New Construction and Renovations in the Heartside District

[Allison Slater]

I've only seen it from a distance, and I at first thought it was probably doing a good job keeping people out of doorways and keeping sidewalks more clear. I guess it's doing a lot more than that.

[jwazzz]

And the headquarters of the GRPD is how many blocks away? I don't think it's the park that has failed, it's the police department - one cruiser parked at Cherry and Division; problem solved.

Edited April 9, 2010 by jwazzz

[gvsusean]

And the headquarters of the GRPD is how many blocks away? I don't think it's the park that has failed, it's the police department - one cruiser parked at Cherry and Division; problem solved.

more effective solution... eliminate the shelters there, i wish the VA or DV or FM would buy them out and buid the shelters somewhere else... in a different time they fit in there but, now is not that time

[jas49503]

I drive by that corner all the time and there has always been a ton of shady looking characters there. it's just that they all hang out in the park now rather than on the street corner. I agree that the shelters and ministries directly contribute to the problem and that redeveloping that part of town will be difficult as long as there are so many homeless/drug addicts milling about.

If you look at the success of a park based on it's utilization by the citizens of a city it's probably the most successful park ever. the thing is jam packed most days.

[nurfle!]

more effective solution... eliminate the shelters there, i wish the VA or DV or FM would buy them out and buid the shelters somewhere else... in a different time they fit in there but, now is not that time

I drive by that corner all the time and there has always been a ton of shady looking characters there. it's just that they all hang out in the park now rather than on the street corner. I agree that the shelters and ministries directly contribute to the problem and that redeveloping that part of town will be difficult as long as there are so many homeless/drug addicts milling about.

If you look at the success of a park based on it's utilization by the citizens of a city it's probably the most successful park ever. the thing is jam packed most days.

Just wondering, where would y'all put the shelters? I'm not seeing your"now is not that time."

[GRDadof3]

I drive by that corner all the time and there has always been a ton of shady looking characters there. it's just that they all hang out in the park now rather than on the street corner. I agree that the shelters and ministries directly contribute to the problem and that redeveloping that part of town will be difficult as long as there are so many homeless/drug addicts milling about.

If you look at the success of a park based on it's utilization by the citizens of a city it's probably the most successful park ever. the thing is jam packed most days.

Wow, so true. Division Ave is probably the most vibrant part of the city too, if you count pedestrian traffic.

It sounds to me that this is the perfect opportunity to reign in a whole bunch of drug dealers, if they're doing it so blatantly. Kind of like those Dateline shows where they capture internet predators. In a few short weeks of stakeouts and busts around that new park, seems like they could totally clean up Division in no time. Am I missing something?

[arcturus]

Sure, we're here to sell or buy drugs, so what? Our numbers are contributing to making the area 'vibrant'!

If you look at the success of a park based on it's utilization by the citizens of a city it's probably the most successful park ever. the thing is jam packed most days

Yes, it's truly a model of urban success that other cities should mimic lol.

[EGR-ARCHI]

more effective solution... eliminate the shelters there, i wish the VA or DV or FM would buy them out and buid the shelters somewhere else... in a different time they fit in there but, now is not that time

Have you ever been to Times Square? There are shelters in close proximity to it and plenty of people from all cast of life passing through. It is still successful. I no Division is no Times Square but it is one of our most visible virbrant corridors into the city. We should find a better solution than simply relocating the shelters. Heck it is good for everyone to see and be seen rather than be relocated and forgotten.

[GRDadof3]

Have you ever been to Times Square? There are shelters in close proximity to it and plenty of people from all cast of life passing through. It is still successful. I no Division is no Times Square but it is one of our most visible virbrant corridors into the city. We should find a better solution than simply relocating the shelters. Heck it is good for everyone to see and be seen rather than be relocated and forgotten.

Are you actually suggesting that homelessness can be solved? Maybe reduced.

BTW, here's the last homeless holdout in Times Square: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/nyregion/30heavy.html

[joeDowntown]

I vote to move the shelters to Jenison.

[jwazzz]

I vote to move the shelters to Jenison.

Second that.

[d8alterego]

That's the problem with gentrification: the poor get pushed out. It's great that old buildings get rehabed, but property values go up and thus property taxes, so those that can't keep up with rising property taxes (the poor) tend to be forced out. The public pressure then builds to relocate the shelters to more economically depressed areas. Yet we have to ask ourselves if that is what we want. Heartside is named Heartside for a reason. The personal interactions between students, artists, businessmen/women, the homeless, the religious community give heartside its character. Take away the homeless and the religious community who serve them and you don't have the same neighborhood character. I wouldn't want that. To me, you live and work in heartside because you want to be there, even if it contains people with radically different views than you. Also, are the homeless not citizens of the city as well? Don't they have a right to enjoy a park as much as you do? How often have any of us sat down a talked to someone that's homeless? I bet you they love Heartside just as much as you do.

[crinzema]

That's the problem with gentrification: the poor get pushed out. It's great that old buildings get rehabed, but property values go up and thus property taxes, so those that can't keep up with rising property taxes (the poor) tend to be forced out. The public pressure then builds to relocate the shelters to more economically depressed areas. Yet we have to ask ourselves if that is what we want. Heartside is named Heartside for a reason. The personal interactions between students, artists, businessmen/women, the homeless, the religious community give heartside its character. Take away the homeless and the religious community who serve them and you don't have the same neighborhood character. I wouldn't want that. To me, you live and work in heartside because you want to be there, even if it contains people with radically different views than you. Also, are the homeless not citizens of the city as well? Don't they have a right to enjoy a park as much as you do? How often have any of us sat down a talked to someone that's homeless? I bet you they love Heartside just as much as you do.

How about we all become poor and create character in every neighborhood. Lets ship homeless people around the country to the grand rapids. Instead of rehabing historical buildings to increase their value, how about we put them all in a state of disrepair. That'll sure make us a vibrant city. Detroit should be looked up to as thee go to place for the up and coming. Who doesn't want to move to detroit? I can't think of one person.

Edited April 16, 2010 by crinzema

[d8alterego]

Your reply seems tinged with sarcasm and venom. Still haven't buried the hatchet have you crinzema? It seems to me that people, including you, often forget that the homeless are people as well. It would be easy to just close down their soup kitchen to force them out, wouldn't it? Have you ever helped out at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen? Or, as I mentioned in my previous post, ever talked to any of them? Before you start going after me for trying to point out that Heartside has a heart, how about you try changing yours? I think you'll have a greater appreciation for the nieghborhood. Also, I don't advocate against redevelopment. I want the old buildings saved, but not at the expense of a St. Mary's style "level them all for parking" approach. I would just like developers to have somewhat of an appreciation for what the neighborhood is before altering it to the point of closing down soup kitchens.

How about we all become poor and create character in every neighborhood. Lets ship homeless people around the country to the grand rapids. Instead of rehabing historical buildings to increase their value, how about we put them all in a state of disrepair. That'll sure make us a vibrant city. Detroit should be looked up to as thee go to place for the up and coming. Who doesn't want to move to detroit? I can't think of one person.

Edited April 16, 2010 by d8alterego

[Veloise]

I've talked with a disadvantaged person. Actually, he spoke to me first. It was after the last BotM concert, and we were sharing a park bench. While I didn't inquire into his background, he offered that he was a veteran, and a resident at one of the social service agencies in the subject area.

He didn't smell bad, or ask for a light, nor money, and I would be happy to run into him again and visit further.

[Prankster]

That's the problem with gentrification: the poor get pushed out. It's great that old buildings get rehabed, but property values go up and thus property taxes, so those that can't keep up with rising property taxes (the poor) tend to be forced out. The public pressure then builds to relocate the shelters to more economically depressed areas. Yet we have to ask ourselves if that is what we want. Heartside is named Heartside for a reason. The personal interactions between students, artists, businessmen/women, the homeless, the religious community give heartside its character. Take away the homeless and the religious community who serve them and you don't have the same neighborhood character. I wouldn't want that. To me, you live and work in heartside because you want to be there, even if it contains people with radically different views than you. Also, are the homeless not citizens of the city as well? Don't they have a right to enjoy a park as much as you do? How often have any of us sat down a talked to someone that's homeless? I bet you they love Heartside just as much as you do.

I don't think that people have a problem with the homeless or disadvantaged using the park, it's the drug dealers and users that make it less than hospitable.

[joeDowntown]

I don't know if you can really say that homeless shelters add to the 'fabric' of the neighborhood. The word Heartside partly comes from an attempt to give a once unsavory area an upbeat name. From a pure economic and development standpoint, Heartside would be *MUCH* better off without the shelters. I don't think anyone can really debate that (without some thinly veiled PC comment). The problem is, the homeless are people and should be treated with decency. But I think it is silly to try to put a positive spin on a large population of homeless (it gives the area character).

It's definitely a problem without a simple solution...

Joe

That's the problem with gentrification: the poor get pushed out. It's great that old buildings get rehabed, but property values go up and thus property taxes, so those that can't keep up with rising property taxes (the poor) tend to be forced out. The public pressure then builds to relocate the shelters to more economically depressed areas. Yet we have to ask ourselves if that is what we want. Heartside is named Heartside for a reason. The personal interactions between students, artists, businessmen/women, the homeless, the religious community give heartside its character. Take away the homeless and the religious community who serve them and you don't have the same neighborhood character. I wouldn't want that. To me, you live and work in heartside because you want to be there, even if it contains people with radically different views than you. Also, are the homeless not citizens of the city as well? Don't they have a right to enjoy a park as much as you do? How often have any of us sat down a talked to someone that's homeless? I bet you they love Heartside just as much as you do.

[grmetro]

I love taking the moral high ground. My heart is bigger than yours. I care about other people more than you and therefore the foundation of my argument is untouchable because I've established that you are hard-hearted and not nearly as compassionate as I.

The homeless are people. The homed are people. From what I've read there has been no mention of shutting the shelters and saying "good riddance" but merely mentions of suggestions that the best use for the area is no longer for homeless shelters and that other areas may be bettered suited. That should be the conversation not moral superiority. I'm all about a big heart but I occasionally like to consult my brain, which is capable of caring for humankind whilst also understanding the ever-changing realities of a progressive economy (which happens to help both the homeless and the homed). This conversation can establish ideas to benefit both the homeless and the homed.

And can we please address the situation in real terms. We can couch every conversation about the homeless as those just needing a cup of soup (which many are) but we also need to acknowledge that there is a contingent of the homeless that are drug dependent, mentally unstable. potentially harassing, and perhaps not as "vibrant" or "diverse" as previously described. A productive conversation should admit and acknowledge all facets of an issue.

Your reply seems tinged with sarcasm and venom. Still haven't buried the hatchet have you crinzema? It seems to me that people, including you, often forget that the homeless are people as well. It would be easy to just close down their soup kitchen to force them out, wouldn't it? Have you ever helped out at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen? Or, as I mentioned in my previous post, ever talked to any of them? Before you start going after me for trying to point out that Heartside has a heart, how about you try changing yours? I think you'll have a greater appreciation for the nieghborhood. Also, I don't advocate against redevelopment. I want the old buildings saved, but not at the expense of a St. Mary's style "level them all for parking" approach. I would just like developers to have somewhat of an appreciation for what the neighborhood is before altering it to the point of closing down soup kitchens.

[JoeSchmo]

I am not even sure the issue is about the homeless. I think the primary issue is the crime and the crime that happens in the nearby pocket park. I dont believe you can move the homeless shelter at all. Its not like there is solely one homeless shelter here and you can pick up and move it. This area is pretty much a central hub for the homeless to find services. I know I dont know all of them, but just a few of the outreach programs on this block include Degage Ministries, Meltrotter Ministries, and God's Kitchen to name a few (all within a small block of Division and Cherry).

This does prevent large developers from coming in developing. However despite this, I dont mind it 'undeveloped'. This area allows for more 'common' business owners to start affordable shops in the downtown area, rather than benefiting large business or bar moguls if it was developed. Therefore I would say this 'undeveloped' area does provide diversity in the city.

I love taking the moral high ground. My heart is bigger than yours. I care about other people more than you and therefore the foundation of my argument is untouchable because I've established that you are hard-hearted and not nearly as compassionate as I.

The homeless are people. The homed are people. From what I've read there has been no mention of shutting the shelters and saying "good riddance" but merely mentions of suggestions that the best use for the area is no longer for homeless shelters and that other areas may be bettered suited. That should be the conversation not moral superiority. I'm all about a big heart but I occasionally like to consult my brain, which is capable of caring for humankind whilst also understanding the ever-changing realities of a progressive economy (which happens to help both the homeless and the homed). This conversation can establish ideas to benefit both the homeless and the homed.

And can we please address the situation in real terms. We can couch every conversation about the homeless as those just needing a cup of soup (which many are) but we also need to acknowledge that there is a contingent of the homeless that are drug dependent, mentally unstable. potentially harassing, and perhaps not as "vibrant" or "diverse" as previously described. A productive conversation should admit and acknowledge all facets of an issue.

[jas49503]

I don't think the problem is any one homeless shelter. it's the concentration of homeless shelters and outreach programs. I don't think that developers would be turned off by a dozen or so homeless people wandering south division. 10 times that, is what makes it a turn off. Reminds me of the Projects in many larger cities; think Cabrini Green or Robert Taylor homes in Chicago. They were a failed social experiment. Dispersion of "differently advantaged" (I'm not going to say disadvantaged, who is to say that their life choices are lesser than anyone else's life choices. it is discriminatory and wrong) people seems to be the in vogue social experiment de jour. It certainly seems that in this situation that it would help with redevelopment of Division. It also would also enable homeless people in other parts of the city to enjoy the benefits of having a ministry/mission nearby.

[GRDadof3]

I don't think the problem is any one homeless shelter. it's the concentration of homeless shelters and outreach programs. I don't think that developers would be turned off by a dozen or so homeless people wandering south division. 10 times that, is what makes it a turn off. Reminds me of the Projects in many larger cities; think Cabrini Green or Robert Taylor homes in Chicago. They were a failed social experiment. Dispersion of "differently advantaged" (I'm not going to say disadvantaged, who is to say that their life choices are lesser than anyone else's life choices. it is discriminatory and wrong) people seems to be the in vogue social experiment de jour. It certainly seems that in this situation that it would help with redevelopment of Division. It also would also enable homeless people in other parts of the city to enjoy the benefits of having a ministry/mission nearby.

Exactly, it's the concentration of homeless shelters in that area. Anyone who works in a homeless shelter and helps out the homeless, who feels that the situation should stay that way is nuts. The sole purpose/goal of a homeless shelter is to figure out a plan to put itself out of business (not needed anymore). Make it a five year plan.

Instead of working on a plan to move the shelters, figure out a way to get rid of homelessness altogether. If that's not being worked on, then the whole homeless shelter system is a massive failure.

[EGR-ARCHI]

Exactly, it's the concentration of homeless shelters in that area. Anyone who works in a homeless shelter and helps out the homeless, who feels that the situation should stay that way is nuts. The sole purpose/goal of a homeless shelter is to figure out a plan to put itself out of business (not needed anymore). Make it a five year plan.

Instead of working on a plan to move the shelters, figure out a way to get rid of homelessness altogether. If that's not being worked on, then the whole homeless shelter system is a massive failure.

These words sound familiar,

"Are you actually suggesting that homelessness can be solved? Maybe reduced."

Edited April 19, 2010 by EGR-ARCHI

[GRDadof3]

These words sound familiar,

"Are you actually suggesting that homelessness can be solved? Maybe reduced."

You're right, I should have taken my own advice.

[d8alterego]

I would agree with you Joe that I shouldn't put a "positive spin" on homelessness. My concern and point is that, with the goal being the redevelopment of Heartside, we shouldn't just see the homeless shelters or soup kitchens as an obsticale to that redevelopment. So far, the redevelopment projects and the shelters have gotten along just fine. If the community outreach programs fulfill their goals and eliminate homelessness as GRDad hopes, then good for them. Problem solved.

I don't know if you can really say that homeless shelters add to the 'fabric' of the neighborhood. The word Heartside partly comes from an attempt to give a once unsavory area an upbeat name. From a pure economic and development standpoint, Heartside would be *MUCH* better off without the shelters. I don't think anyone can really debate that (without some thinly veiled PC comment). The problem is, the homeless are people and should be treated with decency. But I think it is silly to try to put a positive spin on a large population of homeless (it gives the area character).

It's definitely a problem without a simple solution...

Joe

Your accusation of me taking the "moral high ground" is not an insult. I'd gladly take that stand in every arguement I make for it usually wins them. If you choose to argue the moral low ground, by all means do so. I was not the one to start the conversation about the homeless, nor pure morality issues, but I decided to voice my opinion on the collective generalizing of the homeless at a Heartside pocket park. I did not stray off topic since my point relates to the community outreach programs affecting Heartside. Those programs and those they serve also affect the neighborhood in how it redevelops. Is that not what this thread is about? Homelessness in Heartside is a big problem, even bigger when people generalize, marginalize, and discard them as something other than human. Hence the recent viloence against the homeless in many cities.

I love taking the moral high ground. My heart is bigger than yours. I care about other people more than you and therefore the foundation of my argument is untouchable because I've established that you are hard-hearted and not nearly as compassionate as I.

The homeless are people. The homed are people. From what I've read there has been no mention of shutting the shelters and saying "good riddance" but merely mentions of suggestions that the best use for the area is no longer for homeless shelters and that other areas may be bettered suited. That should be the conversation not moral superiority. I'm all about a big heart but I occasionally like to consult my brain, which is capable of caring for humankind whilst also understanding the ever-changing realities of a progressive economy (which happens to help both the homeless and the homed). This conversation can establish ideas to benefit both the homeless and the homed.

And can we please address the situation in real terms. We can couch every conversation about the homeless as those just needing a cup of soup (which many are) but we also need to acknowledge that there is a contingent of the homeless that are drug dependent, mentally unstable. potentially harassing, and perhaps not as "vibrant" or "diverse" as previously described. A productive conversation should admit and acknowledge all facets of an issue.

Edited April 20, 2010 by d8alterego

[jas49503]

My concern and point is that, with the goal being the redevelopment of Heartside, we shouldn't just see the homeless shelters or soup kitchens as an obsticale to that redevelopment.

Why not? that's exactly what they are. walking up and down division there are ton's of vacancies. The businesses that are there, with just a couple of exceptions, are not exactly mainstream. I see no problem with severely limiting the services in that location. I think that there should be some redistribution throughout the city with an overall reduction in total services. The aim being to end voluntary homelessness. Shelters/missions/minsitries enable this type of behavior.

On another point, I've had many conversations with homeless people/drug addicts and generally speaking the only response I can get is incomprehensible gibberish or a total lack of conversational focus intermixed with significant tangential thoughts and flights of ideas. Most other homeless can function in society and therefore are homeless by choice. (I"m not referring to the small percentage who are truly down on thier luck and homeless temporarily because they lost their job or had some huge medical expense, etc.)

Of course these people need the most help and should not be ignored because they wont go away until they freeze or starve to death (something I am not condoning) They used to end in large mental hospitals until those were all shuttered. now they end up homeless or in prison. I don't have a good solution other than to spread them around so that regular people who can't handle them don't get too scared off from one particular part of town.