Jump to content

275 Fulton Place


mgreven

Recommended Posts

No height limit on the river would be strange. Many cities have heights on rivers and waterfronts to stop views towards rivers from being blocked. It's odd and rare that a city would want to concentrate height on a river instead of inside a core. I'd also like to know the reasoning behind this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 291
  • Created
  • Last Reply
No height limit on the river would be strange. Many cities have heights on rivers and waterfronts to stop views towards rivers from being blocked. It's odd and rare that a city would want to concentrate height on a river instead of inside a core. I'd also like to know the reasoning behind this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no height limit in the core. The government center is basically the business core of downtown. I think they set height restrictions around the perimeters to better transition to the neighborhoods that border downtown on the West and East sides. The whole thing is being rewritten in the near future.

Today's Business Journal has an article header stating that this project is the largest office project downtown in a decade. They haven't uploaded the story though, so I'm guessing they have a rendering of the project and want people to pick up the paper version at the newstands (and not just read it online). :ph34r: Either it's a ruse to sell more papers, or they have a forgetful webmaster.

http://www.grbj.com/GRBJ/Homepage.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the Western perimeter they used was the highway, with no height restrictions. West of 131 is 145', and then the West side neighborhoods start up beyond Seward. I wasn't part of the public process of when these were set, so I have no idea what the thought process was for the boundaries, other than to keep 50 story buildings from being built next to homes on the West side and Heritage Hill (understandably so).

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/5083509...dd0667d10_o.jpg

I think torgo mentioned there are height bonuses that developers can get for including residential. I have a feeling they didn't want to restrict height along the river, because it has the most potential and property values are highest along the river.

Please don't shoot the messenger. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me a stinky pooper, but I don't like this deal one bit... something about it just doesn't seem right... if it were up to me, I'd rather have this be in the core (East of Ottawa, West of Division, South of Lyon, North of Fulton) then creating the Berlin Wall along the Grand River.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me a stinky pooper, but I don't like this deal one bit... something about it just doesn't seem right... if it were up to me, I'd rather have this be in the core (East of Ottawa, West of Division, South of Lyon, North of Fulton) then creating the Berlin Wall along the Grand River.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, to me this is an odd place for a high-rise building. It's a small sliver of land between the river and another high-rise building. It seems it would take some value away from Plaza Towers. The original Eastbank rendering showed a low rise residential building staggered down to the rivers edge with balconies facing the river. It seems that would be more appropriate than what is being proposed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it will be fine. The footprint is pretty long and narrow, so views up and down the river (the best views, not the view looking straight AT the river) will be good. It will fill in that gap nicely as you look down the river from the North:

509435743_c94dd656b9_o.jpg

and help fulfill my vision of Grand Rapids becoming the Rotterdam of the Midwest :ph34r: (OK, maybe not exactly) I think there is too much stock put into skyline "balance". Density in and around the core and river is a good thing. Let it grow organically. Celebrate. :yahoo: It's 200 more office workers and more residents downtown.

The Business Journal says once they get Brownfield approval from the city (hearing is set for June 5th), it then goes on to the State where they hope to have all approvals and start construction in July 07.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is completely frustrating. A forward thinking government would make sure this project happened if it was to the benefit of the city. You'd think the MEDC along with other groups could come up with a package that would offset any issues that may happen due to the loss of the SBT...

Stalling development because our state doesn't have their sh*t together is idiotic. I feel like having a Grand River tea party. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree on the frustration, but at the same time I am not at all surprised at the inaction of the MEDC. The MEDC is worthless; it is a bloated bureaucracy that was created to replace a previously dysfunctional bureaucracy. It seems, at least on the surface, to make an effort to only help the allies of the polital appointees that run it.

You got my vote for the tea party!

Out of curiosity, why would the State need to give approval? Seems like an extra layer of nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, why would the State need to give approval? Seems like an extra layer of nonsense.

I am a real novice at this, so forgive me if this sounds a little naive: I would think that any department at the state level (at this point) that adds extra red tape to the progress on a development that would benefit a community should be the first to be cut out of the budget.

As a concerned taxpayer I just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no height limit in the core. The government center is basically the business core of downtown. I think they set height restrictions around the perimeters to better transition to the neighborhoods that border downtown on the West and East sides. The whole thing is being rewritten in the near future.

Today's Business Journal has an article header stating that this project is the largest office project downtown in a decade. They haven't uploaded the story though, so I'm guessing they have a rendering of the project and want people to pick up the paper version at the newstands (and not just read it online). :ph34r: Either it's a ruse to sell more papers, or they have a forgetful webmaster.

http://www.grbj.com/GRBJ/Homepage.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe no one has posted a link to Chris's blog yet, showing a 1987 rendering of what Eastbank Towers would have looked like. I strangely remember that rendering, especially the "Traverse City-esque" condos along the river (no dig at Traverse City, but they remind me of condos along a golf-course like The Bear or Shanty Creek). Eww. I like the concept of brownstones or a low rise along the river there, just not that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe no one has posted a link to Chris's blog yet, showing a 1987 rendering of what Eastbank Towers would have looked like. I strangely remember that rendering, especially the "Traverse City-esque" condos along the river (no dig at Traverse City, but they remind me of condos along a golf-course like The Bear or Shanty Creek). Eww. I like the concept of brownstones or a low rise along the river there, just not that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the rendering I was talking about a few posts back. Thank the lord that design wasn't built! U-G-L-Y. I still like the idea of terraced condo's along the river, but maybe the terraced look is too 1980's resort town. Is there a rendering of this proposed 12 story building out there anywhere? Chris Knape?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm naive but why were all the UP'ers so excited about "another tower" when it was the Bridgewater's condo-twin, Icon on Bond II, JW Mariott and even the condos over on Ionia (Tall House and "The other one") but not in this spot?

I'm confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm naive but why were all the UP'ers so excited about "another tower" when it was the Bridgewater's condo-twin, Icon on Bond II, JW Mariott and even the condos over on Ionia (Tall House and "The other one") but not in this spot?

I'm confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? Stinks? Are you in the know and have seen the rendering?

I haven't seen or heard anything that makes it sound like this thing "stinks". Give it a chance to unfold 'fer gawd sake. Otherwise, don't say anything. k?

Joe

But the more I read about this tower, the more and more it stinks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can have differing opinions, and they can even think it stinks if they want to. I tend to agree with the criticism of the placement, and it being built right into the river as to why I don't think the design would make me think better of it. This concentration right on the riverfront is really starting to make the skyline look (and feel) awkward from a number of views. One can now only imagine how much more lively the street level would be if all of these towers would have been built a bit inland. Most cities with such sweeping riverfronts try to develop them for public use, and rightfully so. This has always been one of my criticism of the downtown riverfront in Grand Rapids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope they do the retail/riverwalk portion of it right and maybe it'll really be nice. I guess I always look at the bright side and have a lot of hope! I guess we wait and see! :D ...then we can pick it apart! :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.