Medical Mile/Michigan Street Developments

[DwntwnGeo]

If this were my construction project. I'd place the crane at the north west corner. That way materials can be staged either on Michigan St. or the cross street. I'm not sure when construction of Spectrum's new lobby is to start. But a second choice would be at the east side of the children's Hospital site so the crane can handle both the children's hospital and the new lobby at the same time.

What are the radius of the other cranes along Michigan? I would want to make sure that none of the other cranes would cross over the existing work areas and adjacent buildings. The last thing we need is to have two cranes colide with each other over Michigan.

[mgreven]

http://vai.oxblue.com/vari/

Well if that isn't the coolest thing ever! Check out the visual calendar...nothing too exciting since it's in it's beginning stages, but this will be cool to look at when they are further along! All these construction cams are very fun!

[superNOVA]

There was originally to be a Phase III if I recall, an office tower to the South. However, this was more of a dream of the architect than the actual committee. So, while the plans may still be out there, they were never officially part of the final plan. As it stands, Phase I and II were the only planned pieces.

I think...

[rleuthueser]

Ok, just to play devil's advocate here:

1) Who here is personally financing these projects? I'm pretty sure that you're all very similar to the guy standing next to your neighbor's new, very expensive car saying to your wife "gosh, I can't believe he didn't get the optional moonroof and I can't believe he settled for a single disk CD player." Why do you drive a specific car? Because that's your budget. It may seem like the major philanthropists in town have a bottomless checking account, but I've got news - it's not that simple.

2) Who would visit a hospital district for the storefronts and benches? Nobody - that's why you walk down Monroe Center for lunch, the park and scenery.

3) I want to see anyone bashing layout - including the skyways, tunnels, and in-house restaurants - walk outside from one building to another between November 1 and June 1 (for the mathematicians, that's 66% of the year). I'll be sure to hand you an extra pair of gloves to keep your keyboard-calloused fingertips warm.

4) The people that are sick and dying in these buildings would love to know that they couldn't be afforded quality ammenitities, interior gardens, and conveniences because the owners had to dress up the outside of the building to appease the healthy public. 1 out 2 people will get cancer. period. I guarantee you or your wife or kids will spend some time on the hill within the next 20 years. And I guarantee you'll love parking right at the doorstep of the hospital, catching dinner at the food court and heading to your hotel room in the building just to the west.

5) Do you have a daughter thinking about med school? How bout a family friend or niece? Now picture her walking down Division Street after a night class. Think she might become a sexual assault statistic? I'm sure she'd enjoy the west elevation of the building while she's glancing over her shoulder and peering into the shadows on the way to her car.

<\end rant>

[GRDadof3]

Ok, just to play devil's advocate here:

1) Who here is personally financing these projects? I'm pretty sure that you're all very similar to the guy standing next to your neighbor's new, very expensive car saying to your wife "gosh, I can't believe he didn't get the optional moonroof and I can't believe he settled for a single disk CD player." Why do you drive a specific car? Because that's your budget. It may seem like the major philanthropists in town have a bottomless checking account, but I've got news - it's not that simple.

2) Who would visit a hospital district for the storefronts and benches? Nobody - that's why you walk down Monroe Center for lunch, the park and scenery.

3) I want to see anyone bashing layout - including the skyways, tunnels, and in-house restaurants - walk outside from one building to another between November 1 and June 1 (for the mathematicians, that's 66% of the year). I'll be sure to hand you an extra pair of gloves to keep your keyboard-calloused fingertips warm.

4) The people that are sick and dying in these buildings would love to know that they couldn't be afforded quality ammenitities, interior gardens, and conveniences because the owners had to dress up the outside of the building to appease the healthy public. 1 out 2 people will get cancer. period. I guarantee you or your wife or kids will spend some time on the hill within the next 20 years. And I guarantee you'll love parking right at the doorstep of the hospital, catching dinner at the food court and heading to your hotel room in the building just to the west.

5) Do you have a daughter thinking about med school? How bout a family friend or niece? Now picture her walking down Division Street after a night class. Think she might become a sexual assault statistic? I'm sure she'd enjoy the west elevation of the building while she's glancing over her shoulder and peering into the shadows on the way to her car.

<\end rant>

See my response to your rant here.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...st&p=742747

There is a city that surrounds Pill Hill, in case anyone cared to notice. The scenario you describe in #5 has been created by the developers of this project because they ignored everyone else in the city surrounding them.

[GRDadof3]

See my response to your rant here.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...st&p=742747

There is a city that surrounds Pill Hill, in case anyone cared to notice. The scenario you describe in #5 has been created by the developers of this project because they ignored everyone else in the city surrounding them.

And you're right, adding glass to the ground floor may have cost them in the hundreds of hundreds of dollars over the concrete/brick combo they have going on. Where to find that kind of money in a $260 Million budget?

[DwntwnGeo]

See my response to your rant here.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...st&p=742747

There is a city that surrounds Pill Hill, in case anyone cared to notice. The scenario you describe in #5 has been created by the developers of this project because they ignored everyone else in the city surrounding them.

Sounds like Pill Hill and the City mix like oil and water.... We should send them, their jobs and their tax base to the burbs. As mentioned in other threads, a nice vacant piece of farmland will be cheaper than downtown. Maybe with the money saved, they can put some more detail into the outside instead of what is inside

[DwntwnGeo]

And you're right, adding glass to the ground floor may have cost them in the hundreds of hundreds of dollars over the concrete/brick combo they have going on. Where to find that kind of money in a $260 Million budget?

Why He!! yes.... We can tack on a couple hundred thousand here for this visual add on for person1 and then we can add another hundred thousand for something person/group2 would like to keep them happy and before you have it you are not a couple hundred thousand over budget, but several million over budget, but that is alright, because we have "families" that will pay for this. We shouldn't ask the City because they are out of money already and to ask the citizens for a tax increase for beautification would just be wrong is person/group3 eyes.... In this world it is just so difficult to keep every person/group happy.

[GRDadof3]

Sounds like Pill Hill and the City mix like oil and water.... We should send them, their jobs and their tax base to the burbs. As mentioned in other threads, a nice vacant piece of farmland will be cheaper than downtown. Maybe with the money saved, they can put some more detail into the outside instead of what is inside

I'm not being sarcastic. That area of downtown has now been pretty much written off to anyone other than the people in the project itself. That is not good urban design. People can line their arguments with all the heart-string pulling statements they want like daughters will be knived and heart patients will go without treatment, but that to me is slimy lawyer applicant talk. We all know it's not true.

No one's asking developers to not build downtown, just be part of the city, not some island in the city. The one thing I do agree with is that there is enough traffic on Michigan to warrant skywalks, but the lack of any ground floor transparency is a joke. No, I don't question my neighbors judgement about buying cars, but hell yes I tell him he can't build a 30' tall concrete wall next to my house, as I'm sure anyone would also share the same sentiment.

And in response to your latest post, there are zoning ordinances for a reason. The requirement is 60%, to which RDV Corporation and Christman Companies were given a pass. Try yourself to get the 60% waived on a project of your own Geo. I doubt you'll get it (and you shouldn't).

Rant not ended.

[torgo]

Yeah, you're right. Only the people financing a project should have any say as to what it looks like.

I'll happily trade the cost of the spire on the Children's hospital and the hamster tubes for some windows and basic respect to urban design. Using this logic, hospitals should just be giant metal boxes sitting on top of parking ramps. Heck, why not pave over a thousand acres in Dorr and put a lovely concrete bunker hospital out there in a sea of parking? That way more money will be spent of medical equipment, thus saving more lives.

Adding windows on the base of these buildings will help to prevent anyone from become a "statistic". Blank walls will not.

Hospitals should not get a free pass from all design standards just because they are hospitals.

Edited April 5, 2007 by torgo

[GRDadof3]

Why He!! yes.... We can tack on a couple hundred thousand here for this visual add on for person1 and then we can add another hundred thousand for something person/group2 would like to keep them happy and before you have it you are not a couple hundred thousand over budget,

No one's asking to approve carpet samples and lighting fixtures, but torgo hit it on the head. The 394' tall spire and Calatrava-esque bridge pretty much negates any argument of "tight working budget" on these projects. Oh, and hiring Vinoly doesn't help the cause either. Even if the projects aren't the same developer, I certainly don't hear any cries from the North side of the street that the South side is overspending on frivolous items like "windows".

It's very clear that they were "self-centered" in the design and didn't take into account any sense of "being part of downtown".

[beergeek]

1) Who here is personally financing these projects?

I am. I've donated and money comes out of my check every pay period as well. So I guess I get to beotch about design, eh?

FWIW, rleuthueser, I agree with you. These boards here are a great source of information, but the constant complaining is starting to annoy me.

[rleuthueser]

See my response to your rant here.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...st&p=742747

There is a city that surrounds Pill Hill, in case anyone cared to notice. The scenario you describe in #5 has been created by the developers of this project because they ignored everyone else in the city surrounding them.

I'm fairly certain that those conditions existed due to complete ghetto conditions downtown that have been driven out by the boom of new facilities and Renaissance Tax rehab projects. I can post some pictures of the needle-filled garbage bags hauled out of the crack dens downtown to allow the high-end residences to be constructed if you'd like. And I don't anticipate the traffic of doctors, students, ill patients and their loved ones creating the menacing environment to which you allude. But maybe I'm missing something...

[GRDadof3]

I'm fairly certain that those conditions existed due to complete ghetto conditions downtown that have been driven out by the boom of new facilities and Renaissance Tax rehab projects. I can post some pictures of the needle-filled garbage bags hauled out of the crack dens downtown to allow the high-end residences to be constructed if you'd like. And I don't anticipate the traffic of doctors, students, ill patients and their loved ones creating the menacing environment to which you allude. But maybe I'm missing something...

You're forgetting about the people who don't go to the med school, who don't work in the hospitals, and who aren't patients there, but who have to travel through that area. By creating the bleak environment around the base of the buildings, you are creating that exact hostile environment for everyone else. That's the point. The traffic you are referring to will be contained to an area 30 - 40' above the street, and as designed, there is no reason for anyone in this complex to go anywhere other than this complex. And if we carry this design standard to every other new building downtown (by granting everyone a variance from the ordinance), there won't be any reason for anyone to live downtown either.

Sorry beergeek, but some of us feel if these mistakes aren't kept at the forefront, they will be repeated ad nauseum for every project to come. And trust me, the criticism is not just being reserved for this forum.

[Captain_Planet]

This is rleuthueser - I couldn't access this site anymore for some reason.

My comments were taken extremely literally and whole-heartedly personal by some members of this forum. I'm not sorry for the comments, but I do apologize for how they were construed. Hopefully when the project is complete it can be looked at as a victory over the old landscape, but used as a learning experience for future work.

Have a great Good Friday and Easter weekend (as well as any other lesser known, equally important holidays that I don't wish to unintentionally exclude). I'm outta here.

[GRDadof3]

This is rleuthueser - I couldn't access this site anymore for some reason.

My comments were taken extremely literally and whole-heartedly personal by some members of this forum. I'm not sorry for the comments, but I do apologize for how they were construed. Hopefully when the project is complete it can be looked at as a victory over the old landscape, but used as a learning experience for future work.

Have a great Good Friday and Easter weekend (as well as any other lesser known, equally important holidays that I don't wish to unintentionally exclude). I'm outta here.

Sorry Captain Planet, that was my fault, and thanks for clearing up the miscommunication. Just because some of us want downtown Grand Rapids to be the best city it can be does not make us "tree huggers". There is a fine art to making an urban area vibrant and inviting, which is not applicable in the suburban environment. And it does not require a tremendous amount more in investment. In fact, by getting rid of the planters and brick detailing on this project, and replacing the blank walls with glass, you're most of the way there.

But most architects and designers know this. I just think they are afraid to hold the line with the client. The client is not always right (I know people will cringe, but it's true).

Peace and I'll drop it for a while.

[Captain_Planet]

What are the radius of the other cranes along Michigan? I would want to make sure that none of the other cranes would cross over the existing work areas and adjacent buildings. The last thing we need is to have two cranes colide with each other over Michigan.

The LHCP Crane is 196'-10" to the tip from the base and will be pulled out approx. August of this year. No word on when Wolverine is planning on putting theirs up, but rest assured that it will be coordinated.

[torgo]

The LHCP Crane is 196'-10" to the tip from the base and will be pulled out approx. August of this year. No word on when Wolverine is planning on putting theirs up, but rest assured that it will be coordinated.

What a great problem we'll have in town. So many cranes! We better be careful they don't crash in to one another! I hope we can continue to have that problem for a long time...

[designcritic]

And in response to your latest post, there are zoning ordinances for a reason. The requirement is 60%, to which RDV Corporation and Christman Companies were given a pass. Try yourself to get the 60% waived on a project of your own Geo. I doubt you'll get it (and you shouldn't).

Rant not ended.

I don't know where you're getting this 60% requirement for parking but you are way off. Please re-read the code to find out what it actually states for parking (it must be screened). There were no "passes" given. Geo would have no problem getting the 60% waived because it doesn't apply to parking. These projects as well as ICON didn't even need a vaiance to do what they did. It is allowed and almost required.

Sorry Captain Planet, that was my fault, and thanks for clearing up the miscommunication. Just because some of us want downtown Grand Rapids to be the best city it can be does not make us "tree huggers". There is a fine art to making an urban area vibrant and inviting, which is not applicable in the suburban environment. And it does not require a tremendous amount more in investment. In fact, by getting rid of the planters and brick detailing on this project, and replacing the blank walls with glass, you're most of the way there.

But most architects and designers know this. I just think they are afraid to hold the line with the client. The client is not always right (I know people will cringe, but it's true).

Peace and I'll drop it for a while.

So let me get this straight. You are advocating getting rid of the planters and detailing that help break down the scale of the building. The planters will greatly soften the transition from sidewalk to ramp and they would be missed if eliminated. The entire concrete parking structure has been given a more detailed look on the south elevation to help with scale and give it a more finished look. There is no visible concrete and instead they used planters, brick, decorative lighting, and louvers. Heck, they should have saved the money on all of that and the glass you request and just left it a concrete parking deck. That way you could see into it and it would be completely inviting. How do you think that would fly? You are advocating replacing a $5sf louver system with a $30sf curtainwall system. Please tell me how that is cheaper? If you need an address to send the check for the cost of the desired improvements let me know.

"Afraid to hold the line with the client" Give me a break. "The client is not always right" They may not be right but for some reason the guy paying the bills seems to have a lot of pull. Unless you are Frank Gehry or a few others the Architect does not get to do whatever he wants. The Architect could "hold the line" and tell the client "he isn't right" and then he can guaranteee that it will be the last project with that client. I think you should go tell your boss (the guy paying the bills) how to run his business. Do you think he will do whatever you want or will he weigh your opinion against many other factors and decide what works best for HIM, HIS business, and HIS money?

I think all of us want the best designed bulding that we can get. But, that is in the eye of the beholder and there are 50 variables other than aesthetics that need to be weighed. If you add one thing you usually need to eliminate something somewhere else. Finding the right balance is very difficult and it is never going to please everyone.

[GRDadof3]

I don't know where you're getting this 60% requirement for parking but you are way off. Please re-read the code to find out what it actually states for parking (it must be screened). There were no "passes" given. Geo would have no problem getting the 60% waived because it doesn't apply to parking. These projects as well as ICON didn't even need a vaiance to do what they did. It is allowed and almost required.

So let me get this straight. You are advocating getting rid of the planters and detailing that help break down the scale of the building. The planters will greatly soften the transition from sidewalk to ramp and they would be missed if eliminated. The entire concrete parking structure has been given a more detailed look on the south elevation to help with scale and give it a more finished look. There is no visible concrete and instead they used planters, brick, decorative lighting, and louvers. Heck, they should have saved the money on all of that and the glass you request and just left it a concrete parking deck. That way you could see into it and it would be completely inviting. How do you think that would fly? You are advocating replacing a $5sf louver system with a $30sf curtainwall system. Please tell me how that is cheaper? If you need an address to send the check for the cost of the desired improvements let me know.

"Afraid to hold the line with the client" Give me a break. "The client is not always right" They may not be right but for some reason the guy paying the bills seems to have a lot of pull. Unless you are Frank Gehry or a few others the Architect does not get to do whatever he wants. The Architect could "hold the line" and tell the client "he isn't right" and then he can guaranteee that it will be the last project with that client. I think you should go tell your boss (the guy paying the bills) how to run his business. Do you think he will do whatever you want or will he weigh your opinion against many other factors and decide what works best for HIM, HIS business, and HIS money?

I think all of us want the best designed bulding that we can get. But, that is in the eye of the beholder and there are 50 variables other than aesthetics that need to be weighed. If you add one thing you usually need to eliminate something somewhere else. Finding the right balance is very difficult and it is never going to please everyone.

I find it interesting designcritic that you were the biggest critic of ICON's wall, and yet your wall will look exactly the same. Please elaborate the differences. ICON will have planters and trees out front (and for the record, I too think that wall is horrible).

And you're right, for parking is does not require transparency and it can be screened, and I think that should be changed. I don't know how you read that it is "required". By the way, I have "advised" clients and customers what I "felt" is a better way to do something, and 9 times out of 10 they go with my ideas instead of their own, even if it costs more. Same with the boss (although that's more like 50%).

But I still haven't heard anyone defend the big blank bunker walls other than "it would cost more" and/or "it's not required".

It doesn't matter though. For this and ICON what's done is done. I think a push should be made to have the code changed, and I would hope everyone would join me in that. Then you don't have to go out on a limb (god forbid) and try and convince your client to do the right thing.

[MJLO]

not to interupt all y'alls interesting debate, (damn Jeff!) but for those of us who don't have the luxury of walking past these giant boring brick monoliths, because we are on the other side of the country, are there any new progress photos? When I was in GR two weeks ago I couldn't get enough.

[designcritic]

I find it interesting designcritic that you were the biggest critic of ICON's wall, and yet your wall will look exactly the same. Please elaborate the differences. ICON will have planters and trees out front (and for the record, I too think that wall is horrible).

And you're right, for parking is does not require transparency and it can be screened, and I think that should be changed. I don't know how you read that it is "required". By the way, I have "advised" clients and customers what I "felt" is a better way to do something, and 9 times out of 10 they go with my ideas instead of their own, even if it costs more. Same with the boss (although that's more like 50%).

But I still haven't heard anyone defend the big blank bunker walls other than "it would cost more" and/or "it's not required".

It doesn't matter though. For this and ICON what's done is done. I think a push should be made to have the code changed, and I would hope everyone would join me in that. Then you don't have to go out on a limb (god forbid) and try and convince your client to do the right thing.

I don't have the code in front of me but doesn't it say that the parking needs to be screened?

Look at the detaling on the Icon wall (or lack therof) and the RDV Michigan Street wall. Now you tell me who did the better job of breaking down the mass with relief and various materials. The Icon wall, except for the tiny planters, doesn't change plane an inch in its entire length. It even had the easier job because it had a flat site to work with. I don't think I am the only one that can see there is NO attention to detail on the Icon wall but the Michigan Street wall uses various materials to break down the mass and make it more interesting. There was also the concious effort to extend the materials onto the deck where a tower is present. This makes it look much more like a building than a parking deck. What did Icon do? Oh yeah, they changed the color on the first floor. How innovative. The final product will prove my point.

As for the "it would cost more" defense. You do what you can with the money available and it may not be perfect but it is the best it can be. The ideal would be to have retail/active spaces the entire length but that isn't appopiate or necessary for every piece of property. In addition, it is easily done on a flat site but becomes extremely diffcult on a sloped one like michigan street especially when trying to make it comply with ADA.

No project is perfect and everyone sees it differently. The problem with UP is that everyone is a critic and mostly a harsh one. There are positives to most projects despite the negatives but the only aspects that get repeated over and over again are the negative ones.

The easiest way to get projects built in the most urban friendly way is to change the code. Until that is done the mighty dollar is still going to influence most decisions.

[tamias6]

Good point. I think the shear size of the parking ramp is something that most Planeteer's, myself included, are finding a bit hard to swallow. I think what would have helped is to bring the towers closer to Michigan street and built the parking behind so that active spaces as your call them could be extended to lower levels so that their would only be a single story to a story and a half high street wall instead of 2 to 4 stories in the current design. The remaining street wall could then be easily softened up with terraced gardens and even display windows.

I don't have the code in front of me but doesn't it say that the parking needs to be screened?

Look at the detaling on the Icon wall (or lack therof) and the RDV Michigan Street wall. Now you tell me who did the better job of breaking down the mass with relief and various materials. The Icon wall, except for the tiny planters, doesn't change plane an inch in its entire length. It even had the easier job because it had a flat site to work with. I don't think I am the only one that can see there is NO attention to detail on the Icon wall but the Michigan Street wall uses various materials to break down the mass and make it more interesting. There was also the concious effort to extend the materials onto the deck where a tower is present. This makes it look much more like a building than a parking deck. What did Icon do? Oh yeah, they changed the color on the first floor. How innovative. The final product will prove my point.

As for the "it would cost more" defense. You do what you can with the money available and it may not be perfect but it is the best it can be. The ideal would be to have retail/active spaces the entire length but that isn't appopiate or necessary for every piece of property. In addition, it is easily done on a flat site but becomes extremely diffcult on a sloped one like michigan street especially when trying to make it comply with ADA.

No project is perfect and everyone sees it differently. The problem with UP is that everyone is a critic and mostly a harsh one. There are positives to most projects despite the negatives but the only aspects that get repeated over and over again are the negative ones.

The easiest way to get projects built in the most urban friendly way is to change the code. Until that is done the mighty dollar is still going to influence most decisions.

[GRDadof3]

Good point. I think the shear size of the parking ramp is something that most Planeteer's, myself included, are finding a bit hard to swallow. I think what would have helped is to bring the towers closer to Michigan street and built the parking behind so that active spaces as your call them could be extended to lower levels so that their would only be a single story to a story and a half high street wall instead of 2 to 4 stories in the current design. The remaining street wall could then be easily softened up with terraced gardens and even display windows.

I think you're right tamias. It would have been a lot different looking if the two center towers had been pushed out to Michigan, and the service drive pushed to the back. It may have had less of a "Calder Government Center facing Monroe look".

But again traffic safety trumps design, as I'm sure they wanted the new drive to line up with Bostwick so they can share the traffic light. Perhaps another way to get the drive in through that area and around the back?

But I'll post this cocophony of images of the wall and we'll let the readers decide if the current city code for parking structures needs to be changed. designcritic is right, this and ICON fit the current zoning:

(this one has been changed to the louvers, but there are still no windows even giving it the "look" of a real building)

(the black louvers will reach as high as 20 - 30' as you go further down the hill)

I'm assuming the louvers (the darker gray areas) are going to look something like this?

I'm not sure if this is old, but it just shows a wall and no louvers.

(with cartoon cars strategically placed in front of the wall section)

I don't really see much difference

Especially with more and more building owners wanting to put parking at the ground floor, and further growth downtown, we're going to see more and more of these submitted to the city. And we'll end up with a city that looks great from 131 or I-196, but you wouldn't want to be caught dead walking around in (or maybe you would be caught dead).

I did some quick computations, and to do glass instead of the louvers ($25 more per sf), it would have been about 260' x avg 20' or 5200 sf x $25 = about $130,000. Burdensome on a $260,000,000 project? And since this project is mostly doctor's offices, I'm not sure it would have meant one less CAT scanner or anything.

The part of the code posted by civitas:

C. Parking Structures. Wherever practical, structured parking facilities shall be designed with retail, office or other permitted uses at the street level. Where this is not possible, the structure shall have an architecturally articulated facade designed to screen the parking areas of the structure, to encourage pedestrian scale activity, and to provide for urban open space (perhaps it should specify "glass" as the mandated screening building material). Where automobile access is provided, two smaller openings are preferable to one large one.

D. Exception. Facade transparency requirements shall not apply to portions of structures in residential use, nor to the assembly area of theaters, auditoriums, churches, and similar uses, provided that facade is enhanced by architectural detailing, artwork, landscaping or similar features.

Here's an interesting design standard document for parking developer CCDC Boise (edit CCDC Boise is like our DDA), with some great visual examples:

http://www.ccdcboise.com/develop/documents...nts_general.pdf

Some examples of design standard language:

- Creating a building fa

[Raildudes dad]

Just some random thoughts after reading the previous entries:

The photos from the Boise report look nice. One can't hardly tell the structures are parking ramps. Question: Will folks continue to think there's no parking downtown because they can't see it? I'm not advocating ugly ramps or lots, just wondering about the suburbites perceptions.

Downtown Detroit has lots of new buildings but a lot of them are just parking ramps

Grand Rapids is getting some new buildings downtown but they too are parking ramps

GRD3 has pointed out how much land in DT is surface parking lots

My question/comment - what do Detroit & GR have in common with regards to parking? Both only have a conventional bus system for mass transit - no quick way for daily commuters to get DT.

Edited April 7, 2007 by Raildudes dad