Division / Wealthy and ICCF

[Gorath]

Yuk. Talk about turning your back on Division.

[GRDadof3]

Yuk. Talk about turning your back on Division.

?? Just near the BRT station. Maybe they foresee park-n-riders?

[GR_Urbanist]

Yuk. Talk about turning your back on Division.

I just knew these guys would find some way to blow the urban design!

Huge parking lot fronting Division? Check.

(But they did include a tiny "common green space" because they wanted to bring something cozy to balance out the majority of the space being used to park cars.)

Inappropriate usage of urban design term ("Square" when there is no square)? Check.

Setbacks along Division with useless grass along the same? Check.

No Grocery? Check.

Completely abandoning the main aspects of the original master plan? Check.

It's almost like we cant get this stuff right to save our lives.

Edited May 24, 2012 by GR_Urbanist

[Gorath]

A. I was hoping that Tapestry Square would help to encourage redevelopment of the properties on the other side of Division in this area.

B. This area lacks a street wall. What you get is a block and a half deep of parking. It doesn't offer a pleasant view from the properties across the street. And it doesn't help connect the proposed retail at the NE corner of Division and Logan to the rest of Division.

C. I'm not sure what this portion of Sheldon serves? If parking is really needed then vacate Sheldon here.

D. Where is the south-bound BRT station supposed to be? I'm guessing it's here. Maybe that will be enough to spur development of A.

I do like what they have done along Logan street. I can see Logan as being the southern corridor of the downtown area. Add to that the Urban Market and Baker Furniture apartments on the west side of Division. Hopefully something happens with the big dirt lot at the NE corner of Ionia and Logan.

[GRDadof3]

I do agree the parking seems to be overwhelmingly large. It's gotta be at least half the site.

[Jippy]

While continuous buildings along Division would be ideal, the block orientation is not conducive for that scenario combined with a grocery store (north-south is longer than east-west). Parking garage above/below is not a reasonable alternative since property values and rent will not support it. I think the overall site plan is not that bad and still supports the overall redevelopment of the area. On the grocery store block, about 60% of the street frontage will contain buildings, plus hopefully the BRT station will be attractive. A minor improvement would be to include a small out-parcel immediately to the south side of the grocery store along Division that further frames the space and supports BRT users. Coffee shop? A 500 sq ft building would better frame the street edge and only eliminate 3-5 parking spaces (each parking space is about 180 sq ft). If that does not occur, the Division-facing parking should at least have a well-landscaped knee wall.

[civitas]

Tapestry Square is focused on the neighborhood. It's purpose is to enhance the area through economic diversity and services. Wealthy is the stronger street and it is logical that development would focus in that direction. The plan positions a very active and healthy use (grocery) for the Division frontage, a use that will not happen without parking.

Edited May 25, 2012 by civitas

[GR_Urbanist]

The problem is that this development does not exist in a void like some fake village out on the Beltline.

When you present a plan, highly altered from the original, that starts presenting blank-wall buildings, curb cuts, and parking lots where there was once a solid street wall, walkability, mixed-use, and hidden parking lots, it completely reaffirms S. Division as nothing more than a 5-lane mini US 131 thru-way. This then disconnects everything on this side of Division from the potential developments on the other side where the farmer's market is going up.

Creating developments that are adjacent to two main roads should require treating both with importance, not designating one important and the other just a glorified feeder road to present walls and parking lots. This is supposed to be an urban area inside a city!

And what is to stop whatever grocery they manage to ever get there from just demanding that the only entrance faces the parking lot with the supposedly important Wealthy frontage being nothing but a few windows and mostly just blankness? Now that they abandoned sticking to the original plan, they are now saying they are turning it all over to other entities to design the space.

They managed to present this vision before yesterday, and now, just like Celebration Village, they are compromising and spinning all over the place. I wont even hold my breath that the corner parcel will even have what is being presented now if they become even more desperate.

And the biggest losers? The BRT riders. They get nothing more than a slightly fancy version of the shelter you see on Fulton and Sheldon. Completely exposed and in front of a parking lot.

Edited May 25, 2012 by GR_Urbanist

[torgo]

And the biggest losers? The BRT riders. They get like nothing more than a slightly fancy version of the shelter you see on Fulton and Sheldon. Completely exposed and in front of a parking lot.

Yeah, that was the first thing I noticed. The BRT station, which will contain actual live humans using mass transit, surrounded in all directions by cars, cars and more cars. What a pleasant experience that will be. Ugh.

Edited May 25, 2012 by torgo

[x99]

And anyone that rides on the pipe dream is going to have the kind of disposable income necessary to make this a viable urban retail project? Let's get real here for a minute (and horrifically politically incorrect): People who ride buses in this town are people who have to because they don't have enough money for a car, and particularly so if they're going to a place with adequate free parking, which this project has in spades. Is the parking just a temporary thing until they can finish the build out? That would certainly be more logical.

As for something else I've wondered about: ICCF also owns that old party store on Wealthy between Lafayette and Prospect. They also own the house next to it on Prospect, and a vacant lot next to that, plus one behind it fronting on Lafayette. The City owns a lot right on the corner of Lafayette and Wealthy. Is there a plan to do something here in the future? This is much closer to existing population centers, and far more walkable than this Division/Wealthy project, which is quickly becoming a boondoggle given the failure of the grocery store. If they've got a viable commercial project for this space (which seems better that Div/Wealthy), I can't imagine the HH Association would grip too much about moving or razing the two houses in the way (although one is privately owned--ICCF must have missed the foreclosure sale--oops).

And the biggest losers? The BRT riders. They get nothing more than a slightly fancy version of the shelter you see on Fulton and Sheldon. Completely exposed and in front of a parking lot.

Edited May 25, 2012 by x99

[andrew.w]

And anyone that rides on the pipe dream is going to have the kind of disposable income necessary to make this a viable urban retail project? Let's get real here for a minute (and horrifically politically incorrect): People who ride buses in this town are people who have to because they don't have enough money for a car, and particularly so if they're going to a place with adequate free parking, which this project has in spades.

On the other hand, if we continue to design based on this mentality, we will never have a good public transportation system. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I can afford a car (in Grand Rapids at least) but if a reliable transportation system could get me where I wanted to go when I wanted to get there I would definitely take it, mostly because I don't care for city driving. If the city is going to invest in a new method of transport, riding it should be as pleasant an experience as possible, regardless of who is projected to be riding. Otherwise you are right: the people who can afford other means will not use it.

[x99]

Nothing but a field of dreams, but there aren't going to be any ghosts showing up to use it. "City driving"--to the extent that term even makes sense around here (which, I submit, it doesn't as normally understood in the big city context) is still faster than taking transit, and there is plenty of empty dirt around here for parking. I hate to say it, but the public transit proponents are utterly nuts so far as the present is concerned. I hope they prove me wrong, but I dont' see that happening. One thing I am glad to see is that ICCF is paying attention to reality, and designing with adequate parking. Maybe someday all of this transit nonsense will make sense, but that day isn't here yet. What was once the rallying cry of "monorail" has become "transit." When it the people becomes so numerous that we really need to take a bus to avoid the hassle, the transit will follow. It isn't goign to happen in reverse. The dreamers need to deal with it any get over it already.

My mantra for towns like GR is to build out the street front, and put the parking behind it. That's exactly what ICCF is doing here, absent this latest bit of weirdness with the parking right on Division. That they still can't get a grocery store tenant and have sold off another chunk for school usage are not good signs. At all. The school is the worst thing possible, from a perspective of revitalizing this area. I can hardly think of a use that would be worse or more unfortunate. Once a school goes up, you're rather locked into that 8-4-o'clock-followed-by-dead-nothing box for a loooooooong time. I really hope ICCF doesn't lose its shirt on this deal, because it was such a great vision. I really, really hope it works, but these changes do not give me a good feeling.

On the other hand, if we continue to design based on this mentality, we will never have a good public transportation system. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I can afford a car (in Grand Rapids at least) but if a reliable transportation system could get me where I wanted to go when I wanted to get there I would definitely take it, mostly because I don't care for city driving. If the city is going to invest in a new method of transport, riding it should be as pleasant an experience as possible, regardless of who is projected to be riding. Otherwise you are right: the people who can afford other means will not use it.

Edited May 29, 2012 by x99

[andrew.w]

Nothing but a field of dreams, but there aren't going to be any ghosts showing up to use it. "City driving"--to the extent that term even makes sense around here (which, I submit, it doesn't as normally understood in the big city context) is still faster than taking transit, and there is plenty of empty dirt around here for parking. I hate to say it, but the public transit proponents are utterly nuts so far as the present is concerned. I hope they prove me wrong, but I dont' see that happening. One thing I am glad to see is that ICCF is paying attention to reality, and designing with adequate parking. Maybe someday all of this transit nonsense will make sense, but that day isn't here yet. What was once the rallying cry of "monorail" has become "transit." When it the people becomes so numerous that we really need to take a bus to avoid the hassle, the transit will follow. It isn't goign to happen in reverse. The dreamers need to deal with it any get over it already.

I have to say that even in larger more congested cities, driving is still faster than riding transit when it comes in the form of a bus, and is sometimes true when it comes to trains. Here in Chicago it takes me 35 to 45 minutes to commute 5 miles downtown in the morning depending on how long I have to wait for the bus to come, and how many people are riding. Driving a car, I can get there in about 20 minutes (not including time to park). The reason being, not only does the bus stop often, but every time it does it invariably misses the next traffic light. The reason I ride is because even at $86/mo. I am still saving money over gas and parking costs, plus I get an extra hour of time to read or do whatever that I could not do behind the wheel of a car.

I realize that the situation in Grand Rapids has none of the same situation as Chicago, but part of my point was that it doesn't matter if it will only be low-income people riding the BRT, they still deserve to have attractive stations. Plus, I claim to be no expert on peak oil, and the impending depletion of fossil fuels, but I think we can all agree that the cost of fuel is most likely outpacing inflation, meaning more people are falling into the range wear car ownership is too expensive. This may be more likely to drive people to mass transit than congestion or the cost of parking. Sure I am talking long term, but transit systems must be planned for and implemented long term--because they are so danged expensive.

My mantra for towns like GR is to build out the street front, and put the parking behind it. That's exactly what ICCF is doing here, absent this latest bit of weirdness with the parking right on Division. That they still can't get a grocery store tenant and have sold off another chunk for school usage are not good signs. At all. The school is the worst thing possible, from a perspective of revitalizing this area. I can hardly think of a use that would be worse or more unfortunate. Once a school goes up, you're rather locked into that 8-4-o'clock-followed-by-dead-nothing box for a loooooooong time. I really hope ICCF doesn't lose its shirt on this deal, because it was such a great vision. I really, really hope it works, but these changes do not give me a good feeling.

I don't have a problem with the school because many service businesses have similar hours, maybe open until 6 or 7. Conversely, many bars and residences are empty during the day when the school is full. It takes establishments that are occupied for all sorts of different periods to make a neighborhood. Hypothetically the school also helps draw more families to the immediate vicinity.

[sfloria]

And anyone that rides on the pipe dream is going to have the kind of disposable income necessary to make this a viable urban retail project? Let's get real here for a minute (and horrifically politically incorrect): People who ride buses in this town are people who have to because they don't have enough money for a car, and particularly so if they're going to a place with adequate free parking, which this project has in spades. Is the parking just a temporary thing until they can finish the build out? That would certainly be more logical.

Thats a very factless, stereotypical statement that a lot of doubters of transit have unfortunately. I rode the bus to work everyday from the SE side of GR to downtown. Not because I couldn't afford a car, which I own, but because it was cheaper to take the bus than to pay for monthly parking at nearby ramp. There was a wide variety of people on the bus. People going to work, students, visitors. The city shouldn't be adopting parking regulations based on what currently works for a development in the suburbs. They should be looking to the future when more people are using the transit system.

[jas49503]

Let's get real here for a minute (and horrifically politically incorrect): People who ride buses in this town are people who have to because they don't have enough money for a car, and particularly so if they're going to a place with adequate free parking, which this project has in spades. Is the parking just a temporary thing until they can finish the build out? That would certainly be more logical.

As for something else I've wondered about: ICCF also owns that old party store on Wealthy between Lafayette and Prospect. They also own the house next to it on Prospect, and a vacant lot next to that, plus one behind it fronting on Lafayette. The City owns a lot right on the corner of Lafayette and Wealthy. Is there a plan to do something here in the future? This is much closer to existing population centers, and far more walkable than this Division/Wealthy project, which is quickly becoming a boondoggle given the failure of the grocery store. If they've got a viable commercial project for this space (which seems better that Div/Wealthy), I can't imagine the HH Association would grip too much about moving or razing the two houses in the way (although one is privately owned--ICCF must have missed the foreclosure sale--oops).

I don't see how that is politically incorrect at all. it is a factual statement. the problem with society is that people run from the facts because they are scared to face them. people that ride the bus because they want to are in a very small minority. especially when it is cheaper to park or only marginally more expensive.

until people are given a viable alternative to what passes for public transportation now, nobody is going to ride the bus that doesn't absolutely have to. this may change as traffic increases and parking costs increase but it likely some time though. the problem is that busses are so horribly inefficient (time wise). you never know when they are going to show up, because they never run on schedule. once they do, you have 100 stops a mile which means that it is faster to ride your bike and depending on the time of day and your physical condition, to run. I experienced this personally when I was running down lake and could almost keep up with the bus (I'm in pathetic condition). until you have alternatives such at BRT or light rail that are both comfortable, predictable, and efficient, no one is going to use the bus except of the poor AND those with excess time on their hands (with a few exceptions)

on another note:

I'd like to see a grocery put in at cherry/state/lafayette. there seems to be several large vacant properties with abundant parking that could house a decent size grocery. not to mention it is closer to downtown and the center of HH (I could also walk there which would be nice.)

Edited May 30, 2012 by jas49503

[Jippy]

There were nearly 11 million trips last year on the Rapid, so the assertions are actually quite incorrect and perpetuate long-held preconceived notions. Every time I ride the bus (which I admit is not as much as I should), I see lower-income, students, and a scattering of business people. The Rapid has made great strides to improve communication of routes etc, through maps at stations, and smart phone apps. Next would be to increase headways and provide real-time information at stops to give clearer idea of when the next bus will arrive. This would assist potential riders in utilizing the Rapid as an option. BRT will only facilitate greater use of the entire Rapid bus system and certainly enhance the Division line. As for the ICCF site, there are minor improvements to the site plan that can be made to improve the pedestrian experience and still allow for ample parking, such as include one additional out-parcel along Division just south of the grocery store (heck, it could even be a "temporary" shipping container with a coffee shop or other foodie experience for the students and bus riders that would use the stop). What I would caution ICCF on is to ensure that the site plan allows for additional infill if there proves to be too much parking.

And I encourage all of you to embark on a grand social experiment. Hop on a bus sometime during rush hour to do your own demographic study. I am sure you will see more diversity than you probably imagined. And to use the bus is not nearly as frightening as one expects.

[GRDadof3]

Thats a very factless, stereotypical statement that a lot of doubters of transit have unfortunately. I rode the bus to work everyday from the SE side of GR to downtown. Not because I couldn't afford a car, which I own, but because it was cheaper to take the bus than to pay for monthly parking at nearby ramp. There was a wide variety of people on the bus. People going to work, students, visitors. The city shouldn't be adopting parking regulations based on what currently works for a development in the suburbs. They should be looking to the future when more people are using the transit system.

Parking downtown is atrociously expensive, on the Chicago parking robbery scale. $150 - $200/month? If employers weren't paying for it, and actual workers downtown had to, I think there would be a mass revolt. I can see where taking the bus would be cheaper. The city should do what Ann Arbor does and come up with a program with The Rapid where employers can provide free bus passes to their workers at a greatly reduced rate (to the employer). Basically Grand Valley's free rides to students on The Rapid, but at a much larger scale.

[GR_Urbanist]

Parking downtown is atrociously expensive, on the Chicago parking robbery scale. $150 - $200/month? If employers weren't paying for it, and actual workers downtown had to, I think there would be a mass revolt. I can see where taking the bus would be cheaper. The city should do what Ann Arbor does and come up with a program with The Rapid where employers can provide free bus passes to their workers at a greatly reduced rate (to the employer). Basically Grand Valley's free rides to students on The Rapid, but at a much larger scale.

That idea makes me cringe! The bus system can barely fuction as it is now.

There were nearly 11 million trips last year on the Rapid, so the assertions are actually quite incorrect and perpetuate long-held preconceived notions. Every time I ride the bus (which I admit is not as much as I should), I see lower-income, students, and a scattering of business people. The Rapid has made great strides to improve communication of routes etc, through maps at stations, and smart phone apps. Next would be to increase headways and provide real-time information at stops to give clearer idea of when the next bus will arrive. This would assist potential riders in utilizing the Rapid as an option. BRT will only facilitate greater use of the entire Rapid bus system and certainly enhance the Division line. As for the ICCF site, there are minor improvements to the site plan that can be made to improve the pedestrian experience and still allow for ample parking, such as include one additional out-parcel along Division just south of the grocery store (heck, it could even be a "temporary" shipping container with a coffee shop or other foodie experience for the students and bus riders that would use the stop). What I would caution ICCF on is to ensure that the site plan allows for additional infill if there proves to be too much parking.

And I encourage all of you to embark on a grand social experiment. Hop on a bus sometime during rush hour to do your own demographic study. I am sure you will see more diversity than you probably imagined. And to use the bus is not nearly as frightening as one expects.

Last winter, when my car was out of service, me and my wife decided to just use the bus system to our work DT, seeing that a stop was right at the corner.

What a headache that was!

While I had to pay coming and going, I had to ecounter bus after bus (#4) that was PACKED with students in the morning whom were able to ride for free or a greatly reduced fare. It was rare to find a seat either way because of this. If I wanted to commute to work in a school bus, I would pretend I was 13 again. Luckilly the #6 was far more sane, but still packed with GVSU + GRCC and GRPS kids, leading me to have to stand.

My wife had a far worse time. She had to use the Alpine bus to get to the #4 (or something like that). That bus was constantly late, causing her to miss the connecting bus. Many times she had to wait at Central Station because that bus simply did not show up! It literally was not there to take passangers! She would leave work at 5, and not get home until 7. We live in East Hills. She started walking home because it was faster (this was in the middle of winter) until we got the car fixed.

I dont even want to get into our expirimental trip to Rivertown Mall. PITA!

The problem is that our bus system is as inglorious as you can possibly get despite all of the money we blow on it. The seats are uncomfortable, if you can get one. The air inside is stale. The buses seem to have no shocks, cant handle corners well, and seems to make me car sick. And all of the subsidies, and free rides they give alienate pay-out-the-pocket riders espically when you live at the tail end of a route with a high precentage of those riders, and have to get on a bus that doesnt even have standing room. And honestly they aernt really faster anyway. If you have a car, the price of owning one is no barrier when you can have transportation to where you need to go when you need it for yourself.

I dont expect the Silver Line to be any different. It looks like the entire route is just going to be drabness the whole way, especially now that the only stop that looked like it had some promise is just going to be in front of a parking lot, and the bus you will ride will just be any old ITP bus they pull from the lot.

[Allison Slater]

Parking downtown is atrociously expensive, on the Chicago parking robbery scale. $150 - $200/month? If employers weren't paying for it, and actual workers downtown had to, I think there would be a mass revolt. I can see where taking the bus would be cheaper. The city should do what Ann Arbor does and come up with a program with The Rapid where employers can provide free bus passes to their workers at a greatly reduced rate (to the employer). Basically Grand Valley's free rides to students on The Rapid, but at a much larger scale.

Spectrum Health does this already, doesn't it?

[GRJohn]

Spectrum Health does this already, doesn't it?

Yes they do

[andrew.w]

Parking downtown is atrociously expensive, on the Chicago parking robbery scale. $150 - $200/month?

Somewhat irrelevant, but parking in Chicago can get as high as $300 per month. Some of the popular neighborhoods charge just as much for garage parking as downtown ramps. I pay $65 to park in an alley 2 miles away from my apartment (I use my car too little to park it on the street; I would be constantly getting tickets for missing street cleanings and for parking in temporary no-parking zones).

I've never lived in a city where students have free/reduced fare privileges. While DC, Chicago, and Cincinnati all have a reduced fare system, students do not qualify for fare reductions, and no one rides for free. If the Rapids is really that full with free riders, I could see how the system is having that much of a problem.

[Jippy]

Think of GVSU as a downtown. GVSU recognizes that the opportunity-cost of paying to provide subsidized student bus passes yields a greater financial return than paying for the extra parking spaces. GRDadof3 is spot on. Perhaps a great program for the new downtown director to take a look at.

GR_Urbanist, I am glad to hear your poor expenses were primarily due to the fact that so many people were using the bus. A refreshing complaint!

[GRDadof3]

Think of GVSU as a downtown. GVSU recognizes that the opportunity-cost of paying to provide subsidized student bus passes yields a greater financial return than paying for the extra parking spaces. GRDadof3 is spot on. Perhaps a great program for the new downtown director to take a look at.

GR_Urbanist, I am glad to hear your poor expenses were primarily due to the fact that so many people were using the bus. A refreshing complaint!

Found it, it's called the goPass in Ann Arbor. Employers in the DDA boundary that qualify and participate (509 employers in downtown Ann Arbor this past year, a record number) have to buy passes for all of their full time employees, at a discounted rate, regardless of whether the employee uses the pass or not. In their latest report, it looks like 2515 people are actively using the passes daily. That's a lot of parking spaces not needed.

http://getdowntown.org/bus/gopass/#eligible

[GR_Urbanist]

GR_Urbanist, I am glad to hear your poor expenses were primarily due to the fact that so many people were using the bus. A refreshing complaint!

The many people were students that got to ride for free. Believe me, it is far for anything the Rapid should be proud of.

I'm a full fare-paying downtown worker that wanted to give them a fair chance, and I ended up on essentially a glorified school bus. That's not to say that I didn't have some pleasant trips. I would even say it was enough on some days to really imagine the possibilities of a greater usage on my part. It's just was a lot of hassle and sometimes having to wait 30 minutes after leaving work to even get on a bus because it left 10 minutes before I did.

And the "interesting" people and littered bus stops didnt help.

The ITP has a long way to go before riding the bus is a no-brainer option for the general public.

Edited May 31, 2012 by GR_Urbanist

[Jippy]

Ahh, the ol' "students are not real people" argument. Perhaps GR has finally become a college town! They (students) are in fact productive participants of the community, and thus it is regretful that your reaction is to equate their use of a public form of transportation as a "glorified school bus".

Students don't ride for free. They pay for it through their tuition. Grand Valley pre-pays $2.5 million for their student use each year. That is a fairly large investment compared to the overall ITP budget. (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/treasury/417530InterurbanTransitPartnership20120119_374261_7.pdf)

The enhancements that the community successfully voted for will begin to address many of the reliability concerns that choice riders such as yourself share. The perspective to maintain is that this is a game of the margins. How does ITP successfully achieve a mode shift by single percentage points in their advantage. The entire community is not going to choose to ride a bus or take a bike overnight, but if the city, ITP, developers, universities, etc. continue to promote and invest in these enhancements, then the self-fulfilling cycle begins. Greater investment in the system attracts more users, which justifies more frequent, which enables greater density, which attracts more investment, etc. Next thing we know, transit ridership has doubled to 22 million annual riders over the course of 10 years. Maybe they are not business executives like they are in DC or NY, but "business people" and other choice riders are comprised of the full strata of society - income, ethnic background, working/student/unemployed, and age.