More buildings to be torn down in the LaGrave/Sheldon/Cherry St area

[GRDadof3]

Um. Is moving the buildings really the best alternative?

I thought half the point of this was that there are so many other places that this use could be located. And I'm really not sure about the practicality of moving historical structures to a less desirable urban location. It seems unprecedented.

If the three agencies have to find another place to build, that will add additional cost for them (they already own all the parcels around the apartments, and the apartment parcels). I can't see too many people in the rental property business with $1.1 Million right now to buy those two buildings back and keep them as their current use.

I think moving the buildings is actually a good investment for someone. Of course, there are a lot of "if thens" to line up, but someone could even make money on the move if you can find a decent parcel nearby, especially if it's within the HH district.

Moving buildings is not unprecedented in Grand Rapids.

[Veloise]

Um. Is moving the buildings really the best alternative?

I thought half the point of this was that there are so many other places that this use could be located. And I'm really not sure about the practicality of moving historical structures to a less desirable urban location. It seems unprecedented.

At this point we are raising awareness and drawing attention to the issue. Possible alternatives could include:

--relocate the buildings

--build around the buildings

--relocate the proposed new agency HQ

In the area are a quite a few already-vacant lots where no demolition would need to occur. The goal is a win for the agencies, along with a win for New Urbanism and vintage structures. Seems like the City's LEED accolades, and public perception of the agencies, would be enhanced by retaining these two buildings.

HTH

[jspruit]

What exactly do we know about the existing buildings historically speaking? How old are they? Who designed & built them? What do they share with surrounding buildings? Any interesting features? It seems like these issues need to be addressed if you can decide whether or not they are worth keeping or moving. It would help to answer these questions for our purpose as well as letting others know why these buildings are/aren't important.

[joeDowntown]

Dschoon-

At this point, don't you think La Grave is pretty undesirable? St. Mary's has bought and torn down several old rentals, and these apartments are now in a sea of asphalt. I also find it unlikely to get a non-profit to alter its plans if there are additional costs incurred. Times are tough and I don't blame the non-profits for trying to improve their services. But I do think we should save every building we can, especially a little gem like the Perry.

Jspruit-

I think if you look at the cities that are walkable and other cities aspire to be- Boston, Chicago, San Francisco; not every building has a story or architect that makes it historic. But it is the fabric of the entire block/neighborhood that makes these cities enviable. In this case, I think the fabric of the "neighborhood" has already been destroyed, but the buildings are still worth saving and could be moved to build upon the fabric of another block/neighborhood.

Joe

[Veloise]

... But I do think we should save every building we can, especially a little gem like the Perry. ...

Speaking of gems... read the fourth paragraph in this link.

http://cinematreasures.org/theater/941/

Got a vacant lot or two? On the Facebook group Dad asked...here's the vicinity.

[Allison Slater]

Is there any date these are slated for demolition yet? I'd like to try to do some photo record-keeping of the architectural details of these buildings if at all possible before they go down (if they go down.)

[AlexPKeaton]

Any of the developers that read this forum interested? They'd at least have the know-how to buy land, hire contractors, get these things moved, and hopefully make a profit from the rental units. I'd even be willing to invest in such a project if somebody would be willing to do the real work.

[DSchoon]

Well, if the whole point of this discussion is to get someone interested in moving the buildings, that should be fairly easy. Why doesn't someone just call up the owner and ask permission to start promoting its availability to developers. No need for a public interest campaign or a letter writing campaign.

[GRDadof3]

Well, if the whole point of this discussion is to get someone interested in moving the buildings, that should be fairly easy. Why doesn't someone just call up the owner and ask permission to start promoting its availability to developers. No need for a public interest campaign or a letter writing campaign.

There's nothing formal about this. If you think the buildings should be saved at their current site, go for it.

[d8alterego]

I think a letter writing campaign/facebooking/protesting is needed so that way the nonprofits know that people are not happy with their decisions. I believe that if people allow such behavior from developers, developers then seem to think they can get away with it. Thus a trend begins of disregarding the value of these buildings. If the public remains vigilant in saving these buildings, developers don't have a choice but to listen to their concerns in the future.

Now, if a dialogue is formed and progress is made on these buildings, then the protesting should stop, but not until progress is made.

Well, if the whole point of this discussion is to get someone interested in moving the buildings, that should be fairly easy. Why doesn't someone just call up the owner and ask permission to start promoting its availability to developers. No need for a public interest campaign or a letter writing campaign.

[jspruit]

Jspruit-

I think if you look at the cities that are walkable and other cities aspire to be- Boston, Chicago, San Francisco; not every building has a story or architect that makes it historic. But it is the fabric of the entire block/neighborhood that makes these cities enviable. In this case, I think the fabric of the "neighborhood" has already been destroyed, but the buildings are still worth saving and could be moved to build upon the fabric of another block/neighborhood.

Joe

I'd agree in general about your urban fabric comments and how they relate to walkable cities, but I'm still not convinced that moving these buildings is such a great idea. If there is something important about these buildings other than their general appearance I'd say that perhaps there would be a solid reason to spend all of the money and resources to move them-as there would be some sort of real reason to keep them. Alternatively, I'd suggest that instead of spending the money and resources to move the buildings, perhaps the masterplan could be redesigned (have we seen the proposed masterplan?) to accommodate these buildings-that seems like a better use of the money/resources.

[crinzema]

How long do you think a building's life cycle should be?

[DSchoon]

There's nothing formal about this. If you think the buildings should be saved at their current site, go for it.

I kind of thought I was offering to help you get it moved. I could call them up tomorrow and sell them on the idea then start marketing it by lunch. But I'm not going to do it in competition with other efforts.

[gvsusean]

y dont we try to get all efforts working so that we dont have all of our eggs in one basket.. if the building can be moved then that would be fine with me. However, i would prefer for it to stay in its current location... the bottom line I dont want it destroyed!

[GRDadof3]

I'd agree in general about your urban fabric comments and how they relate to walkable cities, but I'm still not convinced that moving these buildings is such a great idea. If there is something important about these buildings other than their general appearance I'd say that perhaps there would be a solid reason to spend all of the money and resources to move them-as there would be some sort of real reason to keep them. Alternatively, I'd suggest that instead of spending the money and resources to move the buildings, perhaps the masterplan could be redesigned (have we seen the proposed masterplan?) to accommodate these buildings-that seems like a better use of the money/resources.

Do you mean the site plan? I don't believe there is a master plan for that area of Cherry/Lagrave.

Here's a good argument for moving the buildings, or at least the Perry:

) It's about 15 - 16,000 square feet on four floors, with 16 units.

) Replacement cost is at least $200/sf or $3.2 Million. And you wouldn't get the quality of construction or unique character (or an all brick facade).

) Market value was $900,000 (about a year ago) for the Perry.

) Buying a lot nearby, even for $100,000, putting in a foundation for $40 - $50,000, and then moving the building for $100,000, puts you in a pretty good position, if someone had the wherewithal to do it.

If anyone thinks they are going to stop the demolition of those buildings if they stay there are ignoring recent history. There was even a loud protest to stop the Schnitzelbank demolition. Nothing. That area around St Mary's is marked for demolition in the name of progress. And it's to create jobs in "healthcare", so there's no political will to stop any of it. The best alternative is to get those buildings out of there.

Here's what happens if the buildings stay: the current owners will take the request off the table for a while, pay lip service to incorporating them into their project, non-renew the renters, start boarding up the buildings to make them look like blight, and then when no one is paying attention, they'll tear them down without a peep of protest. They've mastered that in Detroit, and it's being adopted here locally.

DSchoon, I appreciate your offer. And I'm not trying to be argumentative. If they can be sold on the idea to at least consider alternatives, then it's a step in the right direction.

[walker]

Right in the same neighborhood there is a rather large building at State and Lafayette that was moved to its present location. I don't know the story behind the move or who paid for it but I think it had been in the way of an earlier St. Mary's building project.

If this link works (might take awhile and need a refresh,) it will show you the building:

google

The lot that the moved building is now on was for years occupied by a bank branch and then before that by Grace Episcopal Church before the church moved to East Grand Rapids.

[John E]

I kind of thought I was offering to help you get it moved. I could call them up tomorrow and sell them on the idea then start marketing it by lunch. But I'm not going to do it in competition with other efforts.

DSchoon,

Please don't listen to these incurably ignorant people. If you can get the ball rolling to have the buildings moved to a good location, please do so.

Sincerely,

~John

[Veloise]

...Please don't listen to these incurably ignorant people. ...

Hey, Chris K said we're astute!

[GRDadof3]

DSchoon,

Please don't listen to these incurably ignorant people. If you can get the ball rolling to have the buildings moved to a good location, please do so.

Sincerely,

~John

There's no need to insult people JohnE.

In other news, the facebook page has grown to 143 members.

[Veloise]

...In other news, the facebook page has grown to 143 members.

And a recent post from a new member states, "Oh boy. I live here. Had no idea."

[DSchoon]

DSchoon,

Please don't listen to these incurably ignorant people. If you can get the ball rolling to have the buildings moved to a good location, please do so.

Sincerely,

~John

I don't think anyone is really fighting with me on this. I'm cool both ways. I think there are competing motives here. One side wants to stick it to the interests that keep tearing down neighborhoods in the name of progress, which I kind of agree with. The other just wants to save the buildings, which wouldn't be punitive but would be a lot easier to accomplish.

I don't think there has to necessarily be agreement, but organization is useful. I'm going to bow off here and stick to the facebook page.

[gvsusean]

I don't think anyone is really fighting with me on this. I'm cool both ways. I think there are competing motives here. One side wants to stick it to the interests that keep tearing down neighborhoods in the name of progress, which I kind of agree with. The other just wants to save the buildings, which wouldn't be punitive but would be a lot easier to accomplish.

I don't think there has to necessarily be agreement, but organization is useful. I'm going to bow off here and stick to the facebook page.

If it is within your means to get these buildings moved then please do so... we can fight the history destroyers as a general cause, we dont need a poster child (we have enough of them already!)

[Veloise]

I don't think anyone is really fighting with me on this. I'm cool both ways. I think there are competing motives here. One side wants to stick it to the interests that keep tearing down neighborhoods in the name of progress, which I kind of agree with. The other just wants to save the buildings, which wouldn't be punitive but would be a lot easier to accomplish.

I don't think there has to necessarily be agreement, but organization is useful. I'm going to bow off here and stick to the facebook page.

As I see it, the FB page is to drum up support (4,000 zombies!) and spread the word beyond UP. This forum is where the developers and power brokers lurk, if not post. (With all due respect to the concept of social networking, I wouldn't characterize FB as "astute.")

ETA: Here is a little building preserved in DT K'zoo.

[GRDadof3]

Let me also add that moving a building is very complicated. I've never even done it, but enough research has shown me that it has a lot of moving parts. Plus, most city streets don't appear to be wide enough to move a building of the Perry's size. Especially streets lined with old growth trees.

Protesting and raising awareness, to me, sounds pretty easy right now.

[d8alterego]

Does anyone know when these buildings are expected to be demolished? That way we could possibly set up some goals to attain.

*Just found out from the article that the nonprofits want to "break ground by this fall" so the new building can "open by late 2010."