Can we get BIG?

[Rizzo]

We did it in the 50s, who is to say it can't be done now?

[RustTown]

It's good to dream big. It's equally as good to be realistic, IMO. Anything can happen, but what is most likely to happen, as well? I'm really not trying to be a downer, but I don't get some's obsession with wanting to be the "next big thing" instead of the best city it can be. It's not about not dreaming big, but setting realistic goals.

[Rizzo]

My prefrence for Metro GR would be a cool 1.2 - 2.5 million. Note to new commers: If we must grow, please grow away from my house. And Lil, you are correct -- I missed that one.

[GRDadof3]

It's not about not dreaming big, but setting realistic goals.

Uhh, I think it's a little of both. But you're right about shear size of the downtown. Shoot, Grant Park in Chicago is bigger than GR's downtown grid. Besides, personally if I wanted GR to become Chicago, I'd....move to Chicago. It's already there and a turn-key operation.

[RustTown]

That was my point, GRdad. It's about both dreaming big and setting realistic and tangible goals. There are two many mayors that have only did the former, and left in their wake is a graveyard of projects/white elephants that never happened, and real neighborhoods and citizens left behind. Downtown revitalization, retainment, and growth always need to be a priority, but not the only priority at the expensive of most all other's that has happened in far too many cities over the past 50 years.

[tamias6]

I think I know what you mean. I sort of alluded to it in a previous post about expanding downtown's borders after there was no room left for infill. The problem is we don't have a big central urban core, and cities aren't really built that way anymore, so they only way to expand it to Chicago levels would be to raze residential areas. I'm not opposed to that as long as historical areas like Heritage Hill are protected, but good luck getting West side residents to buy in to that plan.

Chicago, on the other hand, has plenty of room to expand downtown. I would consider Chicago's urban core to extend all the way north past Wrigley field! Although not all filled with skyscrapers up there, the neighborhoods are dense and built out to the street, and high rises aren't terrbily out of place. Unless there's a return to classic city development, Grand Rapids just won't have that huge feel. Our street grid doesn't extend very far at all.

Just imagine skyscrapers at the end of a cul-de-sac.

-nb

Here's my Predictions of DT growth.

Heritage Hill would not move unless a natual disaster obliterated the place. It is a historic district filled with NIMBYS that would fight to the bitter end to keep it as it is. So expanding due east, would not be an option with the exception of Michigan St. up Pill Hill. Note that I have nothing against HH. Infact, I feel its an important asset to the city that should be kept around and enhanced. Anyway, back to where I'm going. Expanding DT westward would be a challenge because of the river and the "Great Wall of Westside" a.k.a US 131 from the S-Curve to the 196 Innerchange. However, I do see sometime in the near future Westside becoming denser esp. along Bridge Street, Lake Michigan Dr. and Fulton St. with midrise mixuse buildings and town homes with building hight increasing the closer to DT one get. Even though east and west are not options. DT won't have trouble growing north and south. I think when the city reaches 250,000 people DT will have grown north beyond 196 to the Water Building at the end of Munroe Ave while engulfing all of Haertside to the south. We're seeing the beginning signs of that process now. At 500,000 people DT will expand north to Leonard St. and south to Wealthy. It would also densify to the southeast to hopfully rid St Mary's Hospital of all those dreaded surface lots. (Hopping against hope on that one.) So in short, eastword expansion is not an option, westward expansion is not likly but westside will densify, while north and south growth is very likely when the city reaches 250,000 people and above.