East Beltline Developments

[Jippy]

Ah, FYI, that slow down in suburban development only occurred because of the overall national recession. There is not some massive movement toward urban areas like the policy wonks would have you believe. Just look at national building trends in the last 12 months. Residential building permits have shot up dramatically, and guess where that is occurring?

 

H&M located in Woodland Mall, in case you didn't hear.

 

In the meantime, GRPS keeps bleeding about 900 kids every year to the suburbs, charter schools and school of choice; down nearly 8000 students in 10 years. It's now smaller than Forest Hills PS. Another round of 200 layoffs was just announced.

 

This year, Chicago Public Schools announced the closure of over 200 schools.

 

Cleveland Public Schools graduates only 38% of its students and is looking at massive cuts in schools.

 

Even Portland, everyone's hallmark urbanist town, is looking at closing down schools due to declining enrollment, even though the number of school aged children in the Portland metro area is exploding.

 

Some neighborhoods in GR are definitely becoming more desirable, for some. They're certainly not desirable for working class families. Keep in mind, there are about 120,000 children aged 5 - 18 in Kent County. Only about 15,000 of them now go to GRPS.

 

Your turn.

 

Last I checked, Woodland Mall was constructed before I was born. In my book, that qualifies for infill development. 

 

Currently, city-MSA balance for residential building permits is 15-20% of residential units constructed in central cities. In 2012, GR held 17% of regional housing unit starts. The more nuanced approach would also include inner-ring suburbs pre-1960 (e.g. D.C. would include Bethesda, Alexandria, Arlington, etc). Using this measure the central core of the region (as defined with the aforementioned cities) jumps to  50% in "Inversion Cities" (San Fran, DC, NYC, Portland, Chicago, etc). This analysis becomes more complicated in smaller regions like Grand Rapids, because adjacent communities contain both areas older than 50 years and greenfield areas for development (Wyoming, Walker). My prediction is that within the next 15 years, this inversion will take place in GR and the inner-ring suburbs.

 

Thus, real estate values become another proxy for determining how this inversion will take root as a precursor to future housing starts in the broader central city area (pre-1960 areas). The precursor to the inversion will be that housing values flip, where residential units in the Heritage Hill to East Grand Rapids corridor become more valued than the region (fyi, I don't live in this corridor). As people become priced out of this area, additional neighborhoods will follow suit.  

 

One of GR's biggest hindrances to this effect is certainly K-12 educational quality, to which I have no suggestion. This is a challenge through America, and especially in areas that have fractured school districts (urban vs suburban districts). 

 

...Discovered after the fact: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/08/why-san-francisco-may-be-new-silicon-valley/6295/

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jippy

[GRDadof3]

Last I checked, Woodland Mall was constructed before I was born. In my book, that qualifies for infill development. 

 

Currently, city-MSA balance for residential building permits is 15-20% of residential units constructed in central cities. In 2012, GR held 17% of regional housing unit starts. The more nuanced approach would also include inner-ring suburbs pre-1960 (e.g. D.C. would include Bethesda, Alexandria, Arlington, etc). Using this measure the central core of the region (as defined with the aforementioned cities) jumps to  50% in "Inversion Cities" (San Fran, DC, NYC, Portland, Chicago, etc). This analysis becomes more complicated in smaller regions like Grand Rapids, because adjacent communities contain both areas older than 50 years and greenfield areas for development (Wyoming, Walker). My prediction is that within the next 15 years, this inversion will take place in GR and the inner-ring suburbs.

 

Thus, real estate values become another proxy for determining how this inversion will take root as a precursor to future housing starts in the broader central city area (pre-1960 areas). The precursor to the inversion will be that housing values flip, where residential units in the Heritage Hill to East Grand Rapids corridor become more valued than the region (fyi, I don't live in this corridor). As people become priced out of this area, additional neighborhoods will follow suit.  

 

One of GR's biggest hindrances to this effect is certainly K-12 educational quality, to which I have no suggestion. This is a challenge through America, and especially in areas that have fractured school districts (urban vs suburban districts). 

 

...Discovered after the fact: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/08/why-san-francisco-may-be-new-silicon-valley/6295/

 

 

I think your predictions are wrong. And most of Chicago is emptying out, other than downtown, south end of downtown, and near north corridor up through Lincoln Square.

 

You can certainly find cities where the urban areas are seeing a resurgence, as you mentioned. What I would call the "hip, white cities." But for the most part, the 100 or so metro areas below the top tier are seeing their urban areas drop dramatically in population, particularly in the traditional working class family portions. Indianapolis, a hot rapidly growing metro area, just saw its IPS student population drop so dramatically that it's now no longer the largest school district in the State. I'm guessing if I looked into Des Moines, Salt Lake City, Jacksonville, Hartford, Baltimore and a host of others, I'd find the same.

 

As you said, over the last couple of decades, the great majority of new homes were being built in the suburbs (80% of residential permits in most metro areas). As the housing market took a nose-dive, obviously residential construction in the suburbs took the biggest nosedive (where else would it?). And yes, people did move into more urban areas during the time period because a lot of people sought rentals as opposed to purchasing. Urban areas are overwhelmingly more rental vs owner occupied. A lot of urbanista's threw confetti in the air saying that the end of suburban sprawl was over.

 

What they didn't realize is that fundamentally a lot of cities are flawed business models that are continually driving residents and businesses out (for most cities in the country). High taxes, declining services, increasing debt, older housing stock that needs a lot of maintenance and floorplans that don't appeal to most modern homeowners, lack of garages, lack of privacy, higher crime rates, and poor educational services. None of that has changed.

 

So what happens is some misinformed and highly agenda'ized organizations take some anecdotal snapshots of cities like New York and Washington D.C., run a story about a young professional couple who doesn't want to own a car and a retired couple who wants to live near the central city, splash a few photos of an urban Target store, and they make the case that some seismic shift has happened. A shift is happening. It's not seismic. And cities lean back and think they don't have to be competitive anymore to attract people. 

 

My prediction is that in about two years not only will suburban residential permits take off again (nationally), they may even be stronger than they were in the previous run up. Much of that is going to be because there will be a housing shortage, as predicted by HUD and many other housing industry experts, and the cheapest and fastest way to get things built will be on open exurban land.

 

I have some interesting and striking images from the Census data showing growth of metro areas throughout the country from 2000 - 2010. I'll have to post them when I get a chance.

[GR8scott]

I think your predictions are wrong. And most of Chicago is emptying out, other than downtown, south end of downtown, and near north corridor up through Lincoln Square.

 

You can certainly find cities where the urban areas are seeing a resurgence, as you mentioned. What I would call the "hip, white cities." But for the most part, the 100 or so metro areas below the top tier are seeing their urban areas drop dramatically in population, particularly in the traditional working class family portions. Indianapolis, a hot rapidly growing metro area, just saw its IPS student population drop so dramatically that it's now no longer the largest school district in the State. I'm guessing if I looked into Des Moines, Salt Lake City, Jacksonville, Hartford, Baltimore and a host of others, I'd find the same.

 

As you said, over the last couple of decades, the great majority of new homes were being built in the suburbs (80% of residential permits in most metro areas). As the housing market took a nose-dive, obviously residential construction in the suburbs took the biggest nosedive (where else would it?). And yes, people did move into more urban areas during the time period because a lot of people sought rentals as opposed to purchasing. Urban areas are overwhelmingly more rental vs owner occupied. A lot of urbanista's threw confetti in the air saying that the end of suburban sprawl was over.

 

What they didn't realize is that fundamentally a lot of cities are flawed business models that are continually driving residents and businesses out (for most cities in the country). High taxes, declining services, increasing debt, older housing stock that needs a lot of maintenance and floorplans that don't appeal to most modern homeowners, lack of garages, lack of privacy, higher crime rates, and poor educational services. None of that has changed.

 

So what happens is some misinformed and highly agenda'ized organizations take some anecdotal snapshots of cities like New York and Washington D.C., run a story about a young professional couple who doesn't want to own a car and a retired couple who wants to live near the central city, splash a few photos of an urban Target store, and they make the case that some seismic shift has happened. A shift is happening. It's not seismic. And cities lean back and think they don't have to be competitive anymore to attract people. 

 

My prediction is that in about two years not only will suburban residential permits take off again (nationally), they may even be stronger than they were in the previous run up. Much of that is going to be because there will be a housing shortage, as predicted by HUD and many other housing industry experts, and the cheapest and fastest way to get things built will be on open exurban land.

Indy is unique as far as the school district goes as it was a consolidated city-county back in the 70s? the school districts remained the same while the city itself expanded to include most of the county, so IPS is actually only a fraction of the current city (kind of like wyoming public schools)  none the less, there are major problems with public schools that need to be resolved. 

[wmrharris]

Just this on schools: city and schools overlap but are not synonymous. Within Grand Rapids significant portions of the city do not participate in GRPS. On the NE side it is roughly the neighborhoods north of 3 Mile, many would say Knapp. On the SE side, think Burton and Plymouth. That doesn't mean these neighborhoods don't have children, only that they are in some other school (private, charter, or schools of choice).

 

The attractiveness of living in town will depend in part on the availability of appropriate and affordable schools. Schools of choice are especially important, here. The second factor is the availability of housing. Census data show an interesting drop in enrollment as students age. The number of children 1-5 progressively drops with each five year slice. Part of that is the school, even more I would suggest, it's the housing stock. Where do you put your teen-ager? The suburban homes that seemed so spacious 50 years ago in Indian Village, now at at best seem normal. But if you look over the SE side, where do redevelop in this fashion?

[GRDadof3]

Just this on schools: city and schools overlap but are not synonymous. Within Grand Rapids significant portions of the city do not participate in GRPS. On the NE side it is roughly the neighborhoods north of 3 Mile, many would say Knapp. On the SE side, think Burton and Plymouth. That doesn't mean these neighborhoods don't have children, only that they are in some other school (private, charter, or schools of choice).

 

The attractiveness of living in town will depend in part on the availability of appropriate and affordable schools. Schools of choice are especially important, here. The second factor is the availability of housing. Census data show an interesting drop in enrollment as students age. The number of children 1-5 progressively drops with each five year slice. Part of that is the school, even more I would suggest, it's the housing stock. Where do you put your teen-ager? The suburban homes that seemed so spacious 50 years ago in Indian Village, now at at best seem normal. But if you look over the SE side, where do redevelop in this fashion?

 

It is an interesting conundrum. I know even organizations like LINC are working to tear down a lot of the existing housing stock in many areas, because it's not really of historical value and it rarely appeals to anyone. The federal government has come up with programs like the 203K program to fix up older homes, but you can easily blow through the $35,000 maximum they give you (?) on renovating an older home, particularly if the kitchen needs to go, electrical is outdated and the roof is shot.

 

School of choice is tough for a lot of working families. If you do SOC out in Forest Hills or Grandville, you have to drive your child to the school and pick them up at around 3:00, the buses don't come pick you up. How does a two-parent household accomplish that? Plus I've heard of school of choice kids being treated differently (poorly) in the schools, because all of the students know you're not from the district. Charter schools don't seem to be doing any better than their public school counterparts.

 

So a lot of minority families just say enough is enough and move out to Kentwood and Wyoming, which is why their minority populations are growing so fast (and I would argue Kentwood PS is probably more diverse than GRPS).

 

I hear the same situation time and time again: young couple moves into Alger Heights or Mulick Park area, has kids, keeps them in the local schools until the end of elementary school draws near, and then they're scrambling trying to find a place to move to before Middle School hits.

[Raildudes dad]

Last I checked, Woodland Mall was constructed before I was born. In my book, that qualifies for infill development. 

 

 

Infill, you have to be kidding. Before Centerpointe (Eastbrook) in 1967 and Woodland in 1968, there were 2 motels and Kent ISD on the corner. The rest of the area was farmfields and woods.

[wmrharris]

It is an interesting conundrum. I know even organizations like LINC are working to tear down a lot of the existing housing stock in many areas, because it's not really of historical value and it rarely appeals to anyone. The federal government has come up with programs like the 203K program to fix up older homes, but you can easily blow through the $35,000 maximum they give you (?) on renovating an older home, particularly if the kitchen needs to go, electrical is outdated and the roof is shot.

 

School of choice is tough for a lot of working families. If you do SOC out in Forest Hills or Grandville, you have to drive your child to the school and pick them up at around 3:00, the buses don't come pick you up. How does a two-parent household accomplish that? Plus I've heard of school of choice kids being treated differently (poorly) in the schools, because all of the students know you're not from the district. Charter schools don't seem to be doing any better than their public school counterparts.

 

So a lot of minority families just say enough is enough and move out to Kentwood and Wyoming, which is why their minority populations are growing so fast (and I would argue Kentwood PS is probably more diverse than GRPS).

 

I hear the same situation time and time again: young couple moves into Alger Heights or Mulick Park area, has kids, keeps them in the local schools until the end of elementary school draws near, and then they're scrambling trying to find a place to move to before Middle School hits.

 

SOC works to keep middle class and largely white families in the city limits, that's it's real function. In our neighborhood next to EGR, there are a lot of E decals on the car, so it's not much of a drive. For those families in the city, the charters continue to be an alternative, largely because of their perceived safety; one can think of them as aspirational schools. If you don't have the means to move out to Kentwood, the charter can be a decent alternative. And among charters generally the Heritage system gets some decent marks for quality.

 

While the migration pattern of middle income blacks moving to Kentwood is well-known, I doubt there is any real migration to Wyoming -- particularly with its history on race. Wyoming's changing housing is largely Hispanic; the Hispanic population more than doubled from 9% to 19% between 2000 and 2010.

 

And the point about Kentwood schools is certainly true: EKHS is a majority minority high school (47% white) with a significant Vietnamese/asian population. They have a rather large ELL student body, as much as 60 different languages in the high school. This diversity is a reflection of its middle class character. Yet middle class or no, with the M-6, Kentwood is clearly part of the larger urban geography of the region witih GR, Wyo, EGR, Grandville and (perhaps) Walker -- the cities bounded by I-96 and the M-6.

[grbrit]

"Developer of Grand Rapids shopping center files bankruptcy" GRBJ article on Village at Knapp's Corner

[GR_Urbanist]

*facepalm*

 

Maybe if the genius had just built that stuff onto the existing Celebration Village, instead of ripping up a whole chunk of farmland for a grocery that sits across the street from an existing grocery, maybe this could have worked out a bit better?

 

Enough with the lifestyle centers in the middle of nowhere! There is a whole city to the east that needs infill.

[wingbert]

"Developer of Grand Rapids shopping center files bankruptcy" GRBJ article on Village at Knapp's Corner

 

Ah jeez.  "Nobody" predicted this would happen when they gave Benner the green light on this project.  What a sad state of affairs.

[GRDadof3]

Ah jeez.  "Nobody" predicted this would happen when they gave Benner the green light on this project.  What a sad state of affairs.

 

This actually might be a better situation. Someone will buy the development out of bankruptcy (like Icon). They'll get it a lot cheaper than what Benner wanted for it. Don't forget this is in the CITY of GR. More tax revenue when it finally finishes.

[egrguy]

I agree, I think bankruptcy is the best case scenario. Someone will get this and be able to operate at a lower cost structure and hopefully attract new retailers to our market.

[Jippy]

Maybe if he actually fulfilled the original vision, he could have differentiated himself in the over-developed marketplace at that intersection. When you are the third one to the intersection, the spoils were largely picked-over. There is way too much commercial development out there compared to the number of households.

[wingbert]

This actually might be a better situation. Someone will buy the development out of bankruptcy (like Icon). They'll get it a lot cheaper than what Benner wanted for it. Don't forget this is in the CITY of GR. More tax revenue when it finally finishes.

 

In the immortal words of Mr. Kim in the movie The Fifth Element, "Good philosophy!  See good in bad.  I like."

 

I agree this is actually a good outcome.  My point was more that this is the outcome most predicted when Benner insisted he could do more than develop cheapo strip malls and it's unfortunate that he was wrong and everyone else was right.  I say bring on new ownership, new vision and new ideas for that location.  Anything to improve that sea of asphalt.

[GRDadof3]

Maybe if he actually fulfilled the original vision, he could have differentiated himself in the over-developed marketplace at that intersection. When you are the third one to the intersection, the spoils were largely picked-over. There is way too much commercial development out there compared to the number of households.

 

Exactly. Most people travel to that area. There are DEFINITELY too many restaurants, and Benner stupidly wanted to add two more chains. Chili's across the street is probably the next to close (restaurant death watch). Applebee's probably won't be too far behind.

 

As I think I've mentioned before, it would be a great spot for high end apartments for part of the development, which would in turn help support the small businesses near that corner. Forest Hills Schools, 15 minutes from downtown GR, walk to everything, makes sense to me.

[Jippy]

Exactly. Most people travel to that area. There are DEFINITELY too many restaurants, and Benner stupidly wanted to add two more chains. Chili's across the street is probably the next to close (restaurant death watch). Applebee's probably won't be too far behind.

 

As I think I've mentioned before, it would be a great spot for high end apartments for part of the development, which would in turn help support the small businesses near that corner.

 

We have debated chain restaurants to ad nauseam on this forum, and I don't care to restart the debate.  However, there are few that can be anchor chains (PF's is one of the few), but the fact of the matter is they operate in a crowded space. The chain casual restaurant is fading relic of Americana -- Chili's, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, TJ Friday's, Applebees, etc.  They are being replaced by three categories: 1) high quality fast casual (e.g. Chilis), fast food...it ain't going anywhere, and local restaurants. I now I am a food snob, but these are the only three categories that me, my friends and family ever frequent. Fast casual for the last minute meal, fast food in an emergency, and the local restaurant for the bulk of our going out food purchases. 

 

The up-side is that Village of (the destroyed) Orchard Hills has PFs. Long-term it can still be a good development with the right developer. It wouldn't surprise me if CWD or another of the more urban developers sniffs this project out.

[joeDowntown]

I'm pretty bullish on this corner. It has the infrastructure in place (smart on the city of GR's part), it's in a great location, and it has all the right demographics. Add a developer that has knowledge in lifestyle centers and it could turn out to be a really good development. 

 

I'm always amused by the suburb bashers out there. Even the cities with the best urban cores have nice suburbs. It's a lifestyle choice. People need to relax a bit (this is partly a response to what I see here, and other forums, where suburbs seem to be one the seven levels of hell).

 

Joe

[arcturus]

A Costco out there would be an instant success.

[MJLO]

I Dont think there's enough density for that,  A Costco there would canabalize to much of the Cascade Warehouse business.  If we are to see another Costco in the area it'd most likely be in the Rockford/Comstock Park Vicinity.

[Jippy]

I really haven't seen any bashing on this topic -- well other than about the unwise and unkind ways of the developer. The critique is about market forces and the ability to support the market based on demographics of the immediate area. Too much commercial serving too few households. It will require a different approach to be successful or an atypical anchor that will draw customers from further west locations.

 

 

I'm pretty bullish on this corner. It has the infrastructure in place (smart on the city of GR's part), it's in a great location, and it has all the right demographics. Add a developer that has knowledge in lifestyle centers and it could turn out to be a really good development. 

 

I'm always amused by the suburb bashers out there. Even the cities with the best urban cores have nice suburbs. It's a lifestyle choice. People need to relax a bit (this is partly a response to what I see here, and other forums, where suburbs seem to be one the seven levels of hell).

 

Joe

Edited August 30, 2013 by Jippy

[GRDadof3]

A Costco out there would be an instant success.

 

There's no way that site is big enough for a Costco. I think the biggest store footprint in the plan is 30,000 sf.

[arcturus]

I Dont think there's enough density for that,  A Costco there would canabalize to much of the Cascade Warehouse business.  If we are to see another Costco in the area it'd most likely be in the Rockford/Comstock Park Vicinity.

 

What's the traffic count on the Beltline these days?

[arcturus]

There's no way that site is big enough for a Costco. I think the biggest store footprint in the plan is 30,000 sf.

 

Are you saying the whole site (less what's there) couldn't accommodate Costco or the current plan couldn't be changed to allow bigger footprints?

[arcturus]

I Dont think there's enough density for that,  A Costco there would canabalize to much of the Cascade Warehouse business.  If we are to see another Costco in the area it'd most likely be in the Rockford/Comstock Park Vicinity.

 

Sam's Club nearby would make Comstock Park less appealing.  Having it somewhere between it and Rockford (or in/near Rockford itself) would probably violate any density requirements though high densities nearby aren't necessarily needed to make a go of it.  It is one of a few retailers where consumers would go the extra mile to shop.  

[GRDadof3]

Nope, have you seen the site plan with how much room the detention pond takes up?