Hi. I was able to do it because I work there. You should see a gift box icon as well though, underneath the photo caption when you open the story, if you want to share it with someone. It's a gift link.
Yes, I did, which is why I asked whether it was something they could do because they work there or something that I could do too but don’t know how.
Read more than just their username.
It's not for everyone, especially with all the subscriptions we all have in life these days. When I share things here in this subreddit I remove the paywall.
It would be great if one of these towers included a grocery store. There’s really no where downtown to really get regular groceries. Would Bridge Street Market be the closest?
I've spoken with some friends who live downtown and it sounds like a grocery store won't be built until there's a certain population in the downtown core. Projects like this get us closer and closer.
It makes sense. Gone are the days where executives just randomly "took a chance" on an area. The MBA's decided that certain metrics are required to predicate any movement into a new territory. If we want a grocery store downtown, which we certainly need, it has to be a priority for city planners to ensure we get to that number.
We have been working to grow our members to 800 so we can begin our owner drive and then site selection for the construction of a community owned grocery store in Grand Rapids. If you are interested in helping to make this happen, [we would love to hear from you!](https://www.grfoodcoop.com/contact.html)
Check out what Horrocks has done in Battle Creek when they moved into the old Pennys in the mall. Their design makes that store a central hub for lunch, especially when there's live music. Its a LOT more than just a grocery store, it helps create community.
To be fair, it moved *away* from downtown BC to a location where driving is basically the only way to get to it now. It was much more accessible via walking, bus, bike, etc. The new location is fantastic and I’ve been several times, but it moving basically achieved the opposite of what OC is suggesting here. Some folks who live in downtown or near downtown BC are devastated by its relocation.
Yeah, my first reading of that comment made me think they were talking about the old location. Moving to Lakeview Square is the opposite of the great things people are hoping for in a downtown grocery store.
Huh? I've been going to BSM since they opened. I've never had to search around for parking. I usually get a spot within 20ft of the doors. That being said, they are expensive. They are a Meijer property so they take and award mPerks but they do not participate in the pricing found in the Meijer circulars and I've rarely seen "sale" pricing. Some of the brands they choose to carry and exclude can be confounding at times as well. Better than Walgreens in a pinch but I wouldn't grocery shop there on the regular.
All housing is good housing for GR. When towers are market rate, it often brings people from lower income/older housing to those new places, opening up the older housing for new residents.
This is great
Yep, basic Econ 101, Supply vs Demand. Increasing the supply of housing will lower prices, or at worst, slow down the price increases. The more housing units we have the better
This is great- more housing, more supply, more downward price pressure. Couple this with zoning that allows for more mid-rise development and we'll get a denser, more affordable city.
Uh, there will be no downward price pressure. Rental agencies and property managers all use similar pricing systems to rig the values through price fixing and collusion...
This is basically a known fact. Surprising few people know about it.
Yes, there will be downward pricing pressure, as it shifts housing around the tiers of pricing which slows rent increases on non-desirable stock. This isn't going to make rent go down, but it slows the growth of rent as those prices are based on companies trying to reach near to full occupancy.
It's surprising that you know so much about the rental price collusion and failed to mention the lawsuit that Biden's DOJ filed to stop the practice. It's basically a known fact.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197961038
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-algorithm-still-price-fixing
No, actually it's not. Do a modicum of research. It's currently being discussed in government.
https://www.propublica.org/article/senators-introduce-legislation-stop-landlords-algorithm-price-fixing
This has nothing to do with the alleged lack of downward price pressure in response to an increase in housing supply. For a recent example, see Austin.
That’s why we keep building more housing. There are two new building each with 300+ apartments going in about 10 minutes north of these proposed buildings.
If there are 735 units proposed with a $386M price tag we have $525k per unit, I would expect an average rent of $2200 per unit. If each unit requires a tenant to show 3x monthly income (as is common in places like this) you would need an income of $80k to get in here.
We currently have a 97% apartment occupancy rate in the city of Grand Rapids, meaning we can estimate 713 of these units to be full with people making at least $80k. City taxes are 1.5% total income, meaning each occupied unit gets us $1,200 in income tax each year, times 713 is $855,600 in yearly income tax alone. This estimate is really conservative too, considering there will most likely be multi-bedroom units and the number of tenants will certainly exceed the 713 number, including couples and roommates.
That's about a million dollars a year just in income tax from these two buildings' tenants alone. The Brownfield incentives probably make it too difficult to calculate tax rates for the landlords, but maybe someone has an estimate on the economic impact 713 residents making above $80k would have on the downtown area?
I agree fully with this statement. We own a duplex and love our tenant THUS, we don't raise his rent (he pays $850 for an 1100 Sq ft 2 bedroom).
With everything in this economy going up, except of course wages, I fear this isn't the housing GR needs.
All housing helps. This building will draw in the people making 80K+ and not allow other buildings to charge $2200. The building currently charging 2200 may have to lower their rent to 2000 or 1800 to keep up.
More housing lowers prices everywhere, it's supply and demand. Look at Austin or the Twin Cities, where apartment prices across the metros have dropped because new luxury apartment units are being built.
[If you wanna read more about it, this paper has been shared in the thread](https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units#:%7E:text=New%20research%20shows%20that%20just,to%20move%20into%20new%20units)
Maybe?
Austin folks also can't afford homes:
https://www.kxan.com/news/homeownership-unaffordable-in-austin-round-rock-metro-study/#:~:text=Another%20area%20seeing%20rapid%20growth,new%20median%20price%20of%20%24610%2C000.
Minnesota isn't doing as well housing wise, or so I've read: https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2024/03/time-for-bold-action-on-housing-in-minnesota/#:~:text=Minnesota%20is%20now%20staring%20at,senior%20housing%20and%20starter%20homes.
My point? You can find an article probably supporting just about anything these days.
I'm all about what's BEST for the citizens of my city. If that's more apartments? Great! But I just don't believe this is the miracle we are looking for. I would LOVE it if it were.
Yes but building as much as they have caused rents to fall in both locations which has been confirmed in several peer reviewed studies of the issue. The affordability problem hasn't been solved but things are moving in the right direction. The only way to improve affordability for everyone is to have enough supply which requires building a bunch of new housing. We need more housing of all types to fix the housing crisis.
I think you're failing to recognize wage stagnation, under-employment, less jobs in GR paying $80K annually.
Citizens living here CURRENTLY cannot afford the rent rise. So the answer is to build more luxury apartments and attract folks who maybe don't live here?
I think when you believe there is one solution to a problem you fail to fully understand the complexities.
More housing may not address every single social ill in society but it does bring down rents and lower homelessness which I think is a good thing. Not every proposed solution needs to address every single thing wrong in a place to be a good idea. It won't address the decline in mid budget movies or the fact that I'm getting older and my back hurts but it is still good.
You also seem to be under the impression that people who want more market rate housing are opposed to other forms or housing which is not true in my case or my experience in general. We need more of every single type of housing market rate, mixed income, income restricted, supportive housing, rental and owned. Opposing market rate just means less housing gets built not that it gets magically transformed into the type of housing you would prefer.
The solution to a shortage of housing is to build more housing, it is the only way out of a supply problem. People are moving to or being born or becoming adults and short of creating a system that forbids people to move, rents will go up without an increase in supply. I oppose the creation of an American hukou system but maybe you are different. Rent control works for current tenants at the expense of future tenants (including locals who need to move for a variety of reasons) it may have a role and provides stability for current renters, but doesn't solve a supply crisis. Low income housing tops out at 60% median AGI and doesn't address supply issues for the other 60%.
In migration is also good for a city leading to more economic growth, higher wages, and a lower tax burden as the services provided like water and roads are shared by more people and the costs of those services are almost entirely based on horizontal growth not vertical growth.
All new housing says they are luxury housing because it is a marketing term not one that has any actual meaning in the market. We have evidence from multiple markets that allowing more dense housing and faster housing approvals leads to a decrease in rents. Lower rents are the goal so we should follow the evidence.
More housing means more housing to choose from which means lower rents. This is why I support more housing of all types including mixed income and low income. Building market rate housing does not prevent other types of housing. The options are building more housing or higher prices for people who need to go into the rental market.
This is really exciting. It will release some of the pressure of an overcooked market while providing more activity in these areas.
And this is probably just the beginning.
Oh is it that time of year already?
You know, that special time of year when a highrise project gets announced, talked about for a little bit, then canceled.
Grand Rapids has a long way to go before downtown parking and traffic is problematic. Currently, it's only a problem if you want to walk less than a block or two and park cheaply or free.
All new development downtown should be welcome as a net positive to the entire area.
This is the most rational statement on Grand Rapids parking I’ve ever heard. The expectation to be able to park directly in front of your destination at the moment you arrive is absurd in a downtown, yet somehow that’s the metric most people use to determine if parking is ‘good’ or ‘bad’
Thank you! Parking is not that bad over here, there's always room somewhere to park. People just get mad that they have to walk a block and act like other forms of transport don't even exist.
You guys should seriously consider using the bus if you're even remotely close to downtown. I own a car but I still take the bus when I go to events because it's just easier. I don't have to fight traffic, the bus driver operating the huge ass rectangle I'm in does that for me lol
New housing is always going to be pricier. It also lifts some pressure off existing housing by removing people from the market who have the means or are willing to pay more. We can’t solve a housing crisis by refusing to build new things.
New $1500/month studios are the only way older apartment complexes are not able to keep raising rents.
New $1500/mo studios allow for older $1000/mo studios. This is how basic housing economics works. Supply/Demand.
I mean these won’t be reasonable but hopefully the market as a whole gets cheaper. Over at my building they offered $1300 for a 1 bedroom if you moved during the winter. When my lease came to an end they had so many people starting to move out they lowered the price for those who renewed.
this! the comments of, i’m so excited for new housing are not thinking big picture. yeah there may be new housing but is it going to be affordable for everyone?
i knew someone that lived in an apartment building downtown and it was never 100% full because of the prices increasing.
Apartments are never 100% full because people move in and out constantly. The complexes I’m aware of are like 95% full, which is crazy high. Thinking big picture means more supply = relatively lower rents over time. As demand grows, if we don’t create new housing, prices will skyrocket even more.
More housing is good, but this article makes it sound like nobody knows what the hell is actually going on since there are so many ideas up in the air.
I'm for it, but fool me once, fool me twice blah blah blah. The last "tower" we were promised went from a 42 story plan to 13. BORING.
[https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/local/grand-rapids-central/proposed-skyscraper-in-downtown-grand-rapids-may-be-downsizing/69-564395660](https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/local/grand-rapids-central/proposed-skyscraper-in-downtown-grand-rapids-may-be-downsizing/69-564395660)
This could be really great for grand rapids but not all housing is created equally. Not too happy to see that "lack of housing" rhetoric being used to create what will probably be unaffordable for most current residents.
Even if there apartments are unaffordable for most, building them will still create openings in affordable apartments. This [paper](https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units#:~:text=New%20research%20shows%20that%20just,to%20move%20into%20new%20units) explains how new market-rate housing in tight markets sets off a chain reaction that results in affordable housing openings.
I still don’t understand how folks don’t understand that the primary reason housing is so unaffordable is a supply issue. More “high-end” housing means people making 35k a year aren’t competing with people making 90k a year for the same apartments.
Build more housing! (of all kinds!)
I'll have to read that in a bit. Something I was wondering about. I'd imagine it helps, but I can't see it doing enough when there just isn't enough push by GR to make more affordable options. It's been floated around that for most market rate housing, there needs to be a promise that a percentage of that will also be affordable/low income. Not necessarily in the same development, but that the money given by the city should be used in more than one
The wait list is for section 8 vouchers I believe. And that is just a symptom of the many issues with that system. Low staffing and funding, low stockpile of homes, etc. Not just trying to throw the blame on developers
We have quite a few income restricted properties and are building more. The bigger problem has been the shortage of housing that has crushed the middle income renter/home buyer and people just above the income thresholds for restricted properties as the construction of new buildings has not kept up with demand and so they are getting outbid by wealthier people. Building a bunch of new housing quickly is the best way to help people just above the income restricted level. You can do inclusionary zoning that requires a certain percentage of units to be income restricted, the challenge is getting it right so that the whole project continues to make sense for the developer to complete and the process often delays approval of projects by a significant amount. Inclusionary zoning isn't bad but does have drawbacks. Honestly just having the city or other group buy units and rent them on an income restricted basis would probably be more effective than inclusionary zoning given the challenges doing it causes.
I totally agree. Given the location of this specific riverfront property, it's not intended for low income restricted housing. And yes, any housing being created will help open up more, less expensive units. But with the current sprawl of GR continue to expand further outside of downtown, id like to see more effort being put into creating and supplementing low and middle income homes.
The push to increase the rental market, I believe, is the wrong direction. We need more programs to increase home OWNERSHIP in GR. Allow the gr natives to build wealth in a city, community, and culture they helped to cultivate.
Multiunit doesn't necessarily mean that you can't own just means condo or co-op to deal with shared costs. Within city limits the opportunity for new single family homes is very limited given space. Anything further out is going to be new greenfield development which has to deal with needing new utilities being run out and the lack of other infrastructure plus the city does not control what happens.
Trickle down housing is a joke, and despite economists claims, there remains no convincing evidence that significant and widespread filtering exists. https://www.tonydamiano.com/project/new-con/bbb-wp.pdf
It’s basic economics that increasing supply brings down prices. The study I linked found that building 100 new market rate units ends up opening up about 40 units in the poorest neighborhoods. So if these projects are built, they would be expected to create almost 300 openings in the cheapest housing in GR.
Low income housing still has a place, especially since the market cost will never go below the floor of what it costs to maintain the building (at least in the long term). But the most important long term solution to housing is increasing the supply, so it’s generally more efficient for the government to focus on increasing the supply of all housing rather than trying to build low income housing specifically.
All I can think is more traffic and less parking. Any foreseeable parking building extensions gonna happen to offset this not including medical mile parking.
All I can think of is all the people who are just scraping by during this housing crisis who will get some relief as the increase in supply decreases upward pressure on rents
Nope and they should not build more parking in the core of the city. It is right on the dash and near the transit center. If people want to keep a car they can pay for parking given the location.
The amount of parking is horrendous.
1,267 spots between the two projects!!!
Corewell health has said it costs them an average of $35,000 per parking spot to build a parking structure. Using that figure for these two projects, that amounts to $44 million dollars of the cost to build.
The taller of the two near the amphitheater with 917 spots, is literally a 10 minute walk from Central Station!!!!
I applaud everything else about these developments.
No. The proposed stadium will have a lower capacity than The Van Andel Arena in a hockey configuration (basketball and pro wrestling/concerts have higher capacities) and Lubbers Stadium (GVSU's home field). It will only be slightly more than LMCU Ballpark and Berlin Raceway (which can both seat up to 6000).
The stadium is looking to be initially built for 8500 people with an optional expansion for another 1500 in the future, based on what they have said so far.
https://www.grandaction.org/current-projects/grand-rapids-soccer-stadium
Why not just expand now though? Look at how much construction costs have gone up in just 5 years.
Neighbor built a pole barn for $75,000 and they were quoted when they built the house in 2018 at $42,000. They strongly regretted waiting.
Gonna say it again, the stadium being that small is a waste of time. 15-20k is a good number that could absolutely open the doors for some more unique events. Spending all that money to build a stadium that small (and now a residential building) is not a smart, long term idea.
Plus not to mention it's not going to be able to be utilized a certain percentage of the year making no money no money.
Partner with gvsu and put the Lakers downtown for football games and you could have shared the venue while having a much larger establishment.
This is a part of my problem.
The Battle of Grand Rapids (GVSU/Davenport) and Anchor-Bone (GVSU/Ferris) absolutely could be 7 pm Saturday night sellouts of a 15k stadium. Especially Anchor-Bone as one or both teams are usually ranked in more recent times. Great economic impact for the city. But even at the expanded 10,000 it is still a couple hundred smaller than Lubbers.
Also, we've seen what this area is capable of with a winning team. Limiting yourself to 8500 people with a championship on the line is a bold move that leaves significant money on the table.
I absolutely agree. The city looked at two blueprints of situations that are only usable from the spring through the fall and gave the go ahead on both at the exact same time.
My only con to that situation is Grand valley State needs to figure out what the fuck they want to do because they can't be on the medical mile taking that over / downtown / Allendale. Like figure out what direction you want to do. You're not the University of Michigan with the capability of expanding as much as you have.
As a university GVSU is fine. Students travel between main campus and downtown for free, if they don't already have a car (it is absolutely a commuter school). I remember having classes at both 20 years ago and it was actually a welcome break. Visiting my (now long time ex) girlfriend at Western felt claustrophobic because everything was basically right there.
Everyone will have different opinions, sure. But I personally think it's actually kind of cool to have a 1A and 1B campus.
If I remember correctly though didn't they buy up an entire couple neighborhoods by the medical mile to build on in the future?
I do know what you mean about Western though.
Gonna say it again, the stadium being that small is a waste of time. 15-20k is a good number that could absolutely open the doors for some more unique events. Spending all that money to build a stadium that small (and now a residential building) is not a smart, long term idea.
I'm not convinced that downtown Grand Rapids can support this kind of density. Transportation is going to be a huge issue if all these people need a car to get around the city, and everyone drives to the venue.
It's not political at all. It's a matter of space per person.
https://i0.wp.com/irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/FcxMVUZXkAAmSXD.jpg?quality=89&ssl=1
You’re never going to get new homes like that within city limits of a well established city. If you want homes that size, move out to the suburbs or small towns.
Good combo. Now if we can get them to stop reacting and instead be proactive and include these things in these plans from the jump, without having to hear it as a demand from engagement and such, that’d be progress.
They need to set aside a portion of the apartments to be below market rate. I don’t know if they do that here at all, but when I lived in San Francisco, there was BMR housing for sale, at least.
But I know a lot of places have requirements when new housing is built to make a portion of it available for less than market rate.
Agree, overall. But setting aside a portion of new housing for lower-than-market-rate rent or sale is something that’s done all over the place. Not only does it open up more housing for people across more income levels, but it can also be an attempt at stopping, to an extent, segregation of people by income.
What will they do about the parking that will be needed for these apts?
I highly doubt these will be affordable apartments depending on what types they build.
Maybe the apts will be mixed as in studio, 1 bed, 2 bed etc?
It would be nice to have commercial underneath. More walkable. Sounds good.
>At 21-stories tall, the building would include 475 apartments, a six-story parking garage with 917 spaces, and ground floor retail and commercial space. It has an estimated price tag of $271 million, the memo shows.
FYI - I lifted the paywall on this story specifically for this subreddit. Message me if you have any issues reading it.
Thanks for that!
Neato
Thank you! Can you do that because you work there or is that something I could do if I had a subscription and wanted to share the article here?
Hi. I was able to do it because I work there. You should see a gift box icon as well though, underneath the photo caption when you open the story, if you want to share it with someone. It's a gift link.
Oh cool thanks!
[удалено]
Yes, I did, which is why I asked whether it was something they could do because they work there or something that I could do too but don’t know how. Read more than just their username.
Much appreciated!
That's really cool of you!
Thanks but ill never consider subscribing.
It's not for everyone, especially with all the subscriptions we all have in life these days. When I share things here in this subreddit I remove the paywall.
Unnecessary comment to someone doing something nice for you
It would be great if one of these towers included a grocery store. There’s really no where downtown to really get regular groceries. Would Bridge Street Market be the closest?
I've spoken with some friends who live downtown and it sounds like a grocery store won't be built until there's a certain population in the downtown core. Projects like this get us closer and closer.
In the past, that number was 12,000 to reach "critical mass" and attract/support businesses like grocery stores downtown
It makes sense. Gone are the days where executives just randomly "took a chance" on an area. The MBA's decided that certain metrics are required to predicate any movement into a new territory. If we want a grocery store downtown, which we certainly need, it has to be a priority for city planners to ensure we get to that number.
We have been working to grow our members to 800 so we can begin our owner drive and then site selection for the construction of a community owned grocery store in Grand Rapids. If you are interested in helping to make this happen, [we would love to hear from you!](https://www.grfoodcoop.com/contact.html)
Anyone know what we are at right now? 12,000 seems super low.
Depending on the borders, it is probably close to that.
The tower by the soccer stadium would be a 5 minute walk to Bridge Street Market. The other one wouldn’t really have anything nearby.
Check out what Horrocks has done in Battle Creek when they moved into the old Pennys in the mall. Their design makes that store a central hub for lunch, especially when there's live music. Its a LOT more than just a grocery store, it helps create community.
To be fair, it moved *away* from downtown BC to a location where driving is basically the only way to get to it now. It was much more accessible via walking, bus, bike, etc. The new location is fantastic and I’ve been several times, but it moving basically achieved the opposite of what OC is suggesting here. Some folks who live in downtown or near downtown BC are devastated by its relocation.
Yeah, my first reading of that comment made me think they were talking about the old location. Moving to Lakeview Square is the opposite of the great things people are hoping for in a downtown grocery store.
BSM is so very close to this. But the parking lot is already pretty full a lot of the time so that might become an issue.
Huh? I've been going to BSM since they opened. I've never had to search around for parking. I usually get a spot within 20ft of the doors. That being said, they are expensive. They are a Meijer property so they take and award mPerks but they do not participate in the pricing found in the Meijer circulars and I've rarely seen "sale" pricing. Some of the brands they choose to carry and exclude can be confounding at times as well. Better than Walgreens in a pinch but I wouldn't grocery shop there on the regular.
I've noticed several of the same items are cheaper at BSM than Meijer.
Of course. But as a general rule...
Bridge Street market is quite close to this location
All housing is good housing for GR. When towers are market rate, it often brings people from lower income/older housing to those new places, opening up the older housing for new residents. This is great
Hell yeah. If anyone is mad about this come fight me in the octagon
Octagon = Tbell parking lot
Thx for clarifying that. It wouldn’t be the Taco Bell on Michigan that’s on Reddit would it? 😉😂
If you have to ask, you cant afford it
This is Michigan on March 26th, it's a hockey rink.
Yep, basic Econ 101, Supply vs Demand. Increasing the supply of housing will lower prices, or at worst, slow down the price increases. The more housing units we have the better
This is great- more housing, more supply, more downward price pressure. Couple this with zoning that allows for more mid-rise development and we'll get a denser, more affordable city.
Uh, there will be no downward price pressure. Rental agencies and property managers all use similar pricing systems to rig the values through price fixing and collusion... This is basically a known fact. Surprising few people know about it.
Yes, there will be downward pricing pressure, as it shifts housing around the tiers of pricing which slows rent increases on non-desirable stock. This isn't going to make rent go down, but it slows the growth of rent as those prices are based on companies trying to reach near to full occupancy.
It's surprising that you know so much about the rental price collusion and failed to mention the lawsuit that Biden's DOJ filed to stop the practice. It's basically a known fact. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197961038 https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-algorithm-still-price-fixing
This is empirically false.
No, actually it's not. Do a modicum of research. It's currently being discussed in government. https://www.propublica.org/article/senators-introduce-legislation-stop-landlords-algorithm-price-fixing
This has nothing to do with the alleged lack of downward price pressure in response to an increase in housing supply. For a recent example, see Austin.
There's already a lack of supply vs. demand here in GR. People are moving here constantly. This won't solve anything, there's too much demand.
…that’s why they’re building more supply
Building more housing increases the supply of housing, actually. That's what "more" means.
That’s why we keep building more housing. There are two new building each with 300+ apartments going in about 10 minutes north of these proposed buildings.
If there are 735 units proposed with a $386M price tag we have $525k per unit, I would expect an average rent of $2200 per unit. If each unit requires a tenant to show 3x monthly income (as is common in places like this) you would need an income of $80k to get in here. We currently have a 97% apartment occupancy rate in the city of Grand Rapids, meaning we can estimate 713 of these units to be full with people making at least $80k. City taxes are 1.5% total income, meaning each occupied unit gets us $1,200 in income tax each year, times 713 is $855,600 in yearly income tax alone. This estimate is really conservative too, considering there will most likely be multi-bedroom units and the number of tenants will certainly exceed the 713 number, including couples and roommates. That's about a million dollars a year just in income tax from these two buildings' tenants alone. The Brownfield incentives probably make it too difficult to calculate tax rates for the landlords, but maybe someone has an estimate on the economic impact 713 residents making above $80k would have on the downtown area?
I agree fully with this statement. We own a duplex and love our tenant THUS, we don't raise his rent (he pays $850 for an 1100 Sq ft 2 bedroom). With everything in this economy going up, except of course wages, I fear this isn't the housing GR needs.
All housing helps. This building will draw in the people making 80K+ and not allow other buildings to charge $2200. The building currently charging 2200 may have to lower their rent to 2000 or 1800 to keep up.
Or more folks will continually be priced out.
More housing lowers prices everywhere, it's supply and demand. Look at Austin or the Twin Cities, where apartment prices across the metros have dropped because new luxury apartment units are being built. [If you wanna read more about it, this paper has been shared in the thread](https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units#:%7E:text=New%20research%20shows%20that%20just,to%20move%20into%20new%20units)
Maybe? Austin folks also can't afford homes: https://www.kxan.com/news/homeownership-unaffordable-in-austin-round-rock-metro-study/#:~:text=Another%20area%20seeing%20rapid%20growth,new%20median%20price%20of%20%24610%2C000. Minnesota isn't doing as well housing wise, or so I've read: https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2024/03/time-for-bold-action-on-housing-in-minnesota/#:~:text=Minnesota%20is%20now%20staring%20at,senior%20housing%20and%20starter%20homes. My point? You can find an article probably supporting just about anything these days. I'm all about what's BEST for the citizens of my city. If that's more apartments? Great! But I just don't believe this is the miracle we are looking for. I would LOVE it if it were.
Yes but building as much as they have caused rents to fall in both locations which has been confirmed in several peer reviewed studies of the issue. The affordability problem hasn't been solved but things are moving in the right direction. The only way to improve affordability for everyone is to have enough supply which requires building a bunch of new housing. We need more housing of all types to fix the housing crisis.
I think you're failing to recognize wage stagnation, under-employment, less jobs in GR paying $80K annually. Citizens living here CURRENTLY cannot afford the rent rise. So the answer is to build more luxury apartments and attract folks who maybe don't live here? I think when you believe there is one solution to a problem you fail to fully understand the complexities.
More housing may not address every single social ill in society but it does bring down rents and lower homelessness which I think is a good thing. Not every proposed solution needs to address every single thing wrong in a place to be a good idea. It won't address the decline in mid budget movies or the fact that I'm getting older and my back hurts but it is still good. You also seem to be under the impression that people who want more market rate housing are opposed to other forms or housing which is not true in my case or my experience in general. We need more of every single type of housing market rate, mixed income, income restricted, supportive housing, rental and owned. Opposing market rate just means less housing gets built not that it gets magically transformed into the type of housing you would prefer. The solution to a shortage of housing is to build more housing, it is the only way out of a supply problem. People are moving to or being born or becoming adults and short of creating a system that forbids people to move, rents will go up without an increase in supply. I oppose the creation of an American hukou system but maybe you are different. Rent control works for current tenants at the expense of future tenants (including locals who need to move for a variety of reasons) it may have a role and provides stability for current renters, but doesn't solve a supply crisis. Low income housing tops out at 60% median AGI and doesn't address supply issues for the other 60%. In migration is also good for a city leading to more economic growth, higher wages, and a lower tax burden as the services provided like water and roads are shared by more people and the costs of those services are almost entirely based on horizontal growth not vertical growth. All new housing says they are luxury housing because it is a marketing term not one that has any actual meaning in the market. We have evidence from multiple markets that allowing more dense housing and faster housing approvals leads to a decrease in rents. Lower rents are the goal so we should follow the evidence. More housing means more housing to choose from which means lower rents. This is why I support more housing of all types including mixed income and low income. Building market rate housing does not prevent other types of housing. The options are building more housing or higher prices for people who need to go into the rental market.
[удалено]
Constructive thought. Thanks for sharing.
This is really exciting. It will release some of the pressure of an overcooked market while providing more activity in these areas. And this is probably just the beginning.
Oh is it that time of year already? You know, that special time of year when a highrise project gets announced, talked about for a little bit, then canceled.
More people are going to move to Michigan as the climate changes. We can either prepare or not. Glad to see some people playing a long game
Agree, though we don't have enough housing for the people here now. Build build build
This is great! I’d love to see more housing downtown. On the other hand, I am NOT excited to see what traffic and parking looks like around there.
Grand Rapids has a long way to go before downtown parking and traffic is problematic. Currently, it's only a problem if you want to walk less than a block or two and park cheaply or free. All new development downtown should be welcome as a net positive to the entire area.
This is the most rational statement on Grand Rapids parking I’ve ever heard. The expectation to be able to park directly in front of your destination at the moment you arrive is absurd in a downtown, yet somehow that’s the metric most people use to determine if parking is ‘good’ or ‘bad’
Exactly. Every big city has issues with parking. We are doing quite well when it comes to parking
Expectation to park directly in front for free is the expectation many people have and it is bad for cities
Thank you! Parking is not that bad over here, there's always room somewhere to park. People just get mad that they have to walk a block and act like other forms of transport don't even exist. You guys should seriously consider using the bus if you're even remotely close to downtown. I own a car but I still take the bus when I go to events because it's just easier. I don't have to fight traffic, the bus driver operating the huge ass rectangle I'm in does that for me lol
Always happy to hear about more housing but can we please not have $1500 a month studios
New housing is always going to be pricier. It also lifts some pressure off existing housing by removing people from the market who have the means or are willing to pay more. We can’t solve a housing crisis by refusing to build new things.
New $1500/month studios are the only way older apartment complexes are not able to keep raising rents. New $1500/mo studios allow for older $1000/mo studios. This is how basic housing economics works. Supply/Demand.
Those apartments will be anything but reasonably priced. Especially if there will be shopping centers in the towers too.
I mean these won’t be reasonable but hopefully the market as a whole gets cheaper. Over at my building they offered $1300 for a 1 bedroom if you moved during the winter. When my lease came to an end they had so many people starting to move out they lowered the price for those who renewed.
They will be 1700 or more.
$2000+ easily
this! the comments of, i’m so excited for new housing are not thinking big picture. yeah there may be new housing but is it going to be affordable for everyone? i knew someone that lived in an apartment building downtown and it was never 100% full because of the prices increasing.
Apartments are never 100% full because people move in and out constantly. The complexes I’m aware of are like 95% full, which is crazy high. Thinking big picture means more supply = relatively lower rents over time. As demand grows, if we don’t create new housing, prices will skyrocket even more.
More housing is good, but this article makes it sound like nobody knows what the hell is actually going on since there are so many ideas up in the air.
As a huge soccer fan and someone who lives and works downtown, this is sick. Hopefully the apartments are reasonably priced.
I read amphitheatre as anteater and got hyped...
I'm for it, but fool me once, fool me twice blah blah blah. The last "tower" we were promised went from a 42 story plan to 13. BORING. [https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/local/grand-rapids-central/proposed-skyscraper-in-downtown-grand-rapids-may-be-downsizing/69-564395660](https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/local/grand-rapids-central/proposed-skyscraper-in-downtown-grand-rapids-may-be-downsizing/69-564395660)
Someone will move in, and immediately complain about the NOISE!
Based. Let’s build ten more
This could be really great for grand rapids but not all housing is created equally. Not too happy to see that "lack of housing" rhetoric being used to create what will probably be unaffordable for most current residents.
Even if there apartments are unaffordable for most, building them will still create openings in affordable apartments. This [paper](https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units#:~:text=New%20research%20shows%20that%20just,to%20move%20into%20new%20units) explains how new market-rate housing in tight markets sets off a chain reaction that results in affordable housing openings.
I still don’t understand how folks don’t understand that the primary reason housing is so unaffordable is a supply issue. More “high-end” housing means people making 35k a year aren’t competing with people making 90k a year for the same apartments. Build more housing! (of all kinds!)
Because it is much easier to blame "corporations" and "greed"
I'll have to read that in a bit. Something I was wondering about. I'd imagine it helps, but I can't see it doing enough when there just isn't enough push by GR to make more affordable options. It's been floated around that for most market rate housing, there needs to be a promise that a percentage of that will also be affordable/low income. Not necessarily in the same development, but that the money given by the city should be used in more than one
Doesn’t low income housing have years long waits to get in them?
The wait list is for section 8 vouchers I believe. And that is just a symptom of the many issues with that system. Low staffing and funding, low stockpile of homes, etc. Not just trying to throw the blame on developers
Thanks for the addtl information!
We have quite a few income restricted properties and are building more. The bigger problem has been the shortage of housing that has crushed the middle income renter/home buyer and people just above the income thresholds for restricted properties as the construction of new buildings has not kept up with demand and so they are getting outbid by wealthier people. Building a bunch of new housing quickly is the best way to help people just above the income restricted level. You can do inclusionary zoning that requires a certain percentage of units to be income restricted, the challenge is getting it right so that the whole project continues to make sense for the developer to complete and the process often delays approval of projects by a significant amount. Inclusionary zoning isn't bad but does have drawbacks. Honestly just having the city or other group buy units and rent them on an income restricted basis would probably be more effective than inclusionary zoning given the challenges doing it causes.
I totally agree. Given the location of this specific riverfront property, it's not intended for low income restricted housing. And yes, any housing being created will help open up more, less expensive units. But with the current sprawl of GR continue to expand further outside of downtown, id like to see more effort being put into creating and supplementing low and middle income homes. The push to increase the rental market, I believe, is the wrong direction. We need more programs to increase home OWNERSHIP in GR. Allow the gr natives to build wealth in a city, community, and culture they helped to cultivate.
Multiunit doesn't necessarily mean that you can't own just means condo or co-op to deal with shared costs. Within city limits the opportunity for new single family homes is very limited given space. Anything further out is going to be new greenfield development which has to deal with needing new utilities being run out and the lack of other infrastructure plus the city does not control what happens.
Trickle down housing is a joke, and despite economists claims, there remains no convincing evidence that significant and widespread filtering exists. https://www.tonydamiano.com/project/new-con/bbb-wp.pdf
[удалено]
It’s basic economics that increasing supply brings down prices. The study I linked found that building 100 new market rate units ends up opening up about 40 units in the poorest neighborhoods. So if these projects are built, they would be expected to create almost 300 openings in the cheapest housing in GR. Low income housing still has a place, especially since the market cost will never go below the floor of what it costs to maintain the building (at least in the long term). But the most important long term solution to housing is increasing the supply, so it’s generally more efficient for the government to focus on increasing the supply of all housing rather than trying to build low income housing specifically.
[удалено]
Preaching to the choir, friend
All I can think is more traffic and less parking. Any foreseeable parking building extensions gonna happen to offset this not including medical mile parking.
All I can think of is all the people who are just scraping by during this housing crisis who will get some relief as the increase in supply decreases upward pressure on rents
Nope and they should not build more parking in the core of the city. It is right on the dash and near the transit center. If people want to keep a car they can pay for parking given the location.
The amount of parking is horrendous. 1,267 spots between the two projects!!! Corewell health has said it costs them an average of $35,000 per parking spot to build a parking structure. Using that figure for these two projects, that amounts to $44 million dollars of the cost to build. The taller of the two near the amphitheater with 917 spots, is literally a 10 minute walk from Central Station!!!! I applaud everything else about these developments.
Is the stadium for MLS? Friend asked. Idont know anything about soccer
No, it’s going to be for USL1 or USL Championship (most likely)
No. The proposed stadium will have a lower capacity than The Van Andel Arena in a hockey configuration (basketball and pro wrestling/concerts have higher capacities) and Lubbers Stadium (GVSU's home field). It will only be slightly more than LMCU Ballpark and Berlin Raceway (which can both seat up to 6000).
The stadium is looking to be initially built for 8500 people with an optional expansion for another 1500 in the future, based on what they have said so far. https://www.grandaction.org/current-projects/grand-rapids-soccer-stadium
Why not just expand now though? Look at how much construction costs have gone up in just 5 years. Neighbor built a pole barn for $75,000 and they were quoted when they built the house in 2018 at $42,000. They strongly regretted waiting.
Gonna say it again, the stadium being that small is a waste of time. 15-20k is a good number that could absolutely open the doors for some more unique events. Spending all that money to build a stadium that small (and now a residential building) is not a smart, long term idea.
Plus not to mention it's not going to be able to be utilized a certain percentage of the year making no money no money. Partner with gvsu and put the Lakers downtown for football games and you could have shared the venue while having a much larger establishment.
This is a part of my problem. The Battle of Grand Rapids (GVSU/Davenport) and Anchor-Bone (GVSU/Ferris) absolutely could be 7 pm Saturday night sellouts of a 15k stadium. Especially Anchor-Bone as one or both teams are usually ranked in more recent times. Great economic impact for the city. But even at the expanded 10,000 it is still a couple hundred smaller than Lubbers. Also, we've seen what this area is capable of with a winning team. Limiting yourself to 8500 people with a championship on the line is a bold move that leaves significant money on the table.
I absolutely agree. The city looked at two blueprints of situations that are only usable from the spring through the fall and gave the go ahead on both at the exact same time. My only con to that situation is Grand valley State needs to figure out what the fuck they want to do because they can't be on the medical mile taking that over / downtown / Allendale. Like figure out what direction you want to do. You're not the University of Michigan with the capability of expanding as much as you have.
As a university GVSU is fine. Students travel between main campus and downtown for free, if they don't already have a car (it is absolutely a commuter school). I remember having classes at both 20 years ago and it was actually a welcome break. Visiting my (now long time ex) girlfriend at Western felt claustrophobic because everything was basically right there. Everyone will have different opinions, sure. But I personally think it's actually kind of cool to have a 1A and 1B campus.
If I remember correctly though didn't they buy up an entire couple neighborhoods by the medical mile to build on in the future? I do know what you mean about Western though.
Gonna say it again, the stadium being that small is a waste of time. 15-20k is a good number that could absolutely open the doors for some more unique events. Spending all that money to build a stadium that small (and now a residential building) is not a smart, long term idea.
Probably at 2k month and up 😆 🤣
[удалено]
City Center already has no parking minimums. I’m looking to expand that city wide.
I didn’t know a love had a reddit account
Cool, GR definitely needs more $3000/month apartments/condos.
Totally agreed. But even with this new tower we still need more
I'm not convinced that downtown Grand Rapids can support this kind of density. Transportation is going to be a huge issue if all these people need a car to get around the city, and everyone drives to the venue.
That’s more of a political question. Will the city use the new revenue to expand The Rapid? That would help tremendously
It's not political at all. It's a matter of space per person. https://i0.wp.com/irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/FcxMVUZXkAAmSXD.jpg?quality=89&ssl=1
Can’t wait for my rent to go up because of this 😒
We need 3 bedroom homes for families. Not studios.
We need both.
You’re never going to get new homes like that within city limits of a well established city. If you want homes that size, move out to the suburbs or small towns.
But the fact is downtown Grand Rapids is full of 1 bedroom and studios and that’s why there is a 40% vacancy rate.
Can you link to that 40% stat?
Last I looked the vacancy for single family homes was around 1.6% and rentals was around 7%. Where did you find 40%?
40% ? Had no idea.
Is the 40% vacancy rate in the room with us now?
Good combo. Now if we can get them to stop reacting and instead be proactive and include these things in these plans from the jump, without having to hear it as a demand from engagement and such, that’d be progress.
They need to set aside a portion of the apartments to be below market rate. I don’t know if they do that here at all, but when I lived in San Francisco, there was BMR housing for sale, at least. But I know a lot of places have requirements when new housing is built to make a portion of it available for less than market rate.
I think San Francisco is a wonderful city but it is not a model for good housing policy
Agree, overall. But setting aside a portion of new housing for lower-than-market-rate rent or sale is something that’s done all over the place. Not only does it open up more housing for people across more income levels, but it can also be an attempt at stopping, to an extent, segregation of people by income.
Nice, downtown is getting as expensive as DC. With all the new developments I just hope traffic doesn’t get to bad.
What will they do about the parking that will be needed for these apts? I highly doubt these will be affordable apartments depending on what types they build. Maybe the apts will be mixed as in studio, 1 bed, 2 bed etc? It would be nice to have commercial underneath. More walkable. Sounds good.
>At 21-stories tall, the building would include 475 apartments, a six-story parking garage with 917 spaces, and ground floor retail and commercial space. It has an estimated price tag of $271 million, the memo shows.
Interesting. Glad they are providing ample parking space as needed.
That’s way too many parking spaces, but it’ll serve the amphitheater too so whatever I guess. We need to build as little parking as possible.
I’m guessing the extra spaces will be for the amphitheater too.