Jump to content

Gallery on Fulton


civitas

Recommended Posts

"If we get a six-month extension, I do not want to come back for another one" - Sam Cummings

What's six months in the grand scheme of things?

They are on OUR time.

Apparently they dont even know what it's like to pull something like this together.

Too many times this city babies these developers along until the whole thing falls apart. If they cant get it together then we should move on. I dont feel sorry for them at all.

Unless you've built a high rise in downtown GR with street level retail, how can you be trusted to judge what is an adequate timetable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think (know) a lot of us who voice our opinions are not developers and honestly have no clue how long it takes to pull something like this together. Comments like 'they've had PLENTY of time' should only be coming from seasoned developers and real estate professionals. Sure, you can say 'this sucks' or 'man this is taking forever,' but to ridicule SSP for taking their time and suggest starting over from scratch is ridiculous.

Just my opinion.

Rockford Construction stated that they could have started immediately.

There is an "opportunity cost" that comes from that site sitting empty for two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RSC hasn't done anything like it either.

I'm just saying, they know what they're doing a heck of a lot more than most everyone here (save about 6 people) so to say 'oh well screw 'em, find someone else' is silly. Who says the 'anyone else' is going to have any better luck finding a tenant for their building?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying, they know what they're doing a heck of a lot more than most everyone here (save about 6 people) so to say 'oh well screw 'em, find someone else' is silly. Who says the 'anyone else' is going to have any better luck finding a tenant for their building?

You can't get much lower than 0.... That's all I'm saying. If you read the article, UICA has no business making the move. They're being totally subsidized the whole way and Second Story has offered to buy the property on Sheldon if they can't sell it. "If I can't sell your home, I'll buy it!" comes to mind.

Why don't they offer it up to the previous parties, and still let Second Story resubmit a package when they are ready (Summer 2007)? Give them an extension, but make it open ended for other developers? But to put all the eggs in this very poorly made easter basket is a bad move in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If we get a six-month extension, I do not want to come back for another one" - Sam Cummings

What's six months in the grand scheme of things?

Unless you've built a high rise in downtown GR with street level retail, how can you be trusted to judge what is an adequate timetable?

I didnt set the time table.

The city did.

These guys get one extension, then they'll be back for another and another, all because we dont get what anguish they are going through? How soon before all developers start demanding the same deals with the city?

Why set these timetables if no one will stick to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder the same thing. I admit that I don't know much about how large-scale developments like these work. But from a political standpoint, if the City just rubber-stamps every request for an extension that comes across their desk, what leverage does it give them in the future to hold other developers feet to the fire when it comes to timelines? If they grant the extension now and SSP asks for another six months in June, then they would HAVE to do something else.

If its not unusual for projects to take this long for everything to come together, then does that mean that the initial timeline was unrealistic?

Edited by torgo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps all of this negativity is justified, but I think that Second Story is a top-notch company and I'm willing to give them some slack.

I also love the idea of UICA anchoring that spot. It would bridge the new Civic with all of the new galleries/performance spaces in the 100 block of S. Division.

Edited by winjer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What many developers will do for these large scale projects is keep everything under wraps for quite a while, and have all of the private stuff (such as design, engineering, financing, City Staff support, and such) off the public radar until they show up to the city with a full application for development.

That is why the River Grand project has turned into such a cluster....They should have kept it under wraps until they made it known they wanted the city island property. But I also agree that with a RFP, it's kind of hard to keep things quiet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an extension is granted, I want SSP to fork over the asking price for that land rather then sitting on the lot with grass growing. I agree that SSP has been great for DT, but Gilmore had done a lot too and fell flat on his face with the Red Ball Jet Cafe. I think there comes a time when something is too big, unwieldly, or too difficult for a developer to handle (for a plethora of different reasons) the city needs to stick to their guns or really put some eggs on the line for the developer in question to get something done.

Edited by jdkacz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think (know) a lot of us who voice our opinions are not developers and honestly have no clue how long it takes to pull something like this together. Comments like 'they've had PLENTY of time' should only be coming from seasoned developers and real estate professionals. Sure, you can say 'this sucks' or 'man this is taking forever,' but to ridicule SSP for taking their time and suggest starting over from scratch is ridiculous.

Just my opinion.

I am of the same opinion. Large projects always have delays, no matter what industry you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But another proposal that was not selected had an immediate start date (though I'm glad there isn't a drive-thru CVS downtown). The point is, build or get out of the way. SSP is one of the best companies in GR (IMHO), but that doesn't mean they should be able to sit on the property until it meets their timeline. The city gave them one, and it's comin' due.

Joe

I think (know) a lot of us who voice our opinions are not developers and honestly have no clue how long it takes to pull something like this together. Comments like 'they've had PLENTY of time' should only be coming from seasoned developers and real estate professionals. Sure, you can say 'this sucks' or 'man this is taking forever,' but to ridicule SSP for taking their time and suggest starting over from scratch is ridiculous.

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're probably right twoshort. I can't run five miles, so nobody can. The world is flat too.

Put it back on the market and let RSC and SSP submit another offer. Then we'll see if someone can do better. Until then, it's pretty short-sighted to say "no one can do it because they can't" :wacko:

I'm just saying, they know what they're doing a heck of a lot more than most everyone here (save about 6 people) so to say 'oh well screw 'em, find someone else' is silly. Who says the 'anyone else' is going to have any better luck finding a tenant for their building?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous.

I love it.

Parking again. Can these people do anything except blame all of their shortcomings on parking spaces!!! We are not even talking about a lot of parking.

And this quote makes me absolutely sick. How long did these poor mothers look for parking and how far away from the museum did the venture. Again, give them a pamphlet on how to use a city or tell them to stay in their suburban bunker. I am so sick of this kind of BS!!

"Teresa Thome, director of the nearby Grand Rapids Children's Museum, said she would welcome a parking lot on the corner, even if it was temporary.

The loss of the City Centre Parking Ramp and the lack of nearby parking has hurt attendance, Thome said. Mothers with kids in the car have gone home when they could not find parking near the museum's front door, she said. "

And then we have this gem. "Unconscionable". What a drama queen!!!!

"It's unconscionable," Downtown Alliance Chairman Kurt Hassberger told the city's Parking Commission on Thursday. "There is nothing historic about a grass lot."

Jack Hoffman seems to be, once again, the voice of reason with these extremists. If they focused half as much of their time trying to actually get retail tenants downtown, we might not be having to deal with this discussion for 120 parking spaces (or whatever marginal amount we are talking about).

The sooner Heartwell is gone the better. I long for the days of John Logie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first, I was pretty upset to see the historic commission block the city on this one, but after digesting the article, I completely agree. With a stupid paved lot the city can become complacent as they're still generating revenue and car addicts have additional spots they can gobble up.

However, as a grass lot, it looks bad on the developer for taking their sweet time, it looks bad for the city to have a grass lot in the middle of the city where there should be commerce & activity taking place.

The longer it remains a grass lot, the better, it just shows that nothing is being done whatsoever and the developer needs to get movin, or at least the with a grass lot, the city may be a tad more motivated to push the developer a little harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it already a parking spot? :) I've noticed parked cars there before, what would be the point in paving it over just so that it can be demod. Since when has it stoped people from parking? Grass and dirt is better than black top -- just saying.

Edited by Rizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick and Scott are talking about this temporary parking lot idea right now on WOOD-AM 1300. This should be interesting.....

EDIT 1: As I suspected, they are billing it as a "preserve greenspace vs. build a parking lot" issue. Anyone care to call and weigh in? 616-774-2424.

EDIT 2: The director of the GR Children's Museum, the same person who was quoted in the Press article, called in and, in my opinion, did a good job of explaining the situation and the pros and cons. In typical Press fashion, it sounds like they probably took just one small part of her comments and spun it to fit their story. She explained that the historic preservation committee rejected the plan because they don't want it to become a long-term surface lot (although Rick and Scott mostly ignored this point), and said she didn't think it should be a long-term lot either. She said that the museum has had record attendance in the past year despite the old ramp no longer being there, but that some people do complain about parking. She did say that some people have left because they couldn't find a parking space, but didn't say that "the lack of nearby parking has hurt attendance". In the end, she was in favor of building a temporary lot as a way of possibly getting new people to come downtown and get familiar with the area (including the museum), so that once the lot is gone they will know their way around and continue to come downtown (and be able to find other parking).

Most of the other callers didn't have any facts on the issue, they just wanted to complain about the Historic Preservation Committee, the old JA building, or other miscellaneous topics.

Edited by highwayguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Developer Should Pay - GRBJ

This is a bit confusing. The city wants to build the lot, and figures it won't be ready until May. They need it to operate for a year to break even (May 2008). So if the developers close in July 2007 and start construction this year (tear up the lot), then the city will lose money on the parking lot and the developer will pay the city's losses? Whereas, if the developer waits to start the project until next Summer 2008, the developer won't have to pay? Aren't they incentivizing a further delay of construction by doing this? Doesn't the city want to see this thing built sooner rather than later? And what happens when the lot is there and the developers have closed on the property? Does the city pay the developers for the right to operate a parking lot?

I think this parking lot deal is such a bad idea. The developers have agreed to pay additional for the added extension. Everyone involved has made their bed, they should have to lie in it. They should've thought of a parking lot back in 2004, knowing that even in a perfect world the project would take a couple of years to come to fruition. What good is a parking lot open for 6 mos. to a year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Developer Should Pay - GRBJ

This is a bit confusing. The city wants to build the lot, and figures it won't be ready until May. They need it to operate for a year to break even (May 2008). So if the developers close in July 2007 and start construction this year (tear up the lot), then the city will lose money on the parking lot and the developer will pay the city's losses? Whereas, if the developer waits to start the project until next Summer 2008, the developer won't have to pay? Aren't they incentivizing a further delay of construction by doing this? Doesn't the city want to see this thing built sooner rather than later? And what happens when the lot is there and the developers have closed on the property? Does the city pay the developers for the right to operate a parking lot?

I think this parking lot deal is such a bad idea. The developers have agreed to pay additional for the added extension. Everyone involved has made their bed, they should have to lie in it. They should've thought of a parking lot back in 2004, knowing that even in a perfect world the project would take a couple of years to come to fruition. What good is a parking lot open for 6 mos. to a year?

It's a poker game; the city is trying to motivate the developer's construction start date. And by having it all published, it'll help Sam et al in obtaining financing or whatever. "See, it'll turn into another parking lot."

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.