Jump to content

Zoning approved for a new Super Target on Alpine

grrwymg

By grrwymg
in Grand Rapids

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply
francishsu Hamlet

francishsu

Posted
Posted

The Target on 28th and Cascade is a Super Target, its just missing the produce, which they plan on adding later. It was a first for Michigan, and more of a test store. It's still considered a Super Target as far as corp. is concerned.

Well, there's Target, Target Greatland and SuperTarget. Does it actually say SuperTarget at the 28th and Cascade locations, or Target Greatland?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phizzy Hamlet

Phizzy

Posted
Posted
The Target on 28th and Cascade is a Super Target, its just missing the produce, which they plan on adding later. It was a first for Michigan, and more of a test store. It's still considered a Super Target as far as corp. is concerned.
It is? Using Target's very own store locator with zip code 49512 (which is the zip code where the 28th/Cascade Target is located in) shows the nearest Super Target as being located in Granger, Indiana.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
Posted

I had heard from a family member who used to work in management for Target that the reason they are shying away from SuperTargets in Michigan is due to more union involvement with the meat departments. Apparently there is a strong meat cutters union in Michigan. And you don't want to mess with a bunch of striking meat-cutters brandishing cleavers :(

That may be an urban myth though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
Posted

My point exactly.

I can sort of see how the two are connected (Showgirls and a SuperTarget). Both are uses that may not be wanted in particular areas. But the courts are probably more likely to back up London than Target, because they'll also throw in Freedom of Expression in there as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRGyp Whistle-Stop

GRGyp

Posted
Posted

I had heard from a family member who used to work in management for Target that the reason they are shying away from SuperTargets in Michigan is due to more union involvement with the meat departments. Apparently there is a strong meat cutters union in Michigan. And you don't want to mess with a bunch of striking meat-cutters brandishing cleavers :(

That may be an urban myth though.

Coming from a person whose brother was a meat cutter/manager for Great Day, and whose grandfather was lifelong meat cutter/manager with Meijer. I'd say big time urban legend...

My understanding was that both Target and Wal-mart were content with regular centers and didn't want to "go to war" with Meijer when they started introducing stores in Michigan. Now that they have a strong foothold in the state, and Meijer is looking a little weak, I think they decided that they could risk raising the stakes in Michigan for more marketshare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRGyp Whistle-Stop

GRGyp

Posted
Posted

I can sort of see how the two are connected (Showgirls and a SuperTarget). Both are uses that may not be wanted in particular areas. But the courts are probably more likely to back up London than Target, because they'll also throw in Freedom of Expression in there as well.

London to Target is not a good analogy. If Target is denied expansion it will based on zoning laws that will be applied fairly to all other establishments in the area. Things like parking space to square footage, easement restrictions, etc... All the city/township has to prove is the ordiance is fair and unbiased to all businesses in the area

The Showgirls Galleria is being singled out by Grand Rapids, and is in a different situation. London is going to argue that if he were to open a business that would service a different clientel, yet take up the same parking restrictions, require the same occupancy limitations, etc... that the city would accept such business without an argument.

In short, the city is using a different measuring stick for his business in respect to any other business that may want to open in that same location.

I'd be a NIMBY on London opening anything like this near my home, but based strictly on the law, he's got a good argument. Especially since the city is starting to modify it's ordinances after he announced what he planned to do with the property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
francishsu Hamlet

francishsu

Posted
Posted

I think my comment was taken the wrong way.. I ment London-esque as London uses Free Speach and freedom of association to allow himself the right to do business. :) It has nothing to do with Target v. Tittiebars.

Another connection is that they are both "targets", no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snoogit Town

snoogit

Posted
Posted

My point was that the First Amendment has been so incredibly abused that anyone, any company, etc. could manipulate it to serve their purposes to get what they want. Especially if they have a good lawyer.

A Super Target trying to argue about constitutionality of it's ability to build on a certain land plot wouldn't have anything to do with the first amendment. maybe the eleventh amendment, but not the 1st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snoogit Town

snoogit

Posted
Posted

Neither does dancing naked . . .

That is covered, because it is considered freedom of expression. What differes with the two mediums is the business side of it. because Strip clubs and the like are offered under "entertainment" free speech protects that, but shopping at Target is not considered "entertainment" it is considered a busniness transaction (regardless if you have haivng fun running up your debt at a store, the government will never consider what you are doing "entertainment")

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRGyp Whistle-Stop

GRGyp

Posted
Posted

That is covered, because it is considered freedom of expression. What differes with the two mediums is the business side of it. because Strip clubs and the like are offered under "entertainment" free speech protects that, but shopping at Target is not considered "entertainment" it is considered a busniness transaction (regardless if you have haivng fun running up your debt at a store, the government will never consider what you are doing "entertainment")

So all we have to do is get Target have their cashiers dance naked on the checkout counters and they can have that store expansion they want... :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rizzo City

Rizzo

Posted
Posted

I hate to nitpick, and I'm sure a lot of other west siders will find this humorous, but there's no 'S' in Meijer. :P

Meijer's because its owned by Meijer. I have yet to meet someone from my neck of the woods who dosen't refer Meijer to Meijer's...

Dude 1: "Aww where ya going?"

Dude 2: "Oh, just gonna go get some batteries from Meijers."

Dude 1: "Aww, Meijers!"

Atleast its not like the people I met from Florida who call it "My Ger."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCityGuy Whistle-Stop

TheCityGuy

Posted
Posted

Meijer's because its owned by Meijer. I have yet to meet someone from my neck of the woods who dosen't refer Meijer to Meijer's...

Dude 1: "Aww where ya going?"

Dude 2: "Oh, just gonna go get some batteries from Meijers."

Dude 1: "Aww, Meijers!"

Atleast its not like the people I met from Florida who call it "My Ger."

I hear this all the time...Fords, K-Marts, Wal-Mart's, etc. Wal-Mart's isn't owned by Wal-Mart. Adding the "s" drive's me crazy :wacko: One of my pet peeves I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ericnmu Whistle-Stop

ericnmu

Posted
Posted

Well, there's Target, Target Greatland and SuperTarget. Does it actually say SuperTarget at the 28th and Cascade locations, or Target Greatland?

It is larger than a Greatland, but it is not an official Super Target, which is why you wont find it on the store locator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRGyp Whistle-Stop

GRGyp

Posted
Posted

I hear this all the time...Fords, K-Marts, Wal-Mart's, etc. Wal-Mart's isn't owned by Wal-Mart. Adding the "s" drive's me crazy :wacko: One of my pet peeves I guess.

I get that with people and the liquids they drink. I had 4 beers, 4 waters, etc... What? Is that number of molecules of beer/water/etc. that you drank? :dontknow:

It's a liquid, you can't count it individually unless you quantify it somehow. I drank four bottles of beer, four glasses of water, etc...

After all you don't go out to Lake Michigan and marvel at all the waters it contains. :P

Sorry. I'm getting a little :offtopic: with my rant here.

To get it semi back on topic. What do people think could be done to the Alpine corridor, short of dropping a nuclear device on it, that could improve it's lack of planning and focus into something more people friendly? Or is it to late, with all hope lost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lstmk Unincorporated Area

lstmk

Posted
Posted

To get it semi back on topic. What do people think could be done to the Alpine corridor, short of dropping a nuclear device on it, that could improve it's lack of planning and focus into something more people friendly? Or is it to late, with all hope lost?

They could add another lane each direction and increase parking lot sizes. :yahoo:

Errrr, I almost think it's unsalvagable as it is from Meijer N past Walmart. Best bet is to prevent future Sprawl to the North. There are just sooo many fast food places, asphalt jungles, etc. all on top of each other. It would be nice if there was a Large section of green space to "slow down" the busy feel of Alpine. Imagine a small park in part of the Lear Parking lot, and a reduction in lanes from Lear S to where it is 2 Lanes. That doesn't help up North, but it's a start. Maybe a BLVD! Anything but more Asphalt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCityGuy Whistle-Stop

TheCityGuy

Posted
Posted

To get it semi back on topic. What do people think could be done to the Alpine corridor, short of dropping a nuclear device on it, that could improve it's lack of planning and focus into something more people friendly? Or is it to late, with all hope lost?

Alpine Avenue is what it is. It is the culmination of numerous factors (all of them not necessarily "bad planning"). Too many to discuss in this thread.

That being said, the one thing that could be done to improve it (and any highly commercial corridor) is to improve the pedestrian environment. A second and more dramatic change would be to reexamine the curb cuts/drives into the various properties and somehow provide for increased shared access drives between properties. This would also help the pedestrian circulation.

We should probably just start an Alpine Avenue thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • 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.