Should Grand Rapids Convert to Cul-de-Sacs?

[Mark Miller]

We actually agree on a lot. All of zoning nonsense you cite is a huge problem, not to mention the total paranoia of allowing any duplex or multifamily conversions, which also reduces density and increases housing costs.

The reality, though, is that claiming the grid is great because "common sense" and "people who get it" say it is still isn't saying much. Frankly, I just don't understand why you love the idea of automobiles cruising down your street at 30mph in order to shave 45 seconds off of their commute. Here's an area, for example, where the City of Wyoming, apparently in all of its "suburban" foolery, engaged in a massive traffic control effort: bit.ly/Mi3aGk For one half mile south of 28th, they eliminated all through traffic from Buchanan to Division. Are these neighborhoods worse off for it? I doubt it. How would doing this ruin your neighborhood?

Here's the facts about these streets: Division carries 12-14k cars per day, and Buchanan 6k to 10k. Are these neighborhoods somehow less "urban" or worse because the City of Wyoming undertook efforts to eliminate cut throughs? I don't think so. If not, then why would it somehow make Grand Rapids' neighborhoods less desirable to do the same thing around Wealthy or Franklin or Fuller or Eastern, which are carrying similar traffic volumes? These aren't suburban cul-de-sacs servings no purpose in the middle of a corn field. These are legitmate traffic control devices to try to keep cars where they belong.

So if you agree with what I am saying about the zoning nonsense and urban renewal, then look at the root of why those things happened. They were all silver bullet solutions to fix a perceived problem, that only ended up creating more problems or dilluting the city's fabric and/or livability.

I think, similar to the cul-de-sac solution.

I will say however, that certainly a cul-de-sac as an exception, rather than a rule provides some unique little spaces. The instance of Orchard Hill St. just off Lake Drive is an instance that comes to mind. But these need to be very carefully placed in small quantities at select locations and should NEVER be the urban pattern of a city.

Why is the grid great? From the NY Times, January 2012 about an exhibit at the Museum of the City New York entitled The Grid at 200: Manhattan

From the article……

The grid promotes sociability (Jane Jacobs) and allows density (Rem Koolhaas)

The grid makes a complex place instantly navigable.

The grid gives form to the democratic melting pot idea.

Interesting article, even though the exhibit is gone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/arts/design/manhattan-street-grid-at-museum-of-city-of-new-york.html?pagewanted=all

[GRDadof3]

I came back to see how this discussion has evolved. Good stuff.

Love how it comes back to schools. Schools are not the issue. If you want an easy, convenient, autopilot, monoculture path, then the city and its school options are NOT for you. Stay in the burbs, where it is oh so much easier. If you actually want to put some effort into selecting a path for your children's education AND desire to embrace some diversity in social, economic and educational formats....you know, taking the path less traveled, then the city's educational options are plentiful.

I have three kids, living in the city, BY CHOICE. I would put my kids up against any in the region as far as their educational attainment to date. Has it been harder than autopilot? damn right, but they are better because of it.

As far as the earlier comment about how nobody likes the grid, come on really? I like the grid and can name many others who intuitively like the grid too. The grid isn't the issue either and it sure as hell does not need to be fixed.

And you have never seen elitism of suburbanites directed at urbanites. I see it every time I have the misfortunate of traveling to the burbs and interacting with someone who can not understand how I can raise three kids south of Wealthy. Or how I can live that close to my neighbor. Or why I would want to ever not have a car and instead make the choice to walk to work. Or why I do not want an acre of turf grass to maintain (where the hell do my kids play?) Or how I deal with all those dangerous folks of different skin color.

There may be elitism shown suburbanites by urbanites, but it definately goes both ways. Don't kid yourself.

What is the biggest obstacle stopping the conversion of our streets to cul-de-sacs? Common sense, concerned citizens, people who get it, dwindling city budgets......

All this is is yet another attempt to suburbanize the city. We have been doing it for years, starting with urban renewal and then followed up by the adoption of suburban zoning ordinances that promote large setbacks, obligatory green space, buffers, parking minimums, single-use mandates, and dispersion of density. Fortunately we are now making inroads to stop much of that nonsense.

We do not need to suburbanize the city. We do not need to make it like the suburbs. It will never compete with the suburbs (as a suburban form) and trying to make it like them, dillutes the entire region. The city can, and will, stand on its own, as an urban form.

I'm sorry Mark, but I think that saying people in the suburbs put their kids in school on "auto-pilot" again is elitist and insulting, and downright inaccurate. In fact, I can pull out a whole stack of studies that show that suburban parents are far more involved with their kids' school than most urban school kids (who are more likely to be from a single-parent household living in poverty). Call them helicopter parents (someone did), but I'd take parental involvement in school over parents not giving a crap.

Elitism on either side is bad. And it stems mainly from prejudice and misunderstanding. Most suburbanites don't spend one minute thinking about people who live in the city, frankly. But I hear an awful lot of urbanites dissing suburbanites with gross generalizations.

But you're right, this doesn't much have to do with schools. Someone else brought up schools.

And I agree with x99, why anyone would want cars on their street driving by at whatever speeds is beyond me, kids or no kids. I thought UrbanPlaneteers hated cars??

[x99]

So if you agree with what I am saying about the zoning nonsense and urban renewal, then look at the root of why those things happened. They were all silver bullet solutions to fix a perceived problem, that only ended up creating more problems or dilluting the

From the article……

The grid promotes sociability (Jane Jacobs) and allows density (Rem Koolhaas)

The grid makes a complex place instantly navigable.

The grid gives form to the democratic melting pot idea.

Agreed re: the suburbs often having ridiculous lot size requirements, and GR unfortunately copying this and many other suburban rules that are not conducive to an urban environment. Under current zoning rules, the City technically calls for the demolition of much of its existing built environment (or, rather, "not encouraging continued non-conforming structures" or something to that effect). That doesn't speak to roads, per se, but it certainly speaks to a failure of leadership to nurture, expand and improve the existing built environment.

More on Jane Jacobs and grids--to snip from commentary about that article: Jane Jacobs, whose name exhibition curator Hilary Ballon invokes as a supporter of the grid, in fact was also critical, writing in “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” that she understood why European visitors often remark that “the ugliness of our cities is owing to our gridiron street systems.” She added that “if such a street goes on and on into the distance . . . dribbling into endless amorphous repetitions of itself and finally petering into the utter anonymity of distances, we are also getting a visual announcement that clearly says endlessness.” That, to me, isn't a ringing endorsement. Few deep urban thinkers have ever had an unconditional love affair with the grid.

Although grid systems are mindless, the wonderful thing about them is that they are easily modified, and the modifications easily undone. Aggressively restructuring it to serve the residents as needs and demands change does not have to bring any of the suburban negatives typically associated with the cul-de-sac 'burbs. The Wyoming link I provided is a good example. http://bit.ly/Mi3aGk By reducing auto counts, the neighborhood, I would think, became safer and more sociable than it was. As for navigability, well ... it's still perfectly navigable on foot or on a bike. Density is not affected. When we talk about a "walkable" city, this better meets the definition (to my view) than the neighborhood just above it in GR which is full of through streets to Division: http://bit.ly/NoXNHP.

[GR_Urbanist]

And I agree with x99, why anyone would want cars on their street driving by at whatever speeds is beyond me, kids or no kids. I thought UrbanPlaneteers hated cars??

We dont necessarily hate cars (parking lots are another thing totally). Automobiles on there own are important parts of our urban civilization and contribute to the freedom of movement and standard of living of lots of people in GR.

It's about recognizing that they exist, serve a purpose, and not going to the extreme of making cities unnavigable in some Don Quixote quest to force them from cities with the theory that we are going to become more sociable if we block off streets and break up the street grid. That's all wonderful if you think GR has summer for 12 months a year and continuous tram and subway service, but the reality is far different.

I mean seriously, where is this even an issue? What side street residents are actually raising a fuss over the occasional car that drives by? I live on one of the ultimate side streets and it isnt even on anyone's mind that a person comes down the road just to get somewhere.

And again, we dont own the streets in front of our homes as private property, and people are free to utilize them as I may utilize the roads in front of theirs.

[jas49503]

I'm sorry Mark, but I think that saying people in the suburbs put their kids in school on "auto-pilot" again is elitist and insulting, and downright inaccurate. In fact, I can pull out a whole stack of studies that show that suburban parents are far more involved with their kids' school than most urban school kids (who are more likely to be from a single-parent household living in poverty). Call them helicopter parents (someone did), but I'd take parental involvement in school over parents not giving a crap.

Elitism on either side is bad. And it stems mainly from prejudice and misunderstanding. Most suburbanites don't spend one minute thinking about people who live in the city, frankly. But I hear an awful lot of urbanites dissing suburbanites with gross generalizations.

But you're right, this doesn't much have to do with schools. Someone else brought up schools.

And I agree with x99, why anyone would want cars on their street driving by at whatever speeds is beyond me, kids or no kids. I thought UrbanPlaneteers hated cars??

moving to a suburban school district takes all the risk out of getting your kid into a good school. it effectively allows a parent to to go on auto-pilot. this is not to say that they do. that's why I don't understand the fear of sending kids to GRPS. most parents who take the trouble to relocate to a suburban school district and are involved in their kids lives will end up taking the trouble to make sure that their kid goes to a decent school. there are plenty to pick from. only by default do children end up at the crappier schools in GRPS.

[jas49503]

We dont necessarily hate cars (parking lots are another thing totally). Automobiles on there own are important parts of our urban civilization and contribute to the freedom of movement and standard of living of lots of people in GR.

It's about recognizing that they exist, serve a purpose, and not going to the extreme of making cities unnavigable in some Don Quixote quest to force them from cities with the theory that we are going to become more sociable if we block off streets and break up the street grid. That's all wonderful if you think GR has summer for 12 months a year and continuous tram and subway service, but the reality is far different.

I mean seriously, where is this even an issue? What side street residents are actually raising a fuss over the occasional car that drives by? I live on one of the ultimate side streets and it isnt even on anyone's mind that a person comes down the road just to get somewhere.

And again, we dont own the streets in front of our homes as private property, and people are free to utilize them as I may utilize the roads in front of theirs.

I agree that the traffic issue is overblown. I also agree with Jippy that consolidating traffic is a bad idea. browsing the traffic counts on the GVMC website. the busiest streets through the heritage hill area are fulton (15k) and wealthy (13k) it drops rapidly after that and most of the side streets (that they measured; there are very few that they even looked at) are in the 1.5-3k range. this compares well with EGR side streets (again, very few were actually measured.) compare that to cascade rd. east of 96 where there is 30k per day. from personal experience, it is a nightmare trying to navigate that road during rush hour. it takes me as long to drive a half mile down east paris and turn get onto 96 as it does to get from 96 to my home in heritage hill.

[GRDadof3]

moving to a suburban school district takes all the risk out of getting your kid into a good school. it effectively allows a parent to to go on auto-pilot. this is not to say that they do. that's why I don't understand the fear of sending kids to GRPS. most parents who take the trouble to relocate to a suburban school district and are involved in their kids lives will end up taking the trouble to make sure that their kid goes to a decent school. there are plenty to pick from. only by default do children end up at the crappier schools in GRPS.

People choose to take their business to a provider who does a better job, right? Seriously, you take your car to a mechanic and he does a shitty job and is a jerk, you probably wouldn't go back. For good reason. Right? So why would you think that people should send their kids to a bad school district? Because it builds character? Future citizens of our country and lets put them in a failing non-supportive non-challenging environment. I expect great service from Meijer, but my kids' education? Meh, who cares. I'll roll the dice and hope my kid gets into THE one good school. Go to a shitty restaurant because the guy lives locally and has a family to raise. Forget that his food tastes like shit and the service sucks. It's all for the greater good. Yeah right.

I was going to post more but I'll stop. GRPS has a lot of problems, many many problems to deal with, and they don't need me making it worse. But pretending they don't exist flies in the face of reality, and what every local community leader from the city to the local foundations is gravely concerned about.

[x99]

I mean seriously, where is this even an issue? What side street residents are actually raising a fuss over the occasional car that drives by? I live on one of the ultimate side streets and it isnt even on anyone's mind that a person comes down the road just to get somewhere.

That's because you're used to it. You live here. We need to start thinking like real estate developers trying to sell something to people that they actually want instead of thinking like the grand protectors of the way things were and forever should remain. I could afford to go elsewhere, and fully understand why most people do--guaranteed good schools, safe streets for kids, quiet neighborhoods. Thought about it, keeping thinking about it. It's an attractive proposition.

Those "suburb" people aren't all crazy. I'm the "crazy" one by majority standards. We're all crazy if we think we can keep this going with bike lanes and BRT and bullet trains and subways and "sustainable" green buildings and god-knows-what-else crackpot scheme that some government grant or foundation will fund. Our city in its current form--losing population and bleeding red ink--is not sustainable. Our lifestyle is not desirable to most people, and if we fail to make ourselves desirable, we will fail. Do you think all of those suburbanites actually like driving 45 minutes a day just to live somewhere they view as desirable? Is it that crazy to think that turning city neighborhoods into something like the suburbs with good schools and quiet, safe streets but more density is so terrible?

When it comes down to it, I'll admit it. I want to plop a nice big dense suburb right next to the CBD. You find a way to make that product, and people will buy it in droves.

[Jippy]

Ahh, people are buying it. Look at the townhouses behind ICCF -- nearly sold out. Look at the fact inner-ring neighborhoods are the densest part of the metro region outside of downtown, so it doesn't quite sound like people are leaving in droves. The US Census stated that in 2011, GR added population, so that argument doesn't really fly. Perhaps Michigan and the Midwest had other problems that led to its budgetary and population problems.

And "bleeding red ink"?, come on let's get real. Assessed value on properties have now been decreasing for 5 years, meaning the total amount of revenue that the city is collecting has also been decreasing (in addition to state revenue share and sales tax share and gas tax revenue). This is not a problem unique to Grand Rapids, but one that is effecting all forms of state and local governments across the country -- urban or not. Your argument is painfully disingenuous.

Slapping in a cul-de-sac is not going to solve our city's problems.

I really do not understand how the issue of schools got mingled in with the topic of street patterns, because they are two entirely different topics. Cul-de-sacs don't equal good schools, just as a tall building does not equal a downtown. Of course we want a better school system in Grand Rapids, but that the root cause of their struggles is not the urban form of Grand Rapids. Again, painful co-mingling of two entirely separate topics.

Market analysis actually demonstrate the opposite of your proposition. More people want urban walkability than the market will provide with the key caveat that it is safe, good quality and with the ammenities they need (such as good schools). This is also demonstrated by extensive academic research conducted by visual preference studies. This is why the ICCF townhouses (I cannot remember their real name) have sold so well, despite costing $200+.

I appreciate you posting the original questions, but this topic has devolved into ridiculousness.

[GRDadof3]

Ahh, people are buying it. Look at the townhouses behind ICCF -- nearly sold out. Look at the fact inner-ring neighborhoods are the densest part of the metro region outside of downtown, so it doesn't quite sound like people are leaving in droves. The US Census stated that in 2011, GR added population, so that argument doesn't really fly. Perhaps Michigan and the Midwest had other problems that led to its budgetary and population problems.

And "bleeding red ink"?, come on let's get real. Assessed value on properties have now been decreasing for 5 years, meaning the total amount of revenue that the city is collecting has also been decreasing (in addition to state revenue share and sales tax share and gas tax revenue). This is not a problem unique to Grand Rapids, but one that is effecting all forms of state and local governments across the country -- urban or not. Your argument is painfully disingenuous.

Slapping in a cul-de-sac is not going to solve our city's problems.

I really do not understand how the issue of schools got mingled in with the topic of street patterns, because they are two entirely different topics. Cul-de-sacs don't equal good schools, just as a tall building does not equal a downtown. Of course we want a better school system in Grand Rapids, but that the root cause of their struggles is not the urban form of Grand Rapids. Again, painful co-mingling of two entirely separate topics.

Market analysis actually demonstrate the opposite of your proposition. More people want urban walkability than the market will provide with the key caveat that it is safe, good quality and with the ammenities they need (such as good schools). This is also demonstrated by extensive academic research conducted by visual preference studies. This is why the ICCF townhouses (I cannot remember their real name) have sold so well, despite costing $200+.

I appreciate you posting the original questions, but this topic has devolved into ridiculousness.

The townhouses to which you are referring (Fairmount Square) sold painfully slow for the developer, way slower than they anticipated from what I hear. What was it, 6 years to sell about 30 townhouses? 5 a year? Granted, the real estate crash didn't help, but I don't know that I would hold up that one single market rate development in a city of 45 square miles as any barometer that there's heavy demand for the city.

Yes, GR is estimated to have grown by about 1000 people in 2011, after losing nearly 15,000 people since 2000. In about the same period, GRPS lost about 7500 students while districts like Rockford and FH saw their enrollment explode (FH even added an additional district, Forest Hills Eastern, to handle the growing pains). So the patient is critical but stable.

But the reason why schools jumped into this discussion was that someone other than me or x99 brought it up.

A lot of what we do on UrbanPlanet is play "Let's pretend you're in charge of the city and what would you do to improve it." If I asked someone to do this as part of their job, and they came back to me and said "Everything is fine the way it is and the city is growing," "Just add some bike lanes." I'd probably fire them. It's so far from reality, which is troubling to me as someone who is interested in seeing Grand Rapids thrive. It's like people are in denial because visually they see changes happening in small batches.

I also read a lot of articles about people wanting to live more in urban areas, but they always hold up the huge Tier 1 cities or European cities as examples (and even those are losing population outside of the core). Some come from the school of Richard Florida, who has largely been debunked. How about any mid-sized city in the U.S.?

Lastly, can we discuss these issues without denigrating people just because they live somewhere geographically?

I also find it humorous that tearing down the S-curve is plausible, but adding a few cul-de-sacs here and there is unimaginable.

[Mark Miller]

I also find it humorous that tearing down the S-curve is plausible, but adding a few cul-de-sacs here and there is unimaginable.

Tearing down the S-Curve would create economic development opportunities, potentially knit the city back together, make crossing areas that the current S-curve severes more pleasant to traverse (thereby potentially making the city more multi-modal) and ultimately make the city more green and potentially make it easier to engage our best resource....the Grand River.

Cul-de-sacing the neighborhoods (and I don't think this was concieved a few "here and there") into mini-feifdoms with one way in and one way out just so we can stop cars from driving down streets that we have invested millions of dollars into for that expressed purpose is hardly comparable.

On the cul-de-sacing idea:

If you want to see the outcome of adding cul-de-sacs to a neighborhood fabric drive down to Heritage Commons on Logan, Lafayette and Jefferson. I actually really like the space on the inside of the circle, where the homes front....but the frontage along Logan and Jefferson SUCKS, is anti-neighborhood, anti-city, anti-people, anti-livable.

South of this is the truncation of Cass Avenue into a cul-de-sac as it extends north from Pleasant. There is no way that this is a better place than the grids that surround it. And it has nothing to do with the architecture.

[Jippy]

The townhouses to which you are referring (Fairmount Square) sold painfully slow for the developer, way slower than they anticipated from what I hear. What was it, 6 years to sell about 30 townhouses? 5 a year? Granted, the real estate crash didn't help, but I don't know that I would hold up that one single market rate development in a city of 45 square miles as any barometer that there's heavy demand for the city.

Yes, GR is estimated to have grown by about 1000 people in 2011, after losing nearly 15,000 people since 2000. In about the same period, GRPS lost about 7500 students while districts like Rockford and FH saw their enrollment explode (FH even added an additional district, Forest Hills Eastern, to handle the growing pains). So the patient is critical but stable.

But the reason why schools jumped into this discussion was that someone other than me or x99 brought it up.

A lot of what we do on UrbanPlanet is play "Let's pretend you're in charge of the city and what would you do to improve it." If I asked someone to do this as part of their job, and they came back to me and said "Everything is fine the way it is and the city is growing," "Just add some bike lanes." I'd probably fire them. It's so far from reality, which is troubling to me as someone who is interested in seeing Grand Rapids thrive. It's like people are in denial because visually they see changes happening in small batches.

I also read a lot of articles about people wanting to live more in urban areas, but they always hold up the huge Tier 1 cities or European cities as examples (and even those are losing population outside of the core). Some come from the school of Richard Florida, who has largely been debunked. How about any mid-sized city in the U.S.?

Lastly, can we discuss these issues without denigrating people just because they live somewhere geographically?

I also find it humorous that tearing down the S-curve is plausible, but adding a few cul-de-sacs here and there is unimaginable.

The fact of the matter is that new development is (was) moving painfully slow everywhere. Fairmount Square (thank you for the info) was successfully completed and sold-off whereas countless exurban sub-divisions were left mid-construction to return to nature. During the last 5 years, population has continued to increase downtown, a new neighborhood center has re-emerged into East Hills, and we may now be witnessing the stabilization of Grand Rapids and cities across the United States -- all despite the worst recession in 70 years. While I agree an answer like "bike lanes" would be pretty terrible universal solution, I am one of those fools that feels like GR fared relatively well.

I will agree that the city faces immense challenges, and the school system and crumbling infrastructure sit at the top of the list. But in my view the city has the economic base and market/institutional/philanthropic forces to form Grand Rapids into a much more powerful force than it was in previous decades.

Mid-size cities that seem to be turning the corner would include Pittsburgh, Orlando (size 250k), Milwaukee, Ann Arbor, and now growing pockets of Detroit and St Louis. I am one to take the view that those "small batches" of positive changes need to be nourished and success will spread out from there. We all know a bajillion people that moved from GR to Chicago to enjoy a more urban and multi-culture experience. Being in the position to capture 10% of that drain will pay immense dividends in future years.

My point is that bike lanes will not make GR a Portland; and an urban cul-de-sac program and disbanding the landbank will not return the flighters in droves. Strategic urban investments will revitalize the city and better position this city than retrofitting it into a suburb ever will, because I do not buy the argument that because Grand Rapids is a mid-sized tier 3 market, that it only produces consumers that desire the suburban form predominantly provided. Given a choice even people in the Kenowa school district want sidewalks and bike lanes and a functioning street system, they just haven't been given the choice [ For those of you who didn't catch it, they have banned students to bike to school for safety reasons, and the kids and parents revolted].

Improving the schools, the roads, the transit, safety, and fostering greater cultural inclusiveness will pay even greater dividends to attract a higher percentage of college and economically vibrant community (which is my read of Richard Florida's thesis -- not the poets and writers who most critiques seem to focus on).

[x99]

On the cul-de-sacing idea:

If you want to see the outcome of adding cul-de-sacs to a neighborhood fabric drive down to Heritage Commons on Logan, Lafayette and Jefferson. I actually really like the space on the inside of the circle, where the homes front....but the frontage along Logan and Jefferson SUCKS, is anti-neighborhood, anti-city, anti-people, anti-livable.

South of this is the truncation of Cass Avenue into a cul-de-sac as it extends north from Pleasant. There is no way that this is a better place than the grids that surround it. And it has nothing to do with the architecture.

Mark, what you're arguing for is what you want and what you think makes a residential neighborhood a nice place. Problem is, the market in general apparently wants something different. If we as a city fail to provide that, we get left behind. Simple as that. That frightens me. We need cheap, innovative ideas and solutions now, not when we're staring into the abyss again. We're a stagnant pocket in a growing area.

I'd forgotten about the Commons and the newer Cass cul-de-sac, but I think they help show my point. They are extraordinarily well-done urban infill. Heritage Commons had a $72k sale and a $92k sale recently. For 1970s ~1300 square foot condos over 30 years old, that is remarkable. If they were really such "anti-people" places one would expect their values to be dramatically lower than the surrounding stuff. But they're not ... they see less turnover and higher values on an adjusted basis. No recent sales at all in the Cass cul-de-sac, but they were around $110k for 1250 sq ft back in 2005 (worthless data, I know). Absolute highest prices in the Hill recently were around $300k for 3500+ square foot palaces. Sample: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/314-Madison-Ave-SE-Grand-Rapids-MI-49503/23814822_zpid/ .. Even back in 2005, the highest prices in the Hill were at $350k to $400k for 4000+ square foot mini-mansions. Luxury homes should not cost .. oh .. $10-$15 more a square foot than a stinking economy condo or a Habitat home. Maybe it isn't the streets--maybe its something else--but if we don't fix it, we're dead in the water over the long haul.

[GRDadof3]

The fact of the matter is that new development is (was) moving painfully slow everywhere. Fairmount Square (thank you for the info) was successfully completed and sold-off whereas countless exurban sub-divisions were left mid-construction to return to nature. During the last 5 years, population has continued to increase downtown, a new neighborhood center has re-emerged into East Hills, and we may now be witnessing the stabilization of Grand Rapids and cities across the United States -- all despite the worst recession in 70 years. While I agree an answer like "bike lanes" would be pretty terrible universal solution, I am one of those fools that feels like GR fared relatively well.

I will agree that the city faces immense challenges, and the school system and crumbling infrastructure sit at the top of the list. But in my view the city has the economic base and market/institutional/philanthropic forces to form Grand Rapids into a much more powerful force than it was in previous decades.

Mid-size cities that seem to be turning the corner would include Pittsburgh, Orlando (size 250k), Milwaukee, Ann Arbor, and now growing pockets of Detroit and St Louis. I am one to take the view that those "small batches" of positive changes need to be nourished and success will spread out from there. We all know a bajillion people that moved from GR to Chicago to enjoy a more urban and multi-culture experience. Being in the position to capture 10% of that drain will pay immense dividends in future years.

My point is that bike lanes will not make GR a Portland; and an urban cul-de-sac program and disbanding the landbank will not return the flighters in droves. Strategic urban investments will revitalize the city and better position this city than retrofitting it into a suburb ever will, because I do not buy the argument that because Grand Rapids is a mid-sized tier 3 market, that it only produces consumers that desire the suburban form predominantly provided. Given a choice even people in the Kenowa school district want sidewalks and bike lanes and a functioning street system, they just haven't been given the choice [ For those of you who didn't catch it, they have banned students to bike to school for safety reasons, and the kids and parents revolted].

Improving the schools, the roads, the transit, safety, and fostering greater cultural inclusiveness will pay even greater dividends to attract a higher percentage of college and economically vibrant community (which is my read of Richard Florida's thesis -- not the poets and writers who most critiques seem to focus on).

You can't claim though the city (Fairmount Square for instance) fared well while the suburban developments starved. Look at all the struggling condos in the city that had to convert to apartments (Icon on Bond, 38, many other small ones), have fire sales (Union Square, Boardwalk, River House), had a bunch of cancellations (River House, Icon on Bond) and/or are still far from being filled (Fitzgerald). For the last 5 or 6 years, for every 1 condo built, there were at least 10 homes being built in the suburbs. That ratio pretty much stayed the same throughout the crash. And I've noticed recently that the suburban housing construction market has picked up tremendously in the last year, particularly way out in Ottawa County/Hudsonville and in Forest Hills.

As a "metro area" I'd say Grand Rapids is doing better than many of those cities you listed, fwiw.

[GRDadof3]

Tearing down the S-Curve would create economic development opportunities, potentially knit the city back together, make crossing areas that the current S-curve severes more pleasant to traverse (thereby potentially making the city more multi-modal) and ultimately make the city more green and potentially make it easier to engage our best resource....the Grand River.

Cul-de-sacing the neighborhoods (and I don't think this was concieved a few "here and there") into mini-feifdoms with one way in and one way out just so we can stop cars from driving down streets that we have invested millions of dollars into for that expressed purpose is hardly comparable.

On the cul-de-sacing idea:

If you want to see the outcome of adding cul-de-sacs to a neighborhood fabric drive down to Heritage Commons on Logan, Lafayette and Jefferson. I actually really like the space on the inside of the circle, where the homes front....but the frontage along Logan and Jefferson SUCKS, is anti-neighborhood, anti-city, anti-people, anti-livable.

South of this is the truncation of Cass Avenue into a cul-de-sac as it extends north from Pleasant. There is no way that this is a better place than the grids that surround it. And it has nothing to do with the architecture.

Suspending all reason for a minute and assuming the s-curve were removed, so who would develop all that new land reclaimed by demolishing the s-curve? Turned into parks? Maintained by whom? The city can't even maintain what it has. I actually think it would be turned into parking lots, ironically.

[GRDadof3]

http://www.mlive.com...a_hot_star.html

The surge in new housing was concentrated mainly in suburban communities. In Kent County, Byron Township saw the most activity with 64 housing starts, following by Caledonia Township with 43 starts. Kentwood saw 35 starts while Wyoming saw 30 starts.

In Ottawa County, Georgetown Township returned to its hotbed status with 64 starts. Allendale Township saw 22 starts and Holland Township saw 21 starts while Grand Haven Township saw 20 starts and Park Township reported 19 starts.

Echoes the national trend, with suburban new home construction returning to pre-2008 numbers.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/US-new-home-sales-rose-at-fastest-pace-in-2-years-3660468.php

The prevailing wisdom that people don't like the suburbs anymore and are flocking into cities was really just a blip, related to tightened lending and the sluggish economy.

[x99]

http://www.sfgate.co...ars-3660468.php

The prevailing wisdom that people don't like the suburbs anymore and are flocking into cities was really just a blip, related to tightened lending and the sluggish economy.

The interesting thing about the new housing starts in GR--many of which were condo developments--is that these things, were, by and large, "suburban" either in their design if single family, or in their "lifestyle" if not. Wander on over here for a look at a recent City of GR single family housing development: http://goo.gl/maps/zokI A cul-de-sac, and wandering, confusing street patterns. The condo developments essentially offer a gated or near-gated lifestyle, and are private enclaves within the city.

I don't think anyone would claim that street layouts are a panacea to the City's ills and will cause a flock of new move-ins. I'm not convinced such a perfect solution to attract residents exists, though (other gating off Heritage Hill, Eastown, or Ottawa Hills and guarantying City High admission--good luck making that cash cow moo). What we might be able to come up with, though, are "five percent" items--improve the desirability by five percent in this, and some other small ways, and it begins to make a difference, however slight.

I think what we were (or are) seeing are the children of the first generation that abandoned the cities being willing to sample them again. They don't necessarily know or understand why their parents left. That was the blip, but will they stay? My fear is that they will find out all too soon why their parents left and make the same decision.

[GRDadof3]

The interesting thing about the new housing starts in GR--many of which were condo developments--is that these things, were, by and large, "suburban" either in their design if single family, or in their "lifestyle" if not. Wander on over here for a look at a recent City of GR single family housing development: http://goo.gl/maps/zokI A cul-de-sac, and wandering, confusing street patterns. The condo developments essentially offer a gated or near-gated lifestyle, and are private enclaves within the city.

I don't think anyone would claim that street layouts are a panacea to the City's ills and will cause a flock of new move-ins. I'm not convinced such a perfect solution to attract residents exists, though (other gating off Heritage Hill, Eastown, or Ottawa Hills and guarantying City High admission--good luck making that cash cow moo). What we might be able to come up with, though, are "five percent" items--improve the desirability by five percent in this, and some other small ways, and it begins to make a difference, however slight.

I think what we were (or are) seeing are the children of the first generation that abandoned the cities being willing to sample them again. They don't necessarily know or understand why their parents left. That was the blip, but will they stay? My fear is that they will find out all too soon why their parents left and make the same decision.

Their parents probably said: well that's where my job is, that's where the grocery store is, that's where the mall and movie theater are,....why don't we just move out there? And as a bonus, we get a new home with a better kitchen and better insulation and better windows and walk-in closets and a back private yard.

My only point in all of this is that the city has to look at itself as a business. What is its value proposition, how does it stack up against the competition? I'm certainly not saying that cul-de-sacs or traffic patterns are the end all be all.

I was talking with a gentleman who works for an urban redevelopment company, mainly single family homes in the Southeast part of GR, and he said the #1 problem he sees is that the housing stock is not desirable for many people.

[jas49503]

I think that the city housing stock is not desirable for many people but short of demolishing homes en mass there is no easy solution. of course as pointed out earlier, who would redevelop the properties? for better or worse, I don't think that you can argue that most people think they want to live in the city. It is my opinion that this is based mostly on ignorance esp. when it comes to maintenance, crime, and schools (GRdad, you would be wise to educate yourself on the schools here and I will leave it at that) or unmodifiable factors such as yard size or undesirable home layouts.

the city should work on improving what it can. the entire motivation for cul-de-sacs lies in two things. traffic and crime. I don't think that traffic is that bad. I used to live in the back a sub-division with three entrances. the overall feel I get is the same compared to where I live here. I look out the window and don't see any cars. there may be higher traffic counts but it is not significant. we all ready covered the fact that reducing traffic counts with cul-de-sacs does not reduce speeding. So cul-de-sacs will not fix traffic. the second, crime, by creating "defensible spaces" is a good goal although I think that advocating cul-de-sacs was a poor recommendation and logically doesn't make sense. the basic premise was founded based on observations of high rise low income housing projects. a high rise is the ultimate cul-de-sac. very few ways in or out and of course no traffic. the problem with a high rise and the what cul-de-sacs were trying to solve was the issue of a feeling of ownership by residents. there was no feeling that in the projects. cul-de-sacs are an attempt to limit the number of people there so that if someone strange passes by you can feel free to question their being there.

the main goal is then to encourage feelings of ownership. we the best way to do that is to actually increase ownership. if you can do that then you will achieve may of the goals of creating cul-de-sacs without actually doing so. increasing the percentage of owner occupied single family housing will decrease crime, improve the upkeep of properties (thereby being less scary to suburbanites), schools would likely improve (by increasing the number of non socioeconomically disadvantaged students).

I think what we were (or are) seeing are the children of the first generation that abandoned the cities being willing to sample them again. They don't necessarily know or understand why their parents left. That was the blip, but will they stay? My fear is that they will find out all too soon why their parents left and make the same decision.

I experienced the suburbs and have no desire to return.

[Raildudes dad]

I was talking with a gentleman who works for an urban redevelopment company, mainly single family homes in the Southeast part of GR, and he said the #1 problem he sees is that the housing stock is not desirable for many people.

And televison doesn't help at all. All the homeowner shows like "List it or Love it" and the first time owner search programs show larger homes or expensive remodels. My wife and I comment "how can they afford $300-500,000?, "who would want all that house" or "that house is twice the size of our suburban ranch". Makes it look like only a big expensive house is the norm and the only way to go.

I think about growing up in my folks house, built in 1947 on the northeast side. 50 x 100 lot, small kitchen, bath, 1 bedroom and living room and dining room on the first floor, 2 bedrooms and bath on the 2nd floor. My daughter lives there now and when we visit there I'm amazed at how little it is. Houses like it in the city of GR in decent shape can be bought for less than $100,000

[GRDadof3]

And televison doesn't help at all. All the homeowner shows like "List it or Love it" and the first time owner search programs show larger homes or expensive remodels. My wife and I comment "how can they afford $300-500,000?, "who would want all that house" or "that house is twice the size of our suburban ranch". Makes it look like only a big expensive house is the norm and the only way to go.

I think about growing up in my folks house, built in 1947 on the northeast side. 50 x 100 lot, small kitchen, bath, 1 bedroom and living room and dining room on the first floor, 2 bedrooms and bath on the 2nd floor. My daughter lives there now and when we visit there I'm amazed at how little it is. Houses like it in the city of GR in decent shape can be bought for less than $100,000

Those shows are pretty ridiculous. And it's amazing how people will latch onto a house or condo just because it has granite countertops (a mere $3000 or $4000 will buy granite for any kitchen in almost any house).

But I also know a lot of people like "open" floorplans, where the kitchen flows into the eating area and into the family room. Most homes older than 20 years weren't built that way, so you have to figure in a major overhaul if you want that in an older home.

I think that the city housing stock is not desirable for many people but short of demolishing homes en mass there is no easy solution. of course as pointed out earlier, who would redevelop the properties? for better or worse, I don't think that you can argue that most people think they want to live in the city. It is my opinion that this is based mostly on ignorance esp. when it comes to maintenance, crime, and schools (GRdad, you would be wise to educate yourself on the schools here and I will leave it at that) or unmodifiable factors such as yard size or undesirable home layouts.

the city should work on improving what it can. the entire motivation for cul-de-sacs lies in two things. traffic and crime. I don't think that traffic is that bad. I used to live in the back a sub-division with three entrances. the overall feel I get is the same compared to where I live here. I look out the window and don't see any cars. there may be higher traffic counts but it is not significant. we all ready covered the fact that reducing traffic counts with cul-de-sacs does not reduce speeding. So cul-de-sacs will not fix traffic. the second, crime, by creating "defensible spaces" is a good goal although I think that advocating cul-de-sacs was a poor recommendation and logically doesn't make sense. the basic premise was founded based on observations of high rise low income housing projects. a high rise is the ultimate cul-de-sac. very few ways in or out and of course no traffic. the problem with a high rise and the what cul-de-sacs were trying to solve was the issue of a feeling of ownership by residents. there was no feeling that in the projects. cul-de-sacs are an attempt to limit the number of people there so that if someone strange passes by you can feel free to question their being there.

the main goal is then to encourage feelings of ownership. we the best way to do that is to actually increase ownership. if you can do that then you will achieve may of the goals of creating cul-de-sacs without actually doing so. increasing the percentage of owner occupied single family housing will decrease crime, improve the upkeep of properties (thereby being less scary to suburbanites), schools would likely improve (by increasing the number of non socioeconomically disadvantaged students).

I experienced the suburbs and have no desire to return.

I am learning more about GRPS, and I know there are some bright spots (Harrison Park, Montessori, Blandford School, City High). But from the families I know in the district, it's not very easy at all to get your kids into the school you want. And I also hear that dealing with the district and getting any kind of information is an unpleasant experience (putting it nicely).

And maybe not demolishing homes "en masse," but replacing some of the older housing stock with new homes has been talked about (with of course a lot of push-back from some in the community). ICCF has done new home infill, but that was predominantly on vacant lots.

[jas49503]

Those shows are pretty ridiculous. And it's amazing how people will latch onto a house or condo just because it has granite countertops (a mere $3000 or $4000 will buy granite for any kitchen in almost any house).

But I also know a lot of people like "open" floorplans, where the kitchen flows into the eating area and into the family room. Most homes older than 20 years weren't built that way, so you have to figure in a major overhaul if you want that in an older home.

I am learning more about GRPS, and I know there are some bright spots (Harrison Park, Montessori, Blandford School, City High). But from the families I know in the district, it's not very easy at all to get your kids into the school you want.

that may be true esp. regarding City High. A co-worker of mine's relative sent their kids to Northview because one of them couldn't get into city high. the flip side is that a magnet school keeps kids out who aren't motivated thereby eliminating distractions for the ones that are. it makes total sense to me. just because you want your drug addict kid to have a good education doesn't mean that he wants one, and it's best to keep him away from kids that are trying to focus.

And televison doesn't help at all. All the homeowner shows like "List it or Love it" and the first time owner search programs show larger homes or expensive remodels. My wife and I comment "how can they afford $300-500,000?, "who would want all that house" or "that house is twice the size of our suburban ranch". Makes it look like only a big expensive house is the norm and the only way to go.

I think about growing up in my folks house, built in 1947 on the northeast side. 50 x 100 lot, small kitchen, bath, 1 bedroom and living room and dining room on the first floor, 2 bedrooms and bath on the 2nd floor. My daughter lives there now and when we visit there I'm amazed at how little it is. Houses like it in the city of GR in decent shape can be bought for less than $100,000

the other problem is that people just want to move into a house and enjoy it. any house built 10 or more years ago is going to need some updating and people are turned off by that. even if it isn't very expensive or a very time consuming project.

[andrew.w]

The other problem is that people just want to move into a house and enjoy it. any house built 10 or more years ago is going to need some updating and people are turned off by that. even if it isn't very expensive or a very time consuming project.

True, but that sort of mindset is the one that is destroying our cities. Everyone that can afford it cannot live in less than 10 year old houses all the time. Otherwise, everyplace will turn into Metro Detroit, where people are continually moving outward in search of open land for new houses. The old houses will go to increasingly lower income residents, and the core will be continuously drained of people.

As someone else said, short of bulldozing the center city and starting over (sorry, we tried that--it was called the 60s), there's not much you can do about the housing stock. It is older and smaller, and anyone who doesn't like that is going to have to spend money on renovations. Instead it's going to take some creativity to start luring people back in (or the end of affordable oil prices, whichever comes first). In that case, I don't think it is a bad idea to emulate aspects of the suburbs. I don't think that the city should physically look like the suburbs, but having neighborhoods that are safe, good education, close, reliable services are not bad things by any stretch, and the perception of these things are about as important as their actuality.

(btw, thank you x99 for starting this discussion; it's probably the most active one we've had on here in a long time).

[Raildudes dad]

the other problem is that people just want to move into a house and enjoy it. any house built 10 or more years ago is going to need some updating and people are turned off by that. even if it isn't very expensive or a very time consuming project.

To me that's another unrealistic expectation. Why do homes need extensive 'updating"? I have that discussion with my wife every so often. We very rarely use our living room. The carpet is like new. The carpet in our family room shows no sign of wear (we don't wear our shoes in the house most of the time) . Other than occasionally needing a cleaning, why tear it out just because it looks like late 70"s. Our kitchen cabinets are in good shape. Why tear them out and replace them because it look's like late 70's cabinetry - the house was built in the late 70's . A little paint and paper goes a long way to sprucing things up

BTW: When my daughter moved into my folks house, we did not rip out the existing kitchen cabinets, we refinished them just like the house was built (did need new hardware). It needed a new countertop but a formica one from menard's was more than adequate. All her friends compliment her on how nice it looks.

[GRDadof3]

Renaissance Zones and Brownfield Credits worked very well in Grand Rapids in getting businesses to look at setting up shop in areas that they normally would have been uninterested in, due to environmental cleanup, renovation costs, infrastructure upgrades, etc.. I think the investments were around $250 Million or more.

What about a program aimed at targeted city neighborhood homes, providing homebuyers either a tax credit or grant of $10,000 or so to upgrade a house (new energy efficiency features, remove lead paint, upgraded kitchen w/ high efficiency appliances, etc.). Maybe these programs already exist and I just don't know about them?? I know there are federal programs for foreclosed properties (can't recall the name), but I hear it takes virtually forever to get financing through those.

I totally agree that leveling a bunch of GR neighborhoods and creating a bunch of Bailey's Groves is NOT the way to go.

Maybe the city needs to conduct a survey of Kent County residents and find out why people are choosing or not choosing to live in the city. Start a baseline of focus areas. I think the city is at a tipping point, and can't be sustained by growth in downtown and one other neighborhood alone. It could go the way of Flint or Muskegon if it doesn't get out ahead of this.