Medical Mile/Michigan Street Developments

[GR_Urbanist]

Dusting off this thread for this bit of news.

Obligatory Mlive link. You've been warned!!!     http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2013/10/starbucks_drive-thru_proposed.html#incart_river_default

Ok. The building that stands there now is a two-story commercial building with 3? two-story rentals behind it fronting Sinclair. The plans by the Martha's Vineyard folks calls for all of this to be cleared out for a...wait for it....a drive-thru Starbucks! Not only a drive-thru Starbucks, but one with no indoor seating and another curve-cut just inches from the one for McDonald's! Also the "building" will be a single-story runt hut kicked back from the street so that the drive-thru can ring around the front of the building. Yes there is also a parking lot. 

 

Now the buildings that are there now are rundown badly. I get that. I also do not care that it is a Starbucks even though there are already multiple places within yards of this location to get coffee and a bagel. My biggest issue is that the plans for this...

 

http://grcity.us/design-and-development-services/Planning-Department/PlanningCommission/PC_EPACKET_10_10_13.pdf

 

are literally straight out of something that would be built out on a suburban strip. I realize that the Martha's people are a bit cocky and tone-deaf to any principals of building in a city, but even I didnt think they would be THIS audacious. There is nothing here that would even hint at trying to think out of the box. No unique materials, no massing the building at the street with the drive-thru behind it, with maybe the exit connecting to McDonalds where they could perhaps share a common exit to that unnamed road directly to the west, and thus preserve the street wall. This is literally the laziest load of garbage in terms of urban building you could have put before the city.

 

And from the fact that they are asking for so many variances, it literally repeals almost the entire zoning code for this location. I thought it was a joke seeing what will have to be waived for this thing to be built.

 

 

Now if they did something like this:

 

 

Right AT the sidewalk, with a modest in height "green wall" at the corner of Michigan and Sinclair that ran down Sinclair part of the way and a short distance on Michigan...

 

 

And had a nice outdoor sitting area behind the wall, then I would think it would be a nice looking place! You wont even need a parking lot for customers because Sinclair has more than enough free on-street parking on both sides because it has no traffic.

 

It took me 5 minutes to think of that. These guys could only come up with "Oooga! Me wreck building. Build drive through Starbucks! Make it look like one in suburbs!"

 

I am so glad I still boycott Martha's I'd hate to think something I bought is helping pay for stupidity like this!

Edited October 8, 2013 by GR_Urbanist

[mpchicago]

GR_Urbanist, I agree with pretty much everything you are saying, but a few point of clarity.  They do have a walk up window with a path to the sidewalk, with some outdoor seating.  There is no public parking on the premises.  Parking is for employee’s only.  I love the idea of the live wall, and the containers are fun!  Hopefully the City planning folks will work to make this more palatable.

[GRDadof3]

I don't know, shipping containers on Michigan St? Here are the plans. I don't understand the need for a turnaround drive though. You forget your change, jump out and run back.

 

The plan needs a lot of work...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jippy]

Agreed, the list of variances required is nearly 2 pages long. This is completely contrary to what is adopted in in the zoning code and the recently completed Michigan Corridor plan. Approving this would set the city in for a generation of disappointment along Michigan Ave. How do you allow this crap and none of the other ones that will undoubtedly follow? At some point McDonalds will desire to redo their building and this would essentially guarantee that it will have the same suburban site plan. Nearly all major cities ban or require urban setbacks for drive-thrus in urban areas. This Starbucks, and Michigan Ave generally, should be no different.

By approving this site plan, the city is essentially stating that urban development shall cease at the western edge of McDonalds and let the suburban crap reign all parts east. 

 

I have had it with Martha's Vineyard. One successful and one failed attempt to tear down buildings around their existing building and now this? I mean this is honestly 1960s urban renewal all over again. Compare this to say the Wealthy Street bakery owners who are are successful at respecting the historic nature of the buildings they buy. 

[terra firma]

I'd like to chime in here, since i am the developer on this one.   No doubt you've been by the site.   My portion of it (the nasty, vacant apartments) and Kameel's site (the long-vacant office bldg) are way too far gone for any hope of renovation.  I think everyone agrees on that.  I stopped renewing Leases in the apartments on 2011 due to life-safety concerns.  These buildings are done.  I say this as a renovation guy who has done many projects in DT Grand Rapids which some of you are familiar with.

 

Our project is not being built of recycled shipping containers as suggested above.   That idea was abandoned in favor of a LEED-certified structure that has natural materials and is very cool (check the sample pic in post #2861 above).

 

Yes, there is outdoor seating and a walk up window.  There is simply not enough land here for a large indoor seating area (or a multi-story mixed use development as suggested elsewhere).   We are quite limited by the fact our sites (combined) total about 0.24 acres.  After many years of searching for a re-development concept for this challenging site, we've found one that works and fits the neighborhood.

 

We're a bit trapped here with a McDonalds (that isn't going away) a power station (not going away) and a street (not going away).  Under the circumstances, this redevelopment plan should be welcomed as the best possible option, a great retail service to the neighborhood, the elimination of four derelict structures and a productive neighborhood investment driving new jobs and tax base.

 

This site has always been a fun source of debate, including many past renovations of my own, I respect the variation in opinions here and  glad to see so much progress in our 'hood !

 

eric wynsma

terra firma development, llc

[wingbert]

No space is too small if you use some creative thinking...

 

http://flavorwire.com/331546/7-innovative-buildings-designed-to-fit-tight-urban-spaces/

 

[GR_Urbanist]

The "shipping container" Starbucks is not meant to be a literal idea, it is meant to be illustrative of what a little imagination can accomplish instead of going for the soultion centered on the quickest way to circle cars around and out.

 

This is basically a small building in the middle of a car loop. It completely ignores the street after demolishing deleric structures that are more urban in their configuration than this new Starbucks would be. What is even the point of the outdoor seating? Who in their right mind would want to sit surrounded by exhaust fumes?

 

LEED certifying this is just green-washing an auto-centric, 28th street style joke.

 

And what neighborhood is be progressed by this? It seems like yet another developer trying to suburbanize Michigan street in order to make a cheap buck to cater to the 9-5ers that couldn't care less about the place after they jump on the highway back to Ada or Rockford.

 

Also, yes, it's a small site, but so what? There was a Subway on the west side that had a drive-through and it actually fit into the existing streetscape. A former Old Kent Bank branch just west of the GVSU medical school has the drive-through still clearly visible, and that building was also a zero-setback structure from back when it wasnt even expected that they should. Even the Bagel Beanery a few yards away fit one in!

 

There simply has to be a better soultion here instead of a structure that needs a fistfull of variances in order to be built.

 

[Jippy]

Gr_Urbanist, spot on.  I would also add that the Orion development on Wealthy Street is nearly the same 0.24 acres than the proposed with quite a different outcome. 

 

Mr Developer, I appreciate you chiming in on this forum, but the fact of the matter the proposed is a very low risk, low creativity attempt to capitalize on the billions of dollars in urban development on the Hill. You could find the same success by plopping a drive-thru on Michigan Ave in downtown Chicago. Sure it will be commercially successful, but it fails in your civic duty as a developer to build up a neighborhood, rather than ride the coat tales of others. I have never seen a request for so many variances for such a sub-par outcome.  I really would encourage you to go back to the drawing boards. Lastly, Sinclair Avenue serves no purpose at this point. Access to all other adjacent parcels can be achieved via other streets less the sub-station. Request the City to abandon the road in exchange for a more urban development and preserve a cross-access easement for Consumers. Heck, you could then reach out to MSU, who owns all the parcels immediately to the east and explore joint venture projects for something that better fits the vision of the community. 

[Jippy]

I enjoy the irony that Mlive is covering another development that espouses the community's vision:

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2013/10/hall_street_bakery_will_open_i.html#incart_river_default

 

And done on a parcel 9000 square feet. 1500 square feet less than the .24 acre with the proposes Starbuck site. 

Edited October 9, 2013 by Jippy

[joeDowntown]

Again, why so much negativity? It's a tiny footprint wedged between McDonald's and nothing much. I'm all for jumping on the wrecking ball to save a viable building but these apartments are horrible. 

 

I'm glad Eric weighed in. He's the same guy who helped redevelop Brassworks, re-skinned the building Mojo's is in, renovated the "Icehouse" (ICCF building) (Eg. he's not a slash and burn developer from some other city). 

 

What would you nay sayers propose for this space? Market rate apartments? Good luck. An office building? Doubtful? 

 

It seems like a good solution for a space that might otherwise go unused (or just continue to go downhill).

 

GR_urbanist- Are you really going to use the Old Kent Bank building (vacant for a reason) or Bagel Beanery (renovated gas station which has what can *barely* be called a drive thru) as fine examples of non-suburban development? 

 

And Jippy, what skin do you have in the downtown game? Enough said. 

 

Get real people. It's good to hold developers accountable to a high standard, but this is not a proposal to knock down a irreplaceable architectural treasure. It's a couple of sh*tty, non-tax generating buildings on a street FULL of drive-thru's and chains. I don't get where the hate is coming from?

 

Joe

[GRDadof3]

I have to say the proposed plans are pretty bad. I understand the site is tight, but even I didn't think the proposal would be this lousy looking. It reminds me of that little drive-through building by GVSU's Allendale campus that has had 20 different companies in it. Do any projects like those survive?

[Veloise]

...

I'm glad Eric weighed in. He's the same guy who helped redevelop Brassworks, re-skinned the building Mojo's is in, renovated the "Icehouse"

(ICCF building) ...

GRCF (GR Community Foundation).

 

[walker]

While I agree this Starbucks proposal isn’t great, hasn’t the ship already sailed on Michigan Street as far as walkability and good urban aesthetics is concerned?  Seems to me the powers that be were remiss in not checking with urban planeteers first before they went ahead and put up their auto-centric towers and parking ramps.  I doubt in the scheme of things it will hardly make a difference if there is a drive-thru Starbucks there next to the McDonalds or a small clever sidewalk hugging multistory apartment building.  

Edited October 10, 2013 by walker

[arcturus]

Good point.  The idealist would point to one structure as transformative to the destiny of the remaining area, the pragmatist would say it's better than nothing (or before) with little impact.  I believe it's a mixture:  the area is improving but not to the degree desired.

[Jippy]

@GR_Urbanist  Enough said? Last time I counted, I have managed, planned, financed or developed over $750 million in projects, so I would hardly disqualify my input as lacking skin. Your pedestrian insults really belong in MLive's comment section next to "If you don't like it, then move!"   

 

I am also glad that Eric weighed in, but gosh, the whole point of this blog is to discuss the quality of development. If the rule is we are only allowed the sing holy praises at every development, then we might as well shut this forum down. I certainly enjoy the discussions of any and all developments, because ultimately it should elevate everyone's knowledge and hopefully elevate the quality of development in GR. 

 

This site certainly is a difficult site to develop, but you fail to recognize the precedent that it sets. It becomes that much more difficult to say no to anyone else that does not meet the zoning requirements established for the corridor. The proposed is an auto-oriented use in an urban area that forgoes long-term maximum returns for short-term profit. At minimum, the building should be pulled to the street and include indoor seating areas where outdoor seating is proposed. What good does outdoor seating do for 9 months out of the year? This project is more appropriate for 28th Street or Byron Center.

[joeDowntown]

It was me, not GR_Urbanist. And I've been moderating this board for years, keeping this place up so it *DOESN'T* turn into Mlive.

 

If you've financed or developed over $750 million in projects, then bravo; my mistake. But your whole message came off as snide and condescending. Look back at your message. If you don't think it fell into a somewhat typical Mlive/Salon-esque response, then we'll just agree to disagree. 

 

Joe

 

 

@GR_Urbanist  Enough said? Last time I counted, I have managed, planned, financed or developed over $750 million in projects, so I would hardly disqualify my input as lacking skin. Your pedestrian insults really belong in MLive's comment section next to "If you don't like it, then move!"   

 

[GR8scott]

To kind of weighing in on several comment/ideas here..... Its nice to read insight from the developer and I agree the current buildings may not be worth rehabbing and there is not a lot of room to work with BUT they are simply replacing what looks like (3) two-story residential rowhouses AND a two story corner commercial property with a single unit single story starbucks that I am sure would do a lot of business. It really does seem like short sighted vision for a fast buck even if it has "quality" design aspects like LEED and walkup window/seating.

 

At the very least, why can the current structures be torn down and replaced with a similar two story mixed use starbicks on the ground floor with a drive through and a (3) unit 2 story townhome structure?

Or even better, a ground floor starbucks drive through, a couple floors of offices on top and dare-I-say 10ish story apartment/condo building behind it? 

Or best....a large scale redevelopment of that area. The developer said that Mc donalds was not going anywhere, the substations not going anywhere and Sinclair Ave is not going anywhere. Why not? What if GVSU built a parking ramp/office building along the highway, McD's and Starbucks get a denser street front drive throughs, the substation is relocated. Sinclair Ave is eliminated, that leaves plenty of room for a lot more street front retail, with offices and residential behind and above. 

 

Obviously a larger development is costly but it will no doubt create a lot more jobs, residents?, increase property values a lot more in that area and have a much more positive long term effect on the community than a single starbucks slapped in there replacing a larger building and residential units. 

 

Bottom line is this thread is about the "Medical Mile" and all the exciting possibilities there. Theres great opportunity for a lot of new development and I hope theres greater master planning involved so theres not a discombobulated hodgepodge of nice new buildings that dont add any density, and community vibrancy as well as simply more jobs and residents which is what we all probably want. 

[Jippy]

My badGR-Urbanist

 

It was me, not GR_Urbanist. And I've been moderating this board for years, keeping this place up so it *DOESN'T* turn into Mlive.

 

If you've financed or developed over $750 million in projects, then bravo; my mistake. But your whole message came off as snide and condescending. Look back at your message. If you don't think it fell into a somewhat typical Mlive/Salon-esque response, then we'll just agree to disagree. 

 

Joe

[mpchicago]

GR Planning Commission:  NO GO: 

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2013/10/drive-thru_starbucks_on_medica.html#incart_river_default

 

I don't have a problem with the business itself, or the fact that it's even a drive thru, but isn't there another (better) way to do this?

Edited October 10, 2013 by mpchicago

[GR8scott]

GR Planning Commission:  NO GO: 

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2013/10/drive-thru_starbucks_on_medica.html#incart_river_default

 

I don't have a problem with the business itself, or the fact that it's even a drive thru, but isn't there another (better) way to do this?

 

“Putting two bad things next to each other doesn’t make it good,” well said, this is about continuous improvement, not being able to build it because McD's is there with drive through, parking and single story. When it comes time to replace that building (many older McD's are being replaced these days), I would think they would be held to the same standards, which may not even fit their business model and drive them to move locations all together, opening up another wanted property with higher building regulations/standards, all working towards a goal of higher density, 3+ stories ect. 

[GR_Urbanist]

  @Jippy

Not at all sure what happened, but no worries.

 

...

 

What the developer doesn't realize is that McDonalds has been grandfathered in. It has been there for so long, I remember getting Happy Meals there. The Bagel Beanery has been there forever as well, and it gets a pass because it is a renovated service station, that already was in that configuration.

 

These new standards are very recent and thankfully they are being serious about them. I contend that the developer just needs to a bit more creative with the site and design of the building, and he could get it through. Show that you are at least paying serious respect for the vision they have for Michigan st., and not just say that it's this or it is impossible. No one is trying to save the buildings there, keep out Starbucks, or prevent a drive-through which is actually a rarity if you think about it. And I certainly was not expecting a mid-rise mixed-use complex. People just want quality urbanism, not 28 St. on the hill.

 

Good luck!

[GRDadof3]

I haven't heard one person advocate that the buildings should stay. Not sure why that keeps getting brought up in the discussion, both here and at the City.

[arcturus]

I love how you guys dis 28th St.   If it didn't exist, chances are this urban 'let it rot til hopefully something better comes along in a decade' experiment on Michigan would be dead in its tracks or in far worse shape today.  As someone who lives near 28th I'm seriously considering saying enough is enough and try to convince developers to move some of their bad ideas to Michigan St and shake up some of the elitists up there.  The people near 28th have been dumped on enough.  Maybe it's time other neighborhoods share some of the load.

[terra firma]

What the developer doesn't realize is that McDonalds has been grandfathered in. It has been there for so long, I remember getting Happy Meals there. The Bagel Beanery has been there forever as wel

 

<<<Believe it or not, I realize this.. I'm not a caveman !     I too got happy meals there as a kid.  It was across the road from (then) Calvary Church.  McDonalds can easily replace their bldg within the existing foundation footprint, thus never need to comply with the new rules...>>

[GR_Urbanist]

I love how you guys dis 28th St.   If it didn't exist, chances are this urban 'let it rot til hopefully something better comes along in a decade' experiment on Michigan would be dead in its tracks or in far worse shape today.  As someone who lives near 28th I'm seriously considering saying enough is enough and try to convince developers to move some of their bad ideas to Michigan St and shake up some of the elitists up there.  The people near 28th have been dumped on enough.  Maybe it's time other neighborhoods share some of the load.

 

I just visited my parents today at their home off of 28th street in Wyoming. Since I had to stop at a gas station, I just assumed drive 28th across 131 and into GR. It was the most God-awful experiences! I usually bail before I get to the highway overpass, So I forgot how lousy the traffic and scenery is especially before you get to Division. It's 40 years of suburban fail all around you with no attempt at making it better.

 

There is nothing elitist about seeing that place as a monument to short-sighted cheapness and brainless city planning. Nothing on the people that have to live near it. They aren't the ones that had no plan for the area other than to "pave it over, and hope that it looks ok eventually". And yes, 28th street can easily be replaced with Plainfield, Alpine, parts of E. Beltline and S. Division, eventually Rivertown Pky at some point too.

 

Do we in GR have a hold-out mentality that sometimes go overboard? Sure. NIMBY's on the west side are kings of that. But it has also helped rebuild large parts of the city into something that Kentwood and Wyoming couldn't pull off in 50 years, and they are paying for it with a built environment that is unsustainable financially and prone to rot due to the money moving further out.

 

And if developers want to come to Michigan St., they will be welcome as long as they realize that what they put out there isnt going to fit over here.