Jump to content

East Beltline Developments


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts


  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/9/2020 at 3:11 PM, GRDadof3 said:

What is this development of which you speak? 

This "Grove by Watermark" has a website:

https://www.thompsonthrift.com/properties/the-grove-by-watermark

I know that Watermark is the apartment company's name, but I wonder if anyone told them that Watermark is a pretty well known name for the golf course community off of Cascade Rd?  "Are these apartments part of Watermark Country Club?  Nooooooooo." 

 

Sorry for the late response.  The parcel is on W. River Drive, west of Northland.

up1.thumb.png.02016623bec9df2c05bdf0d38301af93.png

 

There's more higher res images and details in the Plainfield Planning agenda packet (https://plainfieldchartertwp.civicweb.net/document/56391)

I believe Thousand Oakes was originally planning to put a club on Grand River Ave, but this will work much better for them.

Gd River Ave from 5 Mile to Northland/E. Beltline is almost built out.

I wonder how far along Dykema is with planning their development on their massive piece of land near the SE corner of E. Beltline & 5 Mile.  Seems like now would be the time to pull the trigger!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Floyd_Z said:

 

I wonder how far along Dykema is with planning their development on their massive piece of land near the SE corner of E. Beltline & 5 Mile.  Seems like now would be the time to pull the trigger!

Which land is that? The southeast corner is apartments and office buildings (bit farther south). And then there’s a superfund site south of that. Is it on 5 mile?

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

Which land is that? The southeast corner is apartments and office buildings (bit farther south). And then there’s a superfund site south of that. Is it on 5 mile?

Joe

Yup.  This property.  Now owned by Dykema.  Last I heard about it was 2018.  Dykema decided not to make an entrance off from that strip that goes to 4 Mile ater concerns from neighbors.  There was a conceptual drawing as well.  Not sure what the hold up is, but I feel like Dykema is never too rushed to sell/develop property.5mile.thumb.png.12921af978581b3ecc2ea05c40655a6c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice. Didn't realize there was that much available land. I guess I just see the superfund site right along the Beltline when I drive by. 

If they do build, I hope they add an entrance off Four Mile. That area is changing quite a bit with the Apartment complex being built, and seems like it'd be a good solution to spread traffic congestion out a bit.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

Nice. Didn't realize there was that much available land. I guess I just see the superfund site right along the Beltline when I drive by. 

If they do build, I hope they add an entrance off Four Mile. That area is changing quite a bit with the Apartment complex being built, and seems like it'd be a good solution to spread traffic congestion out a bit.

Joe

I think Plainfield Twp and the neighbors poopooed the idea of having an entrance off from 4 milr and Dykema was just going to split that little section and leave it as is.  There would be an antrance off the E.  Beltline though and IIRC a few offices.

When/If E. Beltline ever gets widened it reallu should be at least 3 lanes from at least 44th to Rockford.  It's not even on MDOT's 5 year plan, which I find a little ridiculous.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Nobody wants to pay the $0.45 / gallon but these type of improvements will not happen without adequate funding.
The bare minimum of maintenance and replacement won't happen without adequate funding. I pray that we don't see a project as ridiculous as widening the East Beltline anytime soon.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 54equalsunity said:

The bare minimum of maintenance and replacement won't happen without adequate funding. I pray that we don't see a project as ridiculous as widening the East Beltline anytime soon.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

Have you driven on E Beltline during rush hour?   It's a crapshow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 54equalsunity said:

 

2) We can't afford it, as a society. Widening means increased incentive to just keep funding and building auto-dominant nonsense, and we all know that regardless of any arguments for cars and equity or independence that they are not a sustainable form of transportation for a metropolitan environment. 
 

Josh Naramore, is that you?  

Curious how many of the G.R. urban planet denizens agree with that statement...  Is there a way to do a poll on here?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 54equalsunity said:

Yes, it's terrible, but only during rush hour, and only on certain portions of it. I've never been "stuck" (i.e., still crawling forward between lights) for more than 15-20 minutes. Nothing like "actual traffic" in a big city.

Widening is a bad idea for multiple reasons.
1) We can't afford it, as a state. That is my original point. I doubt there's even money in place for R/R of EBL going forward.
2) We can't afford it, as a society. Widening means increased incentive to just keep funding and building auto-dominant nonsense, and we all know that regardless of any arguments for cars and equity or independence that they are not a sustainable form of transportation for a metropolitan environment. We are obviously going to need to keep building on land along EBL, but that doesn't mean it has to be subdivisions of SFHs and apartments with huge parking lots. Put enough pressure on the 4 lane setup and we'll find alternatives.
3) if we widen EBL then we take another step toward looking like Metro Detroit. Have you been to Metro Detroit? It's a terrible place for people. It's all 6-8 lanes of cars ZOOMING through what we're once perfectly pleasant little places.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

All very good points.

The U.S. as a whole is very auto-centric for many reasons.  I think one of the main factors is we have the area to spread out, which ties into your point of building denser, which I totally agree with.  It would be costly to widen, but how much more costly would it be to build an efficeint transportation network in GR?  And then it comes back to density, would our low density support it?  I'm thinking for example, someone who works downtown but  lives out in Rockford or Ada or Lowell or Ottawa County.... what alternatives does someone have besides drive or carpool?  Again it's a chicken and egg kinda situation.

I know Europe is different for a multitude of reasons... it's older, denser, and people are more likely to use mass transit, but if GR were in Europe we would probably have a fantastic subway system.    Apples and Oranges, I know.  Cities with similar populations to GR would be  Zagreb, Krakow, Prague, Porto, etc.  Prague and Porto both have vast subway networks.  Krakow and Zagreb have some very efficient tram lines.

Portos subway network kind of blew my mind for how clean, cheap, and efficient it was, even through all the crazy topography.  Will it ever happen here?  Probably not.  If we can't even maintain or existing infastructure, this would be a pipe dream.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 hours ago, arcturus said:

Looks like we hit the 2 year cycle of alternative transportation discussions here on UP while gas is under $2/gal.

Ok, ok, I'll change the subject..... Let's talk about the homeless problem in Heartside....

 

 

**jk, sorry - off topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic. I've worked in transportation infrastructure my whole career  - 47 years. (Don't tell anyone, I design, construct, and assist in maintaining the dirty word -roads:rolleyes:)

When there were concerns about "urban sprawl"  in the 70's-80's the years the townships were advised by the "experts" to  require a minimum of 2-3 acres and 250 feet of road (public or private) for residential zoning.  Both to discourge urban sprawl. They also allow private roads that don't require the investment that public roads require.  So if you look on Kent County Parcel Viewer you will see a proliferation of private streets (public or private) McMansions occupying a lot of acreage, including farmland. So any future ability to get density for public transportation is gone..

IMHO, the residential zoning should have required public sewer and water with a minimum of 90 feet frontage. It results in compact urban development that possibly support public transportation at least conducive to Uber and Lyft.  IMO until development goes vertical (multi stories) public transit  isn't practical.

Edited by Raildude's dad
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 10/7/2020 at 6:31 PM, Floyd_Z said:

All very good points.

The U.S. as a whole is very auto-centric for many reasons.  I think one of the main factors is we have the area to spread out, which ties into your point of building denser, which I totally agree with.  It would be costly to widen, but how much more costly would it be to build an efficeint transportation network in GR?  And then it comes back to density, would our low density support it?  I'm thinking for example, someone who works downtown but  lives out in Rockford or Ada or Lowell or Ottawa County.... what alternatives does someone have besides drive or carpool?  Again it's a chicken and egg kinda situation.

I know Europe is different for a multitude of reasons... it's older, denser, and people are more likely to use mass transit, but if GR were in Europe we would probably have a fantastic subway system.    Apples and Oranges, I know.  Cities with similar populations to GR would be  Zagreb, Krakow, Prague, Porto, etc.  Prague and Porto both have vast subway networks.  Krakow and Zagreb have some very efficient tram lines.

Portos subway network kind of blew my mind for how clean, cheap, and efficient it was, even through all the crazy topography.  Will it ever happen here?  Probably not.  If we can't even maintain or existing infastructure, this would be a pipe dream.

 

On 10/11/2020 at 12:38 PM, Raildude's dad said:

Back on topic. I've worked in transportation infrastructure my whole career  - 47 years. (Don't tell anyone, I design, construct, and assist in maintaining the dirty word -roads:rolleyes:)

When there were concerns about "urban sprawl"  in the 70's-80's the years the townships were advised by the "experts" to  require a minimum of 2-3 acres and 250 feet of road (public or private) for residential zoning.  Both to discourge urban sprawl. They also allow private roads that don't require the investment that public roads require.  So if you look on Kent County Parcel Viewer you will see a proliferation of private streets (public or private) McMansions occupying a lot of acreage, including farmland. So any future ability to get density for public transportation is gone..

IMHO, the residential zoning should have required public sewer and water with a minimum of 90 feet frontage. It results in compact urban development that possibly support public transportation at least conducive to Uber and Lyft.  IMO until development goes vertical (multi stories) public transit  isn't practical.

A lot of good points and information here. I think we defeat ourselves when we say public transportation is not feasible in the US. In GR we already have a mostly-suburban layout, even in much of the city limits, and we have a bus system that works fairly well (for a US system, at least). I don't really consider 30 minute headways to be acceptable, but it is what it is for now. The existence of a reliable service tells us that bussing (or in the pipe dream world, trams/streetcars) is a practical approach to this kind of layout. To get back on topic and talk about EBL, just because the current zoning doesn't permit "urban" development doesn't mean we can't just keep the existing road and increase the use of public transpo. I'm thinking of places like the apartment complex just north of Knapps Corner. Great little spot of density, but totally served by cars (there aren't even sidewalks on that side of the road, or a crosswalk until Knapp). It would be so much better if we could offer people an alternative to walk to Knapps Corner or take a bus downtown from right outside their apartment. I get the feeling that we'll be seeing a lot more of these apartment complexes, so doesn't it seem like a more practical approach to back public transpo instead of sinking money into widening roads?

With that said, my digression is ended. I look forward to hearing more about EBL development! When traffic is light it almost feels like one of the winding state highways up north with all the greenery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 7/21/2020 at 12:12 PM, grandrollerz said:

It's been sold to Michigan Medicine if you are talking about that corner next to the church....GR Cardiology i think sold the whole building to MM

That corner should see lots more activity now:  Metro Health Beltline Offers Expanded Services and Technology | Metro Health University of Michigan Health

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 9/10/2020 at 8:09 PM, Raildude's dad said:

Ada Holdings property being added to Chief Hazy Cloud Park per MLive today.

 

On 9/10/2020 at 8:23 PM, walker said:

 

On 9/11/2020 at 8:02 PM, GRDadof3 said:

I hope they plan to do some major upgrades to this park. If any park felt like "sex trafficking central," Chief Hazy Cloud was one of them. To me anyway. 

Not sure if any upgrades are proposed , at least right now.  Nice rendering in this story today  about the expanded Chief Hazy Cloud and future trail bridge to connect it to Roselle Park across the river:

WOODTV: kent-co-s-chief-hazy-cloud-park-grows-to-nearly-400-acres

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.