275 Fulton Place

[Rizzo]

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.

[joeDowntown]

Good point Mrgreven. What I'm trying to say is that with little knowledge or information about the project, how can anyone have a strong opinion one way or the other.

I do disagree about Grand Rapids waterfront. While I think many building turn their backs to the river, I don't see any logical reason to not allow large-scale development near the river. We're not talking about multiple sightlines being obstructed. More than anything, I thing US-131 screwed up the viability of the riverfront by leaving such a small swatch of land on the west side. But that is for another generation to argue about.

I think what needs to happen is current buildings and plaza's that front the river need to embrace it more. I think the foundation is there. We just need to start pushing patios and eateries out onto the riverwalk. With its floodwalls and width of the river, we're never going to be able to replicate San Antonio or some other city, but we can definitely add some activity to the riverfront (without making the whole thing greenspace).

Joe

[GRDadof3]

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.

[Rizzo]

For me, I appreciate this development for the fact it brings more downtown. What I am concerned about is the broad treatment of the river not just with this development, but all development along this river.

I think one of my criticisms of how things are shaping up on the river isn't the tall buildings, but the lack of formality it has. The river to me feels very piecemeal and obstructed. It's that sense of breathing room on the river that I most appreciate and I didn't get that last weekend on my stroll.

BTW, any of you code junkies know how this Form Based Code will effect the riverfront?

[detwaa84]

I disagree. I like it that the skyscrapers are concentrated on the riverfront. This is a river, not a lake, and I think it wouldn't look very nice to have urban parks and low rise buildings up front and high rises behind them. Look at the Chicago river, all the skyscrapers are stacked up against the water. High rise density on both sides of the river would make Grand Rapids a very beautiful city, in my opinion.

[Aiming High]

Well, whatever the opinions (and there are many), it has a long long long way to go. With the city and state. But let's not forget the current residents of Plaza Towers, who just finished a lawsuit. They had this proposed at one of the last condo association meetings; much concern over height and construction. They have just gone through JW construction and the Crowe C building construction. condos at Plaza Towers start over 14 stories, I beleive - but the view of the river is g o n e.

Okay, for positives - The "green" areas sound great. Are there incentives and tax credits for building "green"?

[tamias6]

The market does decide, obviously, but I think taking the riverfront hostage for a few is never a good thing. You're confusing yourself, especially that with the part about more critical mass in the core of downtown not helping the street scene. Again, Grand Rapids isn't going to win any awards for its riverfront development anytime soon. You do protest too much, on this one, as shown by you taking jabs in unrelated threads.

[snoogit]

I'm much more concerned about how the river is going to turn out, but this tower seems to be held up by strings as well, waiting for this tax credit, this or that thing isn't spelling vitality to me. Perhaps its my sense of "If they really wanted it done, they'd step up on it anyway." mentality.

I rather like the river in front of PT the way it is now, in fact I'd go so far as to demolish the parking lot there now and just make it a riverside park, but thats just me. My biggest concern is not just the river, and how it will look after this is completed, but also I really like some of the buildings down the pipeline, like what Macatawa is planning on doing, and the possibility of Huntington doing some things as well.

I'd much rather see those two towers get built, then to see this one kill both of them (which given its size sounds like it could) A lot of people complained when Mercantile drew up some plans for a riverfront building on the other side of the river, on Front. A lot of the criticisms from that project apply to this one.

Bridgewater killed major office development in GR for over a decade because it was too much too soon, and even though its blasphemy to say it today, it probably was also built in the wrong location. Bridgewater today feels disconnected, almost like a suburban office park in the middle of a downtown setting. I think if this office tower gets built, that same feeling of "disconnectedness" will crop up again.

[sparky05]

IMHO, the east side of the riverfront in the core downtown area (Michigan to Fulton) is going to be a huge challenge to turn into anything worthwhile as long as the floodwalls are there. North of Michigan - same situation for both sides. South of Fulton? call me crazy but I think it's all kind of creepy down there, largely because of (again) the floodwalls.

It seems to me, in fact, that there really isn't a riverfront to speak of except in front of the ford museum. Until you can get rid of the floodwalls (which I'm not sure you can - anyone with any expertise on the subject?), developing the riverfront is kind of a lost cause at this point.

I'd also add that while I personally have no problem with building tall by the Grand, using the Chicago River as an example for pretty much anything is a bit of a stretch. That river is some sort of crazy monstrosity at this point; hyper-engineered, deconstructed, rebuilt, more machine than man, etc. Don't get me wrong, I love chicago, but that river is hardly a river anymore...

[Rizzo]

EDIT: Yes, no Chicago River style Grand please...

Minus the contention.... It's not my intention to add to the fire, but important to realize the past for clearification.

This was planned for in the early days, 1927 specifically. In the illustration below, you can see that both a sense of public place and business is kept in balanced. I have the City Plan of 27 in front of me right now and I am quite taken back by the formality of the riverfront. In the text of this plan it is direct at the importance of an open river for the development of retail. What is even more striking is that the plan discouraged the very reality we are facing now and its importance for downtown as a retail and commercial hub.

The most memorable feature of the plan was to run a street and esplanade down this side of the river. Of course this idea can still be doable with infill and extending the retaining wall out further to at least have a seamless walk.

Larger Version

[sparky05]

...and even though its blasphemy to say it today, it probably was also built in the wrong location. Bridgewater today feels disconnected, almost like a suburban office park in the middle of a downtown setting.

[joeDowntown]

Heck, Wacker is one of the banks of the Chicago River (for a small jaunt). Grand Rapids 1, Chicago 0 (j/k of course).

Joe

I disagree. I like it that the skyscrapers are concentrated on the riverfront. This is a river, not a lake, and I think it wouldn't look very nice to have urban parks and low rise buildings up front and high rises behind them. Look at the Chicago river, all the skyscrapers are stacked up against the water. High rise density on both sides of the river would make Grand Rapids a very beautiful city, in my opinion.

[joeDowntown]

I think dense development on the Post Office site along with a development on the Ford Museum parking lot could bring Riverhouse into the fold, but you are right, it is lonely sitting all by itself.

I disagree with 275 Fulton Place creating the same sort of Island. It's a stones throw away from a lot of new development downtown, plus Monroe Center, the J.W., the arena, etc. etc.

Joe

This is absolutely true. That tower is an outlier right now, and although I'm as geeked as anyone to see a new tower go up there, it is going to be a really strange place for the tallest building in GR to stand. The only way Bridgewater/River House will ever feel like they're in the right place is if the area from the I-196/131 interchange to GVSU goes tall. Which, come to think of it, would entail creating something like an alternate downtown/office core across the river from the current core.

imho.

[gvsusean]

im so confused... ever since i've been on this site we have talked about how we wished developers would pay more attention to the river and make that a focus but as soon as they do we go and critisize saying they should build inland?! I dont understand, i say go 275 Fulton!

[Rizzo]

I really don't know how you can turn attention to the riverfront between Michigan and Fulton for retail. You have the Market lot south of Fulton as a spot for possible development. My preference for the riverfront is buildings, but also an esplanade that is tree lined and seamless.

The distinction must be made to build near, but not on the waterfront. I'm advocating building near the river, but not to the flood wall. If this development went up to the flood wall so that it would not allow for a seamless passage between the north or south I would have an argument. There must be careful attention to future proposals of a riverfront promenade. Development on the river is fine, I want to make the distinction.

Some disagreement with this project on how it may impact the waterfront is the least of worry. The most worry is the lack of a SBT or tax to appeal.

[joeDowntown]

I agree Sean. A 12 story building right on the river that fully utilizes the views and adds more foot traffic to the riverwalk area is a positive in my mind. Can't please them all I guess (or even some part of the time).

Joe

im so confused... ever since i've been on this site we have talked about how we wished developers would pay more attention to the river and make that a focus but as soon as they do we go and critisize saying they should build inland?! I dont understand, i say go 275 Fulton!

[GRDadof3]

A couple of points:

- I don't think that because this project needs tax credits makes it "held up by strings". The JW Marriott received pretty big tax credits, and it too would probably be in limbo if it were proposed today, waiting on the State of Michigan. Was the Marriott a "shaky deal"? No. 275 is not stalling though, they have a hearing with the city for Brownfield eligibility June 5th.

- From what I've been told by someone a little closer to this, is that renderings have not been made public because the developer wants to leave it up to the new tenant to make the "announcement". In other words, a new regional HQ or increased visible presence in Grand Rapids (read: perhaps (PM me for who I think it is)). Apparently the new tenants will comprise a majority of the square footage of the new office portion.

- I was also told that it appears that there will be some kind of retail or restaurant along the river side of 275, while also keeping the boardwalk public.

- 275 is very different from RiverHouse and BW. It's merely steps away from the epicenter of downtown. The people working in it will by all means make the short walk to Monroe Center for lunch, or the BOB for happy hour.

- I don't think Plaza Towers' views will be gone. They may be "encumbered", but in all seriousness, what is so great about looking right at the Grand River? Really not much, or someone would be proposing to build a 30 story tower at Northland Drive and the Grand River. The desirability lies in the view of the river amongst a sea of other high-rises. I'm sure the Plaza Towers people are pretty embarrassed that they made such a fuss about the Marriott blocking their views, which now enhances the view ten-fold IMO. It's becoming a real city. P.S. if you pay a premium for a condo that has a view of something that you can't control, you're taking a very big risk IMO.

- It'd be great if we all had sim-city powers over how our city grows, but in all reality you do what you can but you have to let the city grow organically or it will look artificial. What's more important is what is happening at the ground level downtown, IMO, then what can be seen from 84th and 131.

This discussion is becoming like the big blank wall discussion.

[mpchicago]

It seems to me, in fact, that there really isn't a riverfront to speak of except in front of the ford museum. Until you can get rid of the floodwalls (which I'm not sure you can - anyone with any expertise on the subject?), developing the riverfront is kind of a lost cause at this point.

[torgo]

It'd be great if we all had sim-city powers over how our city grows, but in all reality you do what you can but you have to let the city grow organically or it will look artificial. What's more important is what is happening at the ground level downtown, IMO, then what can be seen from 84th and 131.

[numstead]

It'd be great if we all had sim-city powers over how our city grows, but in all reality you do what you can but you have to let the city grow organically or it will look artificial.

[joeDowntown]

Me neither. When I worked in the Brassworks building they clearcut all of the trees and actually bermed the park up to meet the 100 year flood requirements (so that is above and beyond the height of the floodwalls). It meant losing a lot of mature trees, but the thought is the water would flood the park but not the street.

I do agree, something Parisian would be nice along the river. More trees, ornate railings, pigeons.

Joe

I don't the flood wall can be removed, and I don't think that it should be. The river front could be more like the Seine in Paris. It bascially has a walkway at street level, and one below closer to the river's edge, running both sides of thr river. We sort of have some of that now, but it could be built more in a classic design similar to Paris.

[Rizzo]

Exactly what I was thinking Joe. However, I don't understand where the controversy is coming from or who it is directed at.

The boardwalk, riverwalk, or whatever you can call it I think would serve a useful purpose in the summer and fall as a gather place for markets, festivals, etc.... I don't think the current infrastructure is suitable for any of these uses.

[Libertarian]

For me, I appreciate this development for the fact it brings more downtown. What I am concerned about is the broad treatment of the river not just with this development, but all development along this river.

I think one of my criticisms of how things are shaping up on the river isn't the tall buildings, but the lack of formality it has. The river to me feels very piecemeal and obstructed. It's that sense of breathing room on the river that I most appreciate and I didn't get that last weekend on my stroll.

BTW, any of you code junkies know how this Form

[GRDadof3]

Before:

Potentially after:

I think when all is said and done, it will have a smaller impact on the riverfront then people are thinking (not at all like Chicago River).

[Rizzo]

Speaking of which, the Chicago River is less than half as wide creating an easier wall effect. I don't know how anyone could envision the look of Chicago on The Grand River.

I can't wait to hear about the HQ tenant.