marriott or will they keep it closed to keep us

[GRDadof3]

I believe the Grand River was the most talked about topic at the GGR public forums, so I'll bump this thread for people to read/add to.

[GR Jackson]

Was the river historically a center for industry? Are there any lingering problems with the areas around it as far as pollution and clean-up?

[kquick]

Ouch! It didn't seem like "history" at the time. I guess I am getting older.

Actually I was involved with this effort to "save" the river and apparantly felt the experience worthy of saving the booklet.

You know, its probably not a bad idea to realize that one day the stuff you're involved in today may be interesting history. If you think it may have value later, save it.

I am very interested in this and would like to talk with you ore about it, civitas. I'm a PhD student looking at planning issues in Grand Rapids, including Green Grand Rapids. If you'd be willing to share your insights about this, please drop me a line at [email protected]. I love the comic book!

[avanelsacker]

FYI

Potential Kayak Course on Grand River

A special study will explore opportunities to enhance the recreational use of the Grand River, through the addition of boating access sites, creation of a kayak course and improvements to fisheries. From Green Grand Rapids meetings and discussions with City staff, the potential of a kayak course on the Grand River has been narrowed to four choices:

[fotoman311]

FYI

Potential Kayak Course on Grand River

A special study will explore opportunities to enhance the recreational use of the Grand River, through the addition of boating access sites, creation of a kayak course and improvements to fisheries. From Green Grand Rapids meetings and discussions with City staff, the potential of a kayak course on the Grand River has been narrowed to four choices:

[GRDadof3]

How was the Kayaking discussion? Had a daughter's birthday to attend to.

[avanelsacker]

How was the Kayaking discussion? Had a daughter's birthday to attend to.

The Kayak discussion went really well- We had over 60 community members there, which is great!

There seemed to be a lot of really good conversation going on... I will be posting information/results collected at the meeting on www.greengrandrapids.us in the near future! Look under "Grand River"

[Quercus]

I was at the meeting mostly out of curiosity but also as an individual who goes kayaking a few times a year. I thought it was very informative and productive. Apparently the 4th street dam is sea lamprey-proof (they're not good jumpers) and has been successful in preventing them from moving farther upstream. The dam has quite a bit of heavy metal build up behind it, much of it from former tanneries.

Before I went I'd say I was a supporter of a design that completely removes the 4th street dam, but having attended I see the cost ($5-$20 million), environmental risk (heavy metals), and upstream consequences are just too great. Removal of the dam could drastically lower upstream water levels and potentially ruin activities like crew practice and competition at Riverside Park--a location that supposedly has the perfect mix of conditions to be "nationally recognized"--and also compromise the structural integrity of the concrete river walls.

In the end I think most participants wanted to see some way for people to go over or around the dam with ease. Personally I'd like to see a series of "stairs" integrated with the 4th street dam, but there are a number of options and I look forward to seeing what city officials come up with over the next few months.

[fotoman311]

I was at the meeting mostly out of curiosity but also as an individual who goes kayaking a few times a year. I thought it was very informative and productive. Apparently the 4th street dam is sea lamprey-proof (they're not good jumpers) and has been successful in preventing them from moving farther upstream. The dam has quite a bit of heavy metal build up behind it, much of it from former tanneries.

Before I went I'd say I was a supporter of a design that completely removes the 4th street dam, but having attended I see the cost ($5-$20 million), environmental risk (heavy metals), and upstream consequences are just too great. Removal of the dam could drastically lower upstream water levels and potentially ruin activities like crew practice and competition at Riverside Park--a location that supposedly has the perfect mix of conditions to be "nationally recognized"--and also compromise the structural integrity of the concrete river walls.

In the end I think most participants wanted to see some way for people to go over or around the dam with ease. Personally I'd like to see a series of "stairs" integrated with the 4th street dam, but there are a number of options and I look forward to seeing what city officials come up with over the next few months.

You pretty much just said everything that I was going to say. I'm not an avid kayaker, but I did a fair amount of flat water kayaking one year when I worked for an Americorps program in upstate NY doing outdoor education programs. If we had this nearby, I would probably do a day rental two or three times a year and possibly consider purchasing my own.

I walked away with a pretty positive overall feeling about the whole thing. I, like you would like to see some sort of in-channel "diversion" course around the fourth street dam, possibly integrating some more advanced challenges, but, also a way to bypass that (either in the river or downstream) and have some more beginner to intermediate rapids installed through the main downtown stretch. This would allow guided tours to put in somewhere upstream, perhaps around Alaska on the Thornapple River, and go all the way down to Grandville or beyond. This would mean the vehicle picking them up would go about half the distance of the people on the river to pick them up, mostly on M-6.

Also, weren't the rumors of the "world famous" planner that was brought in by DeVos to redo the section along the river by the hotels to make better use of it for restaurants, etc. Having people on that section of the river would make it more interesting to watch.

Edited January 16, 2009 by fotoman311

[GRDadof3]

Maybe it's the perfect opportunity to re-purpose this parking lot:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/MR-HEART...mp;hl=heartwell

[fotoman311]

Maybe it's the perfect opportunity to re-purpose this parking lot:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/MR-HEART...mp;hl=heartwell

That was my thought when it was mentioned on our handouts that the "diversion" plan through sixth street park would eliminate green space. I suggested we could keep the green space and get rid of the asphault. I was told by the facilitator in our small group that this would increase the cost and some of the complexity of the project as one lot is owned by the city, one by the county, and one by a private party. I don't know which lot is owned by whom.

[GRDadof3]

That was my thought when it was mentioned on our handouts that the "diversion" plan through sixth street park would eliminate green space. I suggested we could keep the green space and get rid of the asphault. I was told by the facilitator in our small group that this would increase the cost and some of the complexity of the project as one lot is owned by the city, one by the county, and one by a private party. I don't know which lot is owned by whom.

I think your facilitator was thinking of the wrong lot. 6th St Park, the parking lot and the boat launch are all registered as city-owned. I could see the kayak park bypassing the dam through the park and then going into the river where the boat launch is. And then put a bridge over it for the riverwalk. Make it man-made, but a little more pleasant to look at then South Bend's.

[Raildudes dad]

I think your facilitator was thinking of the wrong lot. 6th St Park, the parking lot and the boat launch are all registered as city-owned. I could see the kayak park bypassing the dam through the park and then going into the river where the boat launch is. And then put a bridge over it for the riverwalk. Make it man-made, but a little more pleasant to look at then South Bend's.

Consumers owns the substation directly south of the park , then it's the Press, the County of Kent, the Press and the County of Kent again in that order for the parcels down to the freeway. I'm guessing they would want the downstream "entry" to the river further away from the dam and the "undertow" at the face of the dam.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Raildudes dad

[GRDadof3]

Consumers owns the substation directly south of the park , then it's the Press, the County of Kent, the Press and the County of Kent again in that order for the parcels down to the freeway. I'm guessing they would want the downstream "entry" to the river further away from the dam and the "undertow" at the face of the dam.

That would definitely make for a longer and more exciting kayak run if they were able to assemble all those parcels and make a greenspace with the kayak park running through it.

[Quercus]

Consumers owns the substation directly south of the park , then it's the Press, the County of Kent, the Press and the County of Kent again in that order for the parcels down to the freeway. I'm guessing they would want the downstream "entry" to the river further away from the dam and the "undertow" at the face of the dam.

The substation and any associated infrastructure underneath the green space is a big concern. If necessary it can be moved, but at this point the costs of such an endeavor are unknown. In all likelihood the process would have a large price tag.

You're right about the entry near the dam; several problems/questions were raised: would people want to loop around and do the kayak/canoe run again and if so, would they become a nuisance to fishermen and/or be in danger of getting stuck in the whirlpools that form near the dam.

[avanelsacker]

Green Gathering: Actions is Wednesday, May 13, 2009 at Harrison Park Elementary School from 6:30 to 8:30pm. Please park and use the Muskegon Street entrance.

Plan conecpts that capture the public's input will begin to create a vision for what an implemented plan would look like. Five special study areas, including the Grand River, Butterworth Landfill, 201 Market, Joe Taylor Park, and Ball-Perkins Park will integrate the community's ideas into a series of achievable plans. Citizens will be asked to identify partnering opportunities and funding strategies and to prioritize the City's work plan.

If you are unable to attend Green Gathering: Actions, please look for our "Actions Priorities" survey at www.greengrandrapids.us

[joeDowntown]

Just read the "Grand River Whitewater Park Preferred Alternative" plan (very impressive study):

http://grandrapidswhitewater.com/whitewate...ed-alternative/

I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention. There is a plethora of information in the document. GRDad drew up a pretty accurate path of choice 2. Here are the "choices":

Choice 1 - Enhance Rapids Downstream of 4th Street Dam

Choice 2 - Diversion Channel Parallel to River

Choice 3 - Partial Removal of Dam

Choice 4 - Remove Entire Dam and Replace with Constructed Rapids

I personally like choice 2 and 3 the best.

For inspiration, check out Confluence Park in Denver: http://grandrapidswhitewater.com/whitewater/urban-nirvana/

Looks like the cost is about $2.3 million. How do we get this done? What do y'all think?

Joe

[GRDadof3]

Just read the "Grand River Whitewater Park Preferred Alternative" plan (very impressive study):

http://grandrapidswhitewater.com/whitewate...ed-alternative/

I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention. There is a plethora of information in the document. GRDad drew up a pretty accurate path of choice 2. Here are the "choices":

Choice 1 - Enhance Rapids Downstream of 4th Street Dam

Choice 2 - Diversion Channel Parallel to River

Choice 3 - Partial Removal of Dam

Choice 4 - Remove Entire Dam and Replace with Constructed Rapids

I personally like choice 2 and 3 the best.

For inspiration, check out Confluence Park in Denver: http://grandrapidswhitewater.com/whitewater/urban-nirvana/

Looks like the cost is about $2.3 million. How do we get this done? What do y'all think?

Joe

I think it's awesome, and I can't believe it's only $2.3 Million (seriously). I was led to believe that the bottom of the river was beyond repair and would cost $Hundreds of Millions to clean up the toxic sludge and make any changes. Apparently not. I'm not a "rapids" kayaker, but I too like the option of decreasing the size of the dam. I also like the idea of livening up the area near Devos Place. It's a long (but good) read.

Then we can reintroduce this idea of suspending a bridge under 196 for spectators:

[d8alterego]

Wouldn't it be a problem for boaters launching their boats if there are artificial rapids right off the launch?