Jump to content

Sligh Furniture Factory Renovation Proposal

GRDadof3

By GRDadof3
in Grand Rapids

Recommended Posts

GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This project goes up for approval of the extension of the Renaissance Zone at tomorrow's Commission Meeting (page 242).

Some specifics:

- Would extend the Ren Zone to 2022 (phase out begins in 2019)

- Approximately $30,000,0000 investment

- Larger than Union Square and Boardwalk combined

- 400 residential units, 10% provided for lower income individuals at 85% of median gross income, and retail/office (I'm assuming similar to the Boardwalk)

- 2.5 year construction period

- If approved, closing to take place around Jan. 5, 2007

According to the memo from Susan Shannon, it looks like it fits the requirements.

But apparently, other developers are against the Ren Zone extension for this project:

http://www.mlive.com/newslogs/grpress/inde..._12.html#216651

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply
mpchicago Burg

mpchicago

Posted
Posted
I can understand that to an extent, but to me there are quite a few overriding differences:

- The Sligh Factory is a huge undertaking and a great gateway development, and if Jon Rooks doesn't do it, no one will for the next 50 years+. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he's the only one who has put an offer on the building to convert it to residential now that the New York owners have put it up for sale. Did Sam Cummings look at redeveloping it?

- That area of Grandville/Century is hurting, with many vacant commercial properties. Perhaps it would provide an incentive to get other properties revitalized in that area. They would also be available for extensions as well.

- Fulton/Division area was never designated a Renaissance Zone to begin with.

- According to our unscientific poll, Heartside is an extremely popular up-and-coming area and apartments at Fulton & Division should be a slam dunk if done properly (price and design)

At this point in time, I'd support the extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'll throw some more chum in the water. I think denying the request because of the wishes of one particular developer would in essence be favoring the Fulton/Division project. And since the city has more at stake at Fulton/Division, they want it to succeed. My fear is the extension will be rejected and the Sligh will stay as is (a big hulking eyesore), and Fulton and Division will also go down in flames and the city will just rebuild a ramp there (I'll bet you $50 that's what will happen in 2009). So we'll have two failed opportunities because of the pressure from one developer. If I can't succeed, no one will.

When it comes to residential developments, these Ren Zones don't favor particular companies , they are geared to favor particular areas. There are plenty of empty lots in the current Ren Zones that these other developers could take advantage of and would have the same benefits. The zones don't exclude anyone willing to take the chance.

One could say that GR Spring & Stamping is receiving an unfair business advantage over their competitors in the GR area, by locating in the old Lear Plant, but I haven't heard anyone make that argument. Same with Cabela's building in Walker, it's site specific, not company specific.

It seems that some on the city commission think they're job of reinvigorating downtown is finished and they can sit back in "coast" mode now, and just fix potholes or fight state laws they don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nonnekes Unincorporated Area

nonnekes

Posted
Posted

Wasn't it mentioned by one of the commissioners that that his/her objection was rooted in the fact that Rooks' project wouldn't create jobs? Sounds there like they do want to favor any company that creates jobs. Is this normally a guiding factor when it comes to designating Ren Zones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeDowntown Metropolis

joeDowntown

Posted
Posted

I would reluncantly agree to the extension but I can totally see Sam's point. I also agree with him that this might be the type of development that could be helped in many other ways and may not need ren zone funding to make it feasible.

The real problem I see is that the building, while I'd love to see it get rehabbed, is in a pretty unspectacular location. I think without the appeal of the Ren Zone, it might not succeed because of its location. So the success of the project may not only hinge on the the savings to the developer, but the incentive that actually attracts people to the live there. And that might be unfair.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
civitas Burg

civitas

Posted
Posted

I agree with Sam. I would oppose the extension.

This is a fringe development that would absorb most or all of the market. How many true urban projects will be scrapped if this one gets approved. The city has subsidized enough big old factory buildings.

To the extent that there is a market for urban housing, I think its time that they focus incentives in and very near the urban core to promote the creation of true downtown housing.

The market is limited. Something will go first and something will have to wait. It is time for downtown to go first.

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.