Jump to content

New projects in East Hills


GRGridGirl

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, x99 said:

I did a little more thinking about this. I think the issue was that it 1) was a town house and 2) looked like 3 conjoined buildings. Both are "new" to that immediate area. That's the "massing" issue more than the size and tips the scale toward disapproving. Prospect between Cherry and Wealthy has some examples of conjoined buildings that do not look conjoined.  Are they as attractive?  Arguably not, but massing on a townhouse was never going to be great, so maybe if all of the rest was hitting on 8 cylinders for "compatibility" it would have worked...  The best project in the world can still going to go down in flames if it does not begin from an understanding of the standards that will be applied to it.

Here's how I would have done it:  Find the widest building on those streets, preferable an original side by side duplex.  Figure out how that one fits into the neighborhood.  Design project facade similarly, but 20% to 30% larger so I could explain how it was not that much larger.  Nail every last element other than size, from railings, proportions of trim, siding reveal, window size and spacing, etc.  Yes, it's distinguishable, but only because it is bigger.  Everything else is bang on compatible.  Then layer up with a dozen similar historic buildings, even if in other neighborhoods.  Boom.  Project approved.  HPC is usually good about that if it hits standards even if neighbors don't like it. And if not?  Hello, appeal.  Unfortunately, architects rarely design like this and rarely understand well the standards they have to meet and how they are applied, so they regularly go down in flames.  When they put all the HPC packets online, I skimmed through a lot of them.  Most of the presentations are bad. Just a bunch of pictures, with no explanation.  In NYC or California or many, many other areas, it is common to hire a pro who puts together a lengthy package explaining how a larger project meets historic standards.  No one in GR bothers.

x99, I cannot say I totally disagree with you on this.  However, when it comes to design elements on this project the HPC made a huge issue about window sills, yet half of the buildings in this neighborhood had them and half did not, they made an issue about the width of the trim, yet half of the buildings in the neighborhood had wide trim and half had narrow trim.  Each time they would bring up these design elements as issues, we had the expense of redrawing.  In regard to the size of the building itself, a strong case can be made that the vast majority of the homes in this neighborhood take up almost the entire parcel, save the room for the occasional parcel that has off street parking.  To me, there is still too much that is arbitrary in this whole process.

11 minutes ago, x99 said:

I did a little more thinking about this. I think the issue was that it 1) was a town house and 2) looked like 3 conjoined buildings. Both are "new" to that immediate area. That's the "massing" issue more than the size and tips the scale toward disapproving. Prospect between Cherry and Wealthy has some examples of conjoined buildings that do not look conjoined.  Are they as attractive?  Arguably not, but massing on a townhouse was never going to be great, so maybe if all of the rest was hitting on 8 cylinders for "compatibility" it would have worked...  The best project in the world can still going to go down in flames if it does not begin from an understanding of the standards that will be applied to it.

Here's how I would have done it:  Find the widest building on those streets, preferable an original side by side duplex.  Figure out how that one fits into the neighborhood.  Design project facade similarly, but 20% to 30% larger so I could explain how it was not that much larger.  Nail every last element other than size, from railings, proportions of trim, siding reveal, window size and spacing, etc.  Yes, it's distinguishable, but only because it is bigger.  Everything else is bang on compatible.  Then layer up with a dozen similar historic buildings, even if in other neighborhoods.  Boom.  Project approved.  HPC is usually good about that if it hits standards even if neighbors don't like it. And if not?  Hello, appeal.  Unfortunately, architects rarely design like this and rarely understand well the standards they have to meet and how they are applied, so they regularly go down in flames.  When they put all the HPC packets online, I skimmed through a lot of them.  Most of the presentations are bad. Just a bunch of pictures, with no explanation.  In NYC or California or many, many other areas, it is common to hire a pro who puts together a lengthy package explaining how a larger project meets historic standards.  No one in GR bothers.

One more thing, we did find the widest building in the neighborhood, it is 349 & 353 Visser.  These are side by side co-joined two units with flat roofs.  They are each 17 feet wide and the buildings are built almost next to each other's property lines.  We contended that our project was not too dissimilar to these two buildings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, KCLBADave said:

x99, I cannot say I totally disagree with you on this.  However, when it comes to design elements on this project the HPC made a huge issue about window sills, yet half of the buildings in this neighborhood had them and half did not, they made an issue about the width of the trim, yet half of the buildings in the neighborhood had wide trim and half had narrow trim.  Each time they would bring up these design elements as issues, we had the expense of redrawing.  In regard to the size of the building itself, a strong case can be made that the vast majority of the homes in this neighborhood take up almost the entire parcel, save the room for the occasional parcel that has off street parking.  To me, there is still too much that is arbitrary in this whole process.

One more thing, we did find the widest building in the neighborhood, it is 349 & 353 Visser.  These are side by side co-joined two units with flat roofs.  They are each 17 feet wide and the buildings are built almost next to each other's property lines.  We contended that our project was not too dissimilar to these two buildings.

So I went back and found the advisory discussion minutes (always a good idea) and compared to your final design.  A lot of the same stuff I brought up that you did not incorporate.  If you had, would you still have gotten turned down?  I don't know, but the decision to keep that stacked up house look that they also did not like was probably not a good one.  Redrawing expenses, I know...  and architects always want to try to stick to their designs, but sometimes you've just gotta cry uncle.  It's a shame that all of this often gets in the way of a nice, small scale project like yours.

Edited by x99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, MJLO said:

I am hoping this is tongue and cheek and that the city would never waste the money to preserve that beast.  Which would likely not be rehabbed even if they did.  

Not looking to poke at those who support the HPC, but when was the last time the Hindering Progress Commission preserved anything of note?  Or anything anyone cared about? It seems over the last 10 years mostly all they have done is make it damn near impossible for neighborhoods to get rid of eyesores that aren't particularly significant at all.  But if there are examples I'd like to know.  All I ever see are stories about hideous dilapidated churches that are forbidden to be demolished, there has to be another side to their work? 

This church building is actually on the National Historic Register, so the preservation issues go a lot higher than just with local HPC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, x99 said:

So I went back and found the advisory discussion minutes (always a good idea) and compared to your final design.  A lot of the same stuff I brought up that you did not incorporate.  If you had, would you still have gotten turned down?  I don't know, but the decision to keep that stacked up house look that they also did not like was probably not a good one.  Redrawing expenses, I know...  and architects always want to try to stick to their designs, but sometimes you've just gotta cry uncle.  It's a shame that all of this often gets in the way of a nice, small scale project like yours.

Most houses built today, only the top TOP 1% of homes have the cost of an architect built into the price. That's because the other 99% of homebuyers can't afford a residential architect. It seems to me that HPC is pseudo-class-discriminating with all of this rigamaroll. Tell me that I'm wrong? 

It sounds like the land bank spent $25,000 on drawing and revising plans, on probably a $300 - $350,000 project. Homeowners in that price range don't have $25,000 to just flush down the toilet to satisfy some esoteric board. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Telecaster Rex said:

This church building is actually on the National Historic Register, so the preservation issues go a lot higher than just with local HPC.

Interestingly, there is little to no automatic protection for a resource listed on a national or state historic register. The "teeth" of preservation enforcement is almost always at the local level. What a national historic designation can do is prevent the use of federal funds to harm a listed resource (1966 National Historic Preservation Act). The saving of Heritage Hill from wholesale demolition in the late 60's was a classic use of this mechanism. 

Regarding the church building at Diamond and Hermitage, don't expect big changes anytime soon. A demo by neglect hearing simply opens a legal process that will eventually allow city contractors to enter the property and provide stabilizing repairs if the building owner is unwilling or unable to do so. I expect they'll end up patching the roof, but little more will change until there is a building owner with the resources to do so. The increasing stack of fines and liens tends to force out owners who don't have the will or means to keep up. There are several other active demo by neglect cases in the neighborhood, but they're still eyesores. It's a long process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2017 at 6:57 AM, KCLBADave said:

In closing, how in the heck did Green Cane's MASSIVE housing/retail development along Crofton pass this "massing" litmus test?

Needless to say the KCLBA is out $25,000 and a TON of staff time.  Never again in a Historic District, never again.

Good question. In time, I think approval for the residential portions of Green Crane's development will be considered an error.

I no longer sit on HPC and didn't vote on the Donald Place project, though I am sad to see it discarded. While the final design was not great (in my opinion), it was good and had opportunity to be massaged into something excellent. The flat roofed proposal seemed like a particularly strong possibility with similar local precedents, both old and new.

More importantly, I'm sad to see it go because this neighborhood really does need more homes for people at that income level. My understanding was that this design was to be a prototype for other Lank Bank developments. If that is true, then I would hope that the time and money invested in this particular proposal is not entirely lost, but can be applied to future home construction.

On 7/25/2017 at 0:39 AM, joeDowntown said:

That's a shame. Donald place is a cesspool of shoddy built houses rented by slumlords.

They really just need to implode Donald and Robie. Replace them with nicely built affordable housing and get on with it.

Please no. We already have plenty of examples of neighborhoods that were erased and rebuilt with exactly that sentiment. None are places we are proud of a few years later. It's also not a fair attitude to the many Wealthy Heights families (both owners and renters) who do love their neighborhood and who work hard to maintain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Most houses built today, only the top TOP 1% of homes have the cost of an architect built into the price. That's because the other 99% of homebuyers can't afford a residential architect. It seems to me that HPC is pseudo-class-discriminating with all of this rigamaroll. Tell me that I'm wrong? 

It sounds like the land bank spent $25,000 on drawing and revising plans, on probably a $300 - $350,000 project. Homeowners in that price range don't have $25,000 to just flush down the toilet to satisfy some esoteric board. 

You're absolutely right. This is something I struggle with, too. I  do support preservation as a means of economic growth and cultural conservation, but often wonder how successful our prevailing model really is at doing so equitably. There has been some recent literature that criticizes historic preservation as another pattern of classist gentrification. There's not much in the discussion (as far as I have read) that offers a sensible balance.

(If anyone has reading suggestions on this topic, please let me know!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GRCentro said:

Good question. In time, I think approval for the residential portions of Green Crane's development will be considered an error.

I no longer sit on HPC and didn't vote on the Donald Place project, though I am sad to see it discarded. While the final design was not great (in my opinion), it was good and had opportunity to be massaged into something excellent. The flat roofed proposal seemed like a particularly strong possibility with similar local precedents, both old and new.

More importantly, I'm sad to see it go because this neighborhood really does need more homes for people at that income level. My understanding was that this design was to be a prototype for other Lank Bank developments. If that is true, then I would hope that the time and money invested in this particular proposal is not entirely lost, but can be applied to future home construction.

Correct, the KCLBA intends to do several of these developments, all in neighborhoods that are not in Historic Districts.  So the work we put in is being split across 13 units.  However, with this project being rejected we cannot recoup the $6,500 per unit cost for these three.  As far as the flat roof goes, it is done for a practical reason.  Because these are single family owned and not condo projects there is a parapet in the roof allowing each unit to have its own roof.  This helps immensely with insurance and financing. We are contemplating revising the project into one narrow stand alone home and then a 2 unit townhouse and resubmitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, GRCentro said:

Please no. We already have plenty of examples of neighborhoods that were erased and rebuilt with exactly that sentiment. None are places we are proud of a few years later. It's also not a fair attitude to the many Wealthy Heights families (both owners and renters) who do love their neighborhood and who work hard to maintain it.

On this, we disagree (and I love your commentary on projects). I've spent a lot of time on Donald Place and personally feel like these streets could use an overhaul. Incredibly hard to park, a disaster to live on in the winter, and a lot of shady landlords. Not saying I'd want to replace it with something that pushes the people out of the neighborhood but I thought the land bank proposal was a pretty good model for fixing up the area (parking and snowplow service would still be problematic). 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2017 at 10:38 AM, GRCentro said:

Good question. In time, I think approval for the residential portions of Green Crane's development will be considered an error.

I no longer sit on HPC and didn't vote on the Donald Place project, though I am sad to see it discarded. While the final design was not great (in my opinion), it was good and had opportunity to be massaged into something excellent. The flat roofed proposal seemed like a particularly strong possibility with similar local precedents, both old and new.

More importantly, I'm sad to see it go because this neighborhood really does need more homes for people at that income level. My understanding was that this design was to be a prototype for other Lank Bank developments. If that is true, then I would hope that the time and money invested in this particular proposal is not entirely lost, but can be applied to future home construction.

Please no. We already have plenty of examples of neighborhoods that were erased and rebuilt with exactly that sentiment. None are places we are proud of a few years later. It's also not a fair attitude to the many Wealthy Heights families (both owners and renters) who do love their neighborhood and who work hard to maintain it.

Crofton?  I assume we mean Calkins and that clusterfart with the giant shed roofs?  Or the other side of it it with the plug ugly townhomes?  Not to say that townhomes couldn't work, but those townhomes are an awful, redundant mess.  KCLBA's proposal was far better, even if it still missed the mark somewhat.  Hopefully they can get it fixed up and get it passed if no one buys the lots.

So far as the area in general, I'm not convinced calling it a bunch of temporary tear-down grade homes is that offensive.  It basically says that much in the designation.  

On 7/26/2017 at 10:52 AM, GRCentro said:

You're absolutely right. This is something I struggle with, too. I  do support preservation as a means of economic growth and cultural conservation, but often wonder how successful our prevailing model really is at doing so equitably.

Well, the point about requiring architect designed homes in an area that was originally the cheapest stuff possible is a pretty good point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/11/2017 at 3:50 PM, x99 said:

I see Dave's back at it with a redesigned project split into two separate buildings this time.  Will be interesting to see how it goes!  Good luck!  

Yeah, bam!! #gamechanger :)

Just kidding Dave, they look good. I just can't believe all of the rigamarole for what's essentially the same thing. 

36530430735_b70086f2c0_b.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Yeah, bam!! #gamechanger :)

Just kidding Dave, they look good. I just can't believe all of the rigamarole for what's essentially the same thing. 

36530430735_b70086f2c0_b.jpg

We submitted for approval of the site plan but not for the design.  If HPC approves the site we will then submit final drawings for approval.  Final drawings will have flat fronts, meaning no bump out, the single family home will have a steeper roof pitch and no shakes in the peak, all of the windows will be a bit taller and more narrow, and none of the windows will be paired.  Each window will be individual with siding in between.  The 2 unit townhouse is almost the exact dimensions of similar buildings two streets over.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2017 at 9:20 AM, KCLBADave said:

We submitted for approval of the site plan but not for the design.  If HPC approves the site we will then submit final drawings for approval.  Final drawings will have flat fronts, meaning no bump out, the single family home will have a steeper roof pitch and no shakes in the peak, all of the windows will be a bit taller and more narrow, and none of the windows will be paired.  Each window will be individual with siding in between.  The 2 unit townhouse is almost the exact dimensions of similar buildings two streets over.

I hope you get this one.. It's straightforward and simple enough for the siteplan.  Sounds like you're on the right track with the designs too.  Don't need to keep a flat front on the single family as long as you have a cross gable, I would think.  I tend to agree the double front gable design might be a bit off the mark... maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, x99 said:

I hope you get this one.. It's straightforward and simple enough for the siteplan.  Sounds like you're on the right track with the designs too.  Don't need to keep a flat front on the single family as long as you have a cross gable, I would think.  I tend to agree the double front gable design might be a bit off the mark... maybe.

If this does not get approved...just saying

Donald Place 3.jpg

Donald Place Vs2.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2017 at 9:26 PM, GRDadof3 said:

This looks worse than the houses that are already on Donald Place? You've gotta be kidding...

36144085835_97ce64921a.jpg

 

 

 

Just a reminder of what this project looked like before, that the HPC and neighbor had so many issues with. 

When low-cost builder Allen Edwin was proposing a development in Kentwood a few years ago, one of the commissioners coined a term I'll never forget: "Building tomorrow's ghettos today." 

In no way am I criticizing your work Dave or comparing it to AE homes. More a criticism of the HPC lately.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

In no way am I criticizing your work Dave or comparing it to AE homes. More a criticism of the HPC lately.

I won't criticize this one.. They did wind up in an incredibly better spot compared to that photo.  HPC is finally enforcing stuff how it was always supposed to be done.  What bothers me though is that they still often miss the forest for the trees.  Ugly and out of place megaprojects, while nitpicking the replacement windows or garage door on an $80k house, even if it looks just fine and is almost unnoticeable.  They need a "sidewalk" rule ... If the average person cannot tell from the sidewalk that XYZ doesn't belong, it's fine.  If XYZ appears not to belong from the sidewalk, redo it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

This is a bit of older news, but Repcolite opened in half of the old Lonely Sock Laundry at 912 Fulton St E. You can see some of the work that's gone on on both the interior and exterior. Interesting spot, considering Rylee's Ace less than a mile away (and also sells Benjamin Moore paint, last I checked).  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
1 hour ago, EastownLeo said:

The United Methodist Conference Center on Baldwin and Fuller is being worked on, full renovation.  Did some looking, Apartments.

 

IMG_3816.JPG

I’m always surprised that this building keeps getting re-invented.  The building is much older than it looks, exactly how old I’m not sure.  This wasn’t my neighborhood but in the fifties I’d regularly go by here when my mother would drive us down Fuller to get to my grandparent’s house.  Back then it was a three-story old elementary school.  And as unbelievable as it might seem, I’m pretty sure it was all wood with no brick.  I was under the impression that it was closed as a school because it was considered a fire hazard.  Sometime around 1960 give or take a year or two, the brick facade was added when it was remodeled into an office building with John Hancock Insurance as the main tenant.  John Hancock didn’t stay there very long and there have been many other occupants since then.       

Edited by walker
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, walker said:

I’m always surprised that this building keeps getting re-invented.  The building is much older than it looks, exactly how old I’m not sure.  This wasn’t my neighborhood but in the fifties I’d regularly go by here when my mother would drive us down Fuller to get to my grandparent’s house.  Back then it was a three-story old elementary school.  And as unbelievable as it might seem, I’m pretty sure it was all wood with no brick.  I was under the impression that it was closed as a school because it was considered a fire hazard.  Sometime around 1960 give or take a year or two, the brick facade was added when it was remodeled into an office building with John Hancock Insurance as the main tenant.  John Hancock didn’t stay there very long and there have been many other occupants since then.       

I Love your historical insight, @Walker! It's all very interesting (who would have known it had a wood facade?!).

Joe

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/7/2018 at 9:42 AM, EastownLeo said:

The United Methodist Conference Center on Baldwin and Fuller is being worked on, full renovation.  Did some looking, Apartments.

 

IMG_3816.JPG

 

On 8/7/2018 at 11:12 AM, walker said:

I’m always surprised that this building keeps getting re-invented.  The building is much older than it looks, exactly how old I’m not sure.  This wasn’t my neighborhood but in the fifties I’d regularly go by here when my mother would drive us down Fuller to get to my grandparent’s house.  Back then it was a three-story old elementary school.  And as unbelievable as it might seem, I’m pretty sure it was all wood with no brick.  I was under the impression that it was closed as a school because it was considered a fire hazard.  Sometime around 1960 give or take a year or two, the brick facade was added when it was remodeled into an office building with John Hancock Insurance as the main tenant.  John Hancock didn’t stay there very long and there have been many other occupants since then.       

This is more than you want to know but just for my own curiosity and to verify my memory, I stopped at the downtown library and did some quick research.  The 1957 Polk Directory shows the building’s address as 11 Fuller SE and its name is the Fuller Building.  There are some insurance agencies listed as tenants but not John Hancock.  I know John Hancock eventually was in there because in the mid-sixties I used to mail in premiums to that building for a whole life policy my parents talked me into buying.  Back then there were not big computers in some centralized main office to process payments, you mailed your premiums to a local office.

The 1954 Polk Directory shows it as a vacant building but with the address 1163 Baldwin (the side street.)  The 1951 Polk Directory shows it as Baldwin Christian School.  I turned five in late 1951 and I was eight in 1954 when it was listed as vacant.  That means I was pretty young when I remembered this, specially considering the Polk Directories tended to be a year out of date by the time they were published.

So armed with that, I Googled “Baldwin Christian School Grand Rapids” and among other things, turned up the recent Mlive article in the link below that tells about converting the old Eastern Elementary School and this building to apartments.  It mentions a little more history of the building including when it was built:

The building has been vacant since last December, when the church moved out after using it as an office building since the late 1960s.  The property was originally developed in 1905 as the Coade Avenue Christian School and later renamed Baldwin Christian School [when the street was renamed.] It closed in the mid-1950s.

Former school buildings approved for conversions into apartments

I can’t find an early picture of it on the interweb to verify it was an all wood structure, but digging deeper into Google I think there might be an image in the restricted Calvin College archives.  Short of converting to Christian Reformed, I don’t think I’d be given access.  I suppose I could do that but what would happen if they didn't have an image or it turned out I was remembering wrong?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • 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.