"Presidio on Grandville"

[GRDadof3]

Looks like Joe Moch has bought another piece of property, the old terminal on Grandville (previous Azzar hostage), and wants to put residential at that site next to his project at 248 Grandville. At today's Commission Meeting, it looks like he received the rezoning he was looking for on 248 Williams, and plans to come back for 235 Grandville.

http://www.ci.grand-rapids.mi.us//download...e3d7b030f3c.pdf

Say what you will about Moch, but he seems to be forging ahead undeterred.

[Prankster]

The next Donald Trump of Grand Rapids?

[torgo]

At least its out of Azzar's hands now...

[twoshort]

I wonder what the other Grandville Ave property owners think about this.. and i wonder if they know any details..

[PBJ]

I wonder what the other Grandville Ave property owners think about this.. and i wonder if they know any details..

UPers -><-Eric ?

[GRDadof3]

Actually, if you read the section of the minutes, Moch mentions Terra Firma and some of the other business owners in the area, and how they are in support of the redevelopment of those two properties (235 Grandville and 248 Williams). I can imagine so. It will really rejuvenate that area, and maybe even get the city to repave that POS Grandville.

[GaryP]

Actually, if you read the section of the minutes, Moch mentions Terra Firma and some of the other business owners in the area, and how they are in support of the redevelopment of those two properties (235 Grandville and 248 Williams). I can imagine so. It will really rejuvenate that area, and maybe even get the city to repave that POS Grandville.

OMG that has to be the city's worst street.

[GRDadof3]

OMG that has to be the city's worst street.

I think it might be better just to rip the blacktop off, and at least the original brick street might be better It is friggin awful!

[designcritic]

Joe Jr. says "it will be set up just like Icon." How many buildings does these two need to propose without any ground floor retail/commercial before something actually gets done to stop it? Grand Rapids' planning requirements are crap and it needs to change. I can picture all the blank walls throughout the city now.

[GRDadof3]

Joe Jr. says "it will be set up just like Icon." How many buildings does these two need to propose without any ground floor retail/commercial before something actually gets done to stop it? Grand Rapids' planning requirements are crap and it needs to change. I can picture all the blank walls throughout the city now.

Especially along Grandville, where there are already ground floor retail spaces and the ITP station across the street.

[twoshort]

Especially along Grandville, where there are already ground floor retail spaces and the ITP station across the street.

Perhaps Eric can say something to them or the the commission since he has a vested interest in the area. Setting up a building 'just like icon' could hurt anyone else around there that has or plans ground floor retail. Think about it, one building with ground floor retail in a sea of buildings with ground floor WALLS isn't going to see traffic of an area with all ground floor retail. IMO.

[GRDadof3]

And how do you tell a developer to put in ground floor retail when the retail vacancy rate is so high downtown? How do you get them to see into the future that a concentrated area of retail will be more viable than pockets of retail here and there? Especially with the old Horseshoe Bar next door as well that has sat empty for quite a while.

[twoshort]

And how do you tell a developer to put in ground floor retail when the retail vacancy rate is so high downtown? How do you get them to see into the future that a concentrated area of retail will be more viable than pockets of retail here and there? Especially with the old Horseshoe Bar next door as well that has sat empty for quite a while.

I really have no answer for that. I guess there are developers who have vision for our downtown's future (and of course want to make money) and there are those who just want to make money at any cost. I think we can see who falls where.

[GRDadof3]

I really have no answer for that. I guess there are developers who have vision for our downtown's future (and of course want to make money) and there are those who just want to make money at any cost. I think we can see who falls where.

You know, it's a real conundrum. I think the city is trying to appear very "pro-business" at this critical time when revenues are falling short. I think this issue, parking, and transportation issues are probably some of the most important issues for downtown. There should be a task-force or consortium with the city and every major downtown business leader and developer about these issues, and brainstorm ways that will help business owners and developrs, as well as help the city reach its goal of having a viable livable downtown. I don't think a Master Plan is enough.

Maybe it's already happening, but I can't recall reading anything about it.

[GaryP]

It looks like Moch has 3/4 of the block bound by Williams, Grandville, Bartlett, and Finney. We should have him put his parking in the ramp we are going to have the city build to support the 19 Acre development on Market. Moch's block is kitty corner to the city property that we discussed.

[GRDadof3]

It looks like Moch has 3/4 of the block bound by Williams, Grandville, Bartlett, and Finney. We should have him put his parking in the ramp we are going to have the city build to support the 19 Acre development on Market. Moch's block is kitty corner to the city property that we discussed.

I think I should send something to the city about that idea for the parking ramp. They may not be taking that into consideration while getting ready to offer up the "Island" property. They may not be as forward-thinking as we are Gary That's a good idea.

[fishboy]

You know, it's a real conundrum. I think the city is trying to appear very "pro-business" at this critical time when revenues are falling short. I think this issue, parking, and transportation issues are probably some of the most important issues for downtown. There should be a task-force or consortium with the city and every major downtown business leader and developer about these issues, and brainstorm ways that will help business owners and developrs, as well as help the city reach its goal of having a viable livable downtown. I don't think a Master Plan is enough.

Maybe it's already happening, but I can't recall reading anything about it.

I agree Dad of 3! Parking and transit issues effect population density/foot traffic needed to support street level retail/ transparency. If we can figure out how to move people around without the risk of a parking ticket, downtown can demand the retail space. If a consortium is put together you get my vote.

[Prankster]

I wonder how he is skirting the transparency rules set up in the master planning document. This particular rule was added to avoid instances just like this, and hopefully encouraging retail space.

[GRDadof3]

I wonder how he is skirting the transparency rules set up in the master planning document. This particular rule was added to avoid instances just like this, and hopefully encouraging retail space.

At this meeting, he was just seeking (and was awarded) a rezoning request. He'll have to go back with architectural plans. One of the Commissioners wanted to make it contingent on plan review, but I don't think they did that.

[designcritic]

I wonder how he is skirting the transparency rules set up in the master planning document. This particular rule was added to avoid instances just like this, and hopefully encouraging retail space.

It's a very sticky item to deal with. The City Ordinance says that if parking is on the first level it needs to be screened. There is also a transparancy requirement to make sure the street level is not built as blank walls. Thus the transparancy requirement and the parking screening conflict. The ordinance also "encourages" active uses on the first floor but doesn't require them. There in lies the problem. Unless it is required, certain developers are going to find the cheapest way to build their project and neglect the good of the city. You can't count on the developer to do what's best for all so it is up to our city leaders to have the vision to make sure projects meet some sort of minimum standards. At this point anything goes.

[GRDadof3]

That was my point in my previous post. What if the numbers don't work if they have to do retail on the first floor (that will sit empty for the foreseeable future)? Unused retail space costs money. Does the city make it a "requirement", therefore scaring away ANY development and appearing anti-business? The city needs to work with developers and come up with some solutions, IMO. Offer additional tax credits if ground floor retail is used, such as the extra credits that are given if residential is included in a project, with an eye on the future possible use of that space?

[GRDadof3]

For those of you not "intimately" familiar with this area, here are some shots I got today of that area:

This is the old trucking depot that has been purchased by Moch that will eventually be demolished:

Right across the street is the Grandville side of the new ITP - Rapid Station (City busses and greyhound currently, expanding to include Amtrak in future and possible center for other rapid transit):

To the left in this picture, but out of view, is Terra Firma's renovation project at 212 - 216 Grandville:

An old building that was renovated to house The Rapid's admin offices:

Another renovated garage

Azzar hostage, the old Engine House No. 6

I didn't get shots of the renovated (but vacant) Horseshoe Bar and the Grand Rapids Ballet offices.

[torgo]

It's a very sticky item to deal with. The City Ordinance says that if parking is on the first level it needs to be screened. There is also a transparancy requirement to make sure the street level is not built as blank walls. Thus the transparancy requirement and the parking screening conflict. The ordinance also "encourages" active uses on the first floor but doesn't require them. There in lies the problem. Unless it is required, certain developers are going to find the cheapest way to build their project and neglect the good of the city. You can't count on the developer to do what's best for all so it is up to our city leaders to have the vision to make sure projects meet some sort of minimum standards. At this point anything goes.

The real problem (I think) with the transparency requirement is that it stipulates that the front of the building shall be 60-% transparent and the rear shall be 40% transparent. It doesn't say that the front of the building has to face the street. Therefore, you could call the part facing the street the "rear" and the part facing a service drive or something the "front", which is what happened with JW on Pearl. What I think it should say is something like "the portion of a building that fronts a public right-of-way shall be 60 or 70% transparent."

And, I don't think this transparency is required in all zoning districts either.

[Nitro]

This is the old trucking depot that has been purchased by Moch that will eventually be demolished:

That's a outright shame. Replace those garage doors with storefront windows and you'd have one of the coolest urban offices in the City of GR. (and clean off MEEK's handy work on the two story section)........

[GRguy]

http://www.atlanta-midtown.com/business/zonolite/

Nitro: This is a great project in Atlanta, former truck terminal, replaced the doors with storefronts and now filled with galleries, advertising firms and one of the best restaurants in the city.