Jump to content

Gallery on Fulton


civitas

Recommended Posts


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."

I don't think that this is any kind of posturing on the city's part. The people pushing for a parking lot truly believe that it will make the neighborhood better and help the business atmosphere - even if it is short term.

Some questions to think about:

Would a 100 space, metered surface parking lot (even temporary) be appropriate at this location? And if so, why?

Would the parking lot prove to be a detriment to development in the event that the current developer pulls his deal off the table?

In the event that the development does not take off, how long is it appropriate to have a temporary lot? In other words, what is temporary? The lot will allegedly be built with temporary construction..... that could have a life span of in excess of 10 years. Are we all ready to accept a parking lot at the gates of the city for a decade?

If the parking lot is built, temporarily of course, and then a few months later the developer wants to break ground, what happens? Who pays for the short fall?

Is it appropriate for the city to be spending its VERY limited funds in this manner? Basically taking on risks of development.

Is the current empty lot better than a constructed parking lot?

These decisions will be made shortly and we will all have to live with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that this is any kind of posturing on the city's part. The people pushing for a parking lot truly believe that it will make the neighborhood better and help the business atmosphere - even if it is short term.

Some questions to think about:

Would a 100 space, metered surface parking lot (even temporary) be appropriate at this location? And if so, why?

Would the parking lot prove to be a detriment to development in the event that the current developer pulls his deal off the table?

In the event that the development does not take off, how long is it appropriate to have a temporary lot? In other words, what is temporary? The lot will allegedly be built with temporary construction..... that could have a life span of in excess of 10 years. Are we all ready to accept a parking lot at the gates of the city for a decade?

If the parking lot is built, temporarily of course, and then a few months later the developer wants to break ground, what happens? Who pays for the short fall?

Is it appropriate for the city to be spending its VERY limited funds in this manner? Basically taking on risks of development.

Is the current empty lot better than a constructed parking lot?

These decisions will be made shortly and we will all have to live with them.

I suspect that Pam (the parking guru) and the other city departments do not want to throw resources towards a temporary surface lot, and the data presented are to support that (and to silence the soccer moms whose kids can't walk a couple blocks to the GRCM so they can run around the place).

And if it helps 2ndS line up their ducks, so much the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted it maybe due to completly different cirumstances, but the tower portion of the new JW Marriott sits on what use to be a surface parking lot. That didn't seem to cause any hang up with getting that development underway that I know of. Also the Van Andel Arena used to be an emmence surface lot too. Like most of the urban die hards here I don't like surface lots in urban cores. But if the developer were to pull up stakes and not build wouldn't the land be more useful if there was atleast a tempoary surface lot making money for the city than just sitting idle like it has been since the city center parking ramp was torn down?

Would the parking lot prove to be a detriment to development in the event that the current developer pulls his deal off the table?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...


^^ Wouldn't the high profile location of Division and Fulton help the UICA. The location they are at now is not exactly conducive to attracting people.

It would be nice if they maybe had a couple nice theaters in the new facility. We went to a movie once at the current facility and it was pretty cool even though it clearly wasn't originally a movie theater. I bet 95.3% of Grand Rapidians don't even know that they show films there (based on the fact that we were there on a Friday night and there was only one other couple). With this new location, maybe a lot more people would do "dinner and a movie" downtown and take in some different movies other than the normal mega-plex selection. I hope it's a smart move. I really had to go out of my way to find out what films they were showing, etc. that night. I know there's a lot more to the UICA than movies, but that might be a good draw for people to discover it. Plus, it would look good on a marquee and be a good addition.

Edited by mgreven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say it but it sounds to me like SSC, RSC needs the UICA more then the UICA needed them.

I just think its so odd that RSC would push so hard for UICA to come in, couldn't they have found easier profitable tenants faster? Or is this more of a preemptive strike on the area 5 potential development?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movies shown at UICA are in a different league than what is basically a typical Megaplex wrapped up in an urban package thats to go into Area 4/5.(nothing against it) Also the living units of one are to be apartments while the others I believe to be condos.

Or is this more of a preemptive strike on the area 5 potential development?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is great and I hope that it adds another cultural anchor to our city, but I do agree that they haven't had the best of financial times (having to reduce hours and close for a couple weeks during the slow season in recent years). With that being said, maybe moving to a high profile corner will give them a new customer base and greater ability to bring in interesting shows, art, etc.

Now here is my (stupid) question. Does the UICA have its own collection, much like the Art Museum, or are they strictly a hands on, art collaborative that has regional shows and exhibits? Honestly, I have never been there (but I'm sure I'll go when they open on Fulton/Division to see the space).

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that Tall House is competing against Riverhouse, The Fitz and Icon on Bond. Fulton and Division has I think is going to be successful because it's an underserved area (especially in the heart of downtown). I thought 240 Ionia was dead? Or maybe I'm getting it mixed up with the hotel/condo project in Heartside that seems to be dead?

Joe

What are the chances of this project, Tall House and 240 Ionia all getting built? Those 3 projects would bring Heartside to a whole new level. I know Fulton & Division is going after a different demographic, but is there still enough demand to get the other 2 projects to their 50% reservation level?
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.