Urban design in suburban settings

[tamias6]

I hope the cooling housing market doesn't hamper all the condos being built in and around DT so it can attain that crittical mass.

[blueradon]

I think the other spectrum of bringing huge retail centers in a massive (or small/medium) cluster in downtown Grand Rapids would create problems most notably with traffic congestion. People complain already and in other threads the stretch needed for mass transit because of traffic congestion in parts of the city. I don't think slapping 25-50 mall-type stores into downtown would be such a good thing.

As far as Greenville, Belding getting anything like these stores...it could very well come within time. Right now, there is such a stretch of distance between these towns and GR that I don't think a mall or lifestyle center could generate a whole lot of revenue...although I could be wrong. And for GR, that would mean further urban sprawl.

Greenville is just taking it one new store at a time...and even their developer was forced to change their latest development because as far as the town is concerned, 2 strip malls is plenty. So the developer instead decided to separate it into smaller individual buildings with round-a-bouts and parking in front of the buildings with retail in the front (2 restaurant pads on the end) and prof. office buildings in the back. Just looks like a chunky strip mall But I think it will still look nice.

[Mark Miller]

I think that people need to accept the fact that traditional "retail" is no longer viable in larger downtown areas (obviously cities like Chicago are an exception).

IMO, downtown Grand Rapids will never be a retail destination. But this isn't neccesarily a bad thing as people will still go downtown for food, drink, entertainment, and specialty retail. Of course, as residential density near and in downtown grows, things like small grocery stores, pharmacies, and personal service establishments begin to make sense.

I think people should accept the fact that people would rather shop at Rivertown than go downtown and shop.

[torgo]

When I was in Santa Monica, there was a pedestrian mall lined on both sides with national retailers, including an Apple store, Banana Republic, J.Crew, etc, etc. It was downtown, it was as packed with people as any suburban mall I have ever seen (and much more lively and real) and it was part of the city.

[grcitydog]

If there are enough people living in a downtown area, I don't see why a big store like Meijer wouldn't work. It would have to be much smaller and designed to fit the urban landscape, but it would be workable and if there are enough people within walking distance - in condos and apartments, then the parking wouldn't have to consume so much room. And people who use public transportation could be picked up right in front of the store instead way off to one side, like at most of the Meijer stores now. The products could be tailored to fit the urban person's needs (no lawn mowers or swimming pools).

[TheCityGuy]

There needs to be diverse uses in the city, including diversity of retail, with the whole range of national and local, and big and small, and specialty and generic.

It can work. And we need more in the city than entertainment and restaurant venues. Besides, never is a long time and we will not be able to continue to sustain the drive-in utopias like Rivertown.

[Mark Miller]

I am going to deviate from the retail discussion a bit to send out a plea regarding the suburbs.

Urbanism is not happening in the suburbs of Grand Rapids. We are not building New Urbanism out there.

Last week I spent many hours with two separate developers designing and talking about their projects.

They wanted that "urbanism thang" on their projects. You know, that walkable, townhousy, traditional conglomeration with some obligatory parks and green space.

Through these discussions, and those that have occurred in the past, there are some major insurmountable issues which are causing a basic breakdown in the attempt to create meaningful places in the greenfields. We are all aware of how projects get watered down in the entitlement process because of traffic safety, MDOT, zoning regs, uninformed planning commissions, etc, etc.

But there is a bigger problem. There is a basic misunderstanding about buildings, about public spaces, about streets and about walkability.

As a case in point, a design showing retail buildings at the street can quickly go south when the developer determines that the side facing the parking lot is the front and the side facing the street is the back. It will further go to hell when the townhouses fronting on the street with rear alley access turn into snout townhouses (with no alley access) but with garage doors and tiny front entries at the street, and of course, the walk-out deck configuration in the back. This is a basic problem of not understanding the front vs. the back. And no amount of argueing will convince them otherwise. It is such a rift that I am doubtful that we can build anything out there well, ever.

It goes deeper though, when a developer decides to turn his alleged mixed-use project into a suburban strip with out-lots for restaurants, some strip retail facing a parking lot and then a street that will service some townhouse units. Forgetting the fact that the townhouse units will face the service side of the retail - but hey, we can make a boulevard out of that "street", errr alley, and "buffer" the two uses with some trees. And for another use we will make a kick ass self-storage area. That way, we do sincerely have a mixed-use project. It will be sweet. And make sure you make it walkable with some sidewalks through the parking lot connecting everything to the detention basin.

This is the sad state of it all. Walkability is not about sidewalks. It is about connecting meaningful destinations with a meaningful journey. It is about connections. Isn't a detention basin and strip mall meaningful? I guess to some it might well be.

Mixed-use projects are not about four different uses all podded off on a parcel. They are about integrated mixed-use, even at the scale of the building!! No really, you can have two-story buildings and people will even live on the second floor.

Fronts of buildings always face the street. Backs of buildings do not face the street. It really is that simple.

So I guess the plea would be, where do we go from here? The education component has been going on for years and continues today, but it seems to be making little in roads. We will never get to the level of quality urbanism with quality public places, until we get to figuring these issues out. And whether you have vinyl siding or hardy plank makes no difference if the buildings are sitting on the site ass backwards.

[Allison Slater]

I can do nothing now but applaud you. Very well said.

[AlexPKeaton]

I think it's pretty pointless to try and convince suburban, big-box developers to make good urban developments. People expect acres of parking, and that's what they'll get. Mixed use works especially well in dense areas, and surburbia is not dense. Even if these developments are "walkable," it's only walkable within the bounds of the development. Unless it contains nearly everything one needs nobody will actually walk anywhere.

To cross the threads a little, a person at Jan Gehl's talk at Calvin the other night asked how we could make the changes Jan suggested because we were so spread out. My take is this: the suburbs will pretty much always be crap in terms of urbanism. Move back to the city and forget the suburbs. Let the core expand as needed, don't waste your time trying to fix the acres of pavement between big boxes. It's not going to happen.

-nb

[GRDadof3]

I didn't know where else to put this, but this retail complex on Clyde Park near Grandville Ave was designed pretty well. 0 setback, very little parking (I'm assuming most people can walk there or ride the bus). Neighborhood essentials like a grocery store, hardware, salon, etc.. A little Spanish styling to go with the growing hispanic population in that area. Anyone know the developer/designer?

[torgo]

Its not bad. The front facade and signage leaves a lot to be desired.

But its a step in the right direction.

[GRDadof3]

Its not bad. The front facade and signage leaves a lot to be desired.

But its a step in the right direction.

[Veloise]

...

[snoogit]

That taped-to-the-brick sale signage is particularly attractive!

[torgo]

it looks more inviting at ground-level than a few other projects that come to mind:

[FilmMaker]

Oddly enough, these comments about paper advertising taped to the brick at Clyde Park and Grandville Aves has finally inspired me to chime in on this thread.

Others have eluded to this but none have come right out and boldly stated that the real problem with all these "NU" or otherwise "mixed-use" projects in West Michigan is that they all lack any sense of individuality. Where is the creativity? Can't anyone design something other than concrete block, a few bricks and variations on metal awnings or ornamentation? Can't anyone think beyond simply duplicating what others have done?

Quite frankly, anyone who travels will recall that some of the most delightful and vibrant concentrations of mixed use are places like San Francisco's China Town or New Orleans' French Quarter.

I LOVE the fact that the humble little development (as uninspired as its architecture is) is taking on a personality consistent with and unique to its neighborhood residents! And it is doing it without some designer attempting to create a "cartoon" version of the real thing (as in Gaslight Village). It would be really cool to see this kind of thing happen in each of the ethnically rich or architecturally unique areas of town.