Grand Rapids Urban Redevelopment Roundtable

[Raildudes dad]

I can enthusiastically attest to the Kent County Road Commission being as "intellectually lazy" and "unwilling to try anything new" as any entity I've ever encountered. My headline is often summed up as follows:

"If we can't drive a 30 ton snow plow truck straight down it at 50plus mph, then we're not in any way interested in building it or maintaining it... we ain't paid to incorporate pedestrians, curves, hills, boulevards or the preservation of any natural features.... and we ain't EVER gonna do cul-de-sacs!"

Outside the few incorporated cities in this area, and thanks to the KCRC and MDOT, we can rest assured that the only roads built in the future with natural, aesthetic and/or functional sensibilities will be "private" roads where the residents either demand or desire to assume personal financial responsibility for the road's construction, upkeep and maintenance.

(Guess what kind of road I live on...)

I could go on for hours on this topic... but my blood pressure does not need the aggravation.

[torgo]

FYI: The Road Commission is waiting for final plans for a new subdivison with the streets to be paved with pervious asphalt. It will have no storm sewer or storm drainage structures. The Road Commmison also suggested the developer consider pervious concrete for the driveways and sidewalks. If he does that, the only pervious surface will be the house roofs. Pervious pavement hopefully will address the RC's biggest concern with cul-de-sacs. They probably generate the highest number of winter service complaints - they don't get there fast enough and when they do plow, nobody likes where they put the snow. Snow "evaporates" off pervious pavement, hopefully reducing the amount of plowing required. There are about a dozen pervious parking lots around GR, but this will be the first pervious public street in the area if not the state.

The Road Commission approached the couple engineeriing firms in town that have designed the pervious lots and suggested they consider it for public streets and were willing to allow cul-de-sacs with that pavement type. I don't think they are as ""intellectually lazy and unwilling to try anything new" as you think they are.

PS: The subdivison is going to be in your township.

[Raildudes dad]

That sounds like an apples and oranges agrument to me. Perhaps KCRC should be applauded for trying these new permeable streets, but do these make a better place? No. Context-sensitive street design and materials used in building the streets are completely different conversations. You could pave a street with diamonds, but if its your typcial bland subdivision, it won't make much of a difference.

[FilmMaker]

That sounds like an apples and oranges agrument to me. Perhaps KCRC should be applauded for trying these new permeable streets, but do these make a better place? No. Context-sensitive street design and materials used in building the streets are completely different conversations. You could pave a street with diamonds, but if its your typcial bland subdivision, it won't make much of a difference.

[Nitro]

I am not yet convinced that this technology is ready for use on heavily traveled public streets as much as it is for parking lots or driveways.

[Raildudes dad]

Right on the nose.......it isn't. I'm not in favor of streets being paved with porous asphalt. It's a great idea in theory but the required vacuuming maintenance on the roadway would kill a budget in a heartbeat.

Porous concrete curbs are a much better option for streets. Same infiltration idea, less maintenance.

[Raildudes dad]

Exactly!!!

To give one clear example (of the many I could provide): the KCRC could earn a whole lots more respect from me if they displayed any sort of reasonable willingness to listen to the clearly unified and collective voice of the no less than three communities who have all pleaded for a boulevard solution to the upcoming rebuild of 10 Mile Road east of 131. This short stretch is widely acknowledged to be the busiest 2 lane road in the county

[GRDadof3]

The RC has built boulevards ie 44th Street. Both GR & Kentwood helped fund the project. The RC's budget is getting hit like everyone else. If money was no object, boulevard it would be. You seem to forget the RC's authority ends at the ROW line. What happened in Cedar Springs has a lot to do with the township & the City politics. !7 Mile was built as 4 lane road by MDOT for turning it back to local juridiction. There was nothing out there at the time except for a couple gas stations at the freeway. The RC didn't approve the building of even 1 commercial building.

One last comment: All parties need to work together to acheive a solution. In this world, nobody gets everything they want. I'd like to think we can reach common ground to acheive as much of the parties goals as possible.

It appears you and I don't agree on much. It would be interesting to have a face to face discussuion someday to discuss all this. I think it would be a good discussion because I think we both could learn some things from each other's views

PS: I don't consider myself "intellectually lazy".

[GRDadof3]

After consulting with "staff", we have decided to host the first ever "Live (Real Time) Urban Redevelopment RoundTable" right here at UrbanPlanet in a few weeks (probably after Spring Break). There are several questions I think were missed in the BusinessReview round table that can be touched on, and also open it up for questions from fellow UPers. I will also seek out a few Grand Rapids city officials to partake, at least one of which is already a member here.

Stay tuned for more details. I think it will be fun.

[FilmMaker]

The RC has built boulevards ie 44th Street. Both GR & Kentwood helped fund the project. The RC's budget is getting hit like everyone else. If money was no object, boulevard it would be. You seem to forget the RC's authority ends at the ROW line. What happened in Cedar Springs has a lot to do with the township & the City politics. !7 Mile was built as 4 lane road by MDOT for turning it back to local juridiction. There was nothing out there at the time except for a couple gas stations at the freeway. The RC didn't approve the building of even 1 commercial building.

One last comment: All parties need to work together to acheive a solution. In this world, nobody gets everything they want. I'd like to think we can reach common ground to acheive as much of the parties goals as possible.

It appears you and I don't agree on much. It would be interesting to have a face to face discussuion someday to discuss all this. I think it would be a good discussion because I think we both could learn some things from each other's views

PS: I don't consider myself "intellectually lazy".

[Raildudes dad]

Actually I find that we do agree on many topics here at UP. And please know that I in no way consider you "intellectually lazy".

[FilmMaker]

I have maintained for a long time the "pre preliminary review" be done in a joint review with the RC, DC, and twp. The twp should be the lead agency since the majority of the acreage is twp zoning regulations ie lot size, dimensions, setbacks, greenspace - you get the idea. The DC may or may not review the drainage depending on the twp but again once the water is off the ROW, the RC has no jurisdiction. The joint initial review is the place for all the regulatory agencies to work together to get the "best" design.

[Raildudes dad]

I really like the idea of group review but worry that none of us has enough staff and time to do it on individual projects. If that is indeed a problem, I'd be very supportive of some sort of annual "gathering" of folks from all the metro municipalities, the KCRC and ideally representatives from each of the engineering firms in the area. Each year we could discuss development trends, challenges, plans, successes, failures, etc and leave the meeting with some general consensus about how we're going to collectively handle much of what we're likely to encounter in the coming year or two. Heck, we could even include the DC, etc. Sort of like the annual luncheon gig the GVMC does - only we spend our time talking about pragmatic, local issues instead of listening to the latest "disciple of new urbanism" (from some far away non-midwestern metropolis) blow smoke up our butts about the same issues we've been hearing about for the last 5 or more years. Maybe we poke Andy and the gang at GVMC to see what they think about doing this kind of event instead?

I agree. The more folks at the table - the more likely all our lives will get easier - and the more likely we'll see better outcomes.

p.s. 44th street is a great example of what I was trying to describe for 10 Mile. It would also be great to incorporate some sort of bike path into the design, given proximity to the White Pine Trail - and the parkland currently slated to exist east of the KC landfill parcel.

[GR Jackson]

Just a quick question regarding the pervious asphalt, what happens when cars leak oil and antifreeze and things? Does that then leak into the ground/ground water?

[Ted]

Just a quick question regarding the pervious asphalt, what happens when cars leak oil and antifreeze and things? Does that then leak into the ground/ground water?

[GRGridGirl]

After consulting with "staff", we have decided to host the first ever "Live (Real Time) Urban Redevelopment RoundTable" right here at UrbanPlanet in a few weeks (probably after Spring Break). There are several questions I think were missed in the BusinessReview round table that can be touched on, and also open it up for questions from fellow UPers. I will also seek out a few Grand Rapids city officials to partake, at least one of which is already a member here.

Stay tuned for more details. I think it will be fun.

[GR Jackson]

Yes, but those chemicals will make it to ground water with any type of road surface.

[tamias6]

I believe the advantages are prevalent when it comes to run off. Let's say we replaced a Meijer Parking Lot with one made of permeable asphalt. Instead of a torrent of water over burdening storm drains beneath and causing erosion to surrounding land during a rain storm. The permeable asphalt would allow much of the water to gradually seep into the earth beneath the parking lot reducing workload on storm drains and reducing erosion to surrounding land.

I am afraid that I might sound dumb, but then what is the advantage of the permeable asphault? Is it that it prevents those chemicals from going directly into the Grand River?

[Prankster]

I believe the advantages are prevalent when it comes to run off. Let's say we replaced a Meijer Parking Lot with one made of permeable asphalt. Instead of a torrent of water over burdening storm drains beneath and causing erosion to surrounding land during a rain storm. The permeable asphalt would allow much of the water to gradually seep into the earth beneath the parking lot reducing workload on storm drains and reducing erosion to surrounding land.

[GRDadof3]

More info on pervious pavement

- Because the contaminated water "percolates" down through the asphalt layers, the pollutants can be naturally filtered better than through storm sewers (where it's not filtered at all).

- You also don't need to set aside part of your property for unsightly retention ponds (think areas between Rivertown Crossings and Meijer).

- Groundwater is more slowly introduced into the aquifer, greatly reducing stress on stormwater systems and minimizing flooding (which destroys ecosystems and increases sedimentation flowing into the streams and rivers).

[Allison Slater]

You HAVE to use unimproved roads and they are scary! Electric fences! Dirt and gravel! Too narrow!

This is a rural road. If you choose the rural life, that is the proper street type for it. The solution is that you do not drive 45 or even 35, as that is most likely not the proper speed for this type of road.