The Biggby building isn't that notable. It's an old Arby's franchise if I remember right. But it is Biggby's first location, and having grown to the size that they are now I think the building should be landmarked. If Biggby continues to grow, people may come visit the location like the original Starbucks in Seattle.
While it's not exactly the Louvre or anything, it has been noted for it's architecture in the past, and it's definitely unique for that area among buildings in the city lining Grand River, and I quite like the "futuristic" 60's look of the thing.
That said, I don't see how anything that's only one story is going to end up surviving on Grand River.
It was an Arby's and I went there some back in college during the late 70's, but I thought the "roast beef" was weird, I did like the hash brown potato squares. Back then this block had lots of shade trees a little bus station and I think the first site of the E.L. Food Co-Op. It would be a shame to lose that last little unique piece of the past, around here not much can stand in the way of development perhaps the Bigby Coffee lovers should start a preservation movement!
I'd prefer that this be the last one story building on Grand River to go. There are plenty of other places that are prime for development and not architecturally or historically significant.
Why not get the best of both worlds? If they knocked down everything but the first 30 feet or so of the domed part of the building, they could use it as the entrance for for the new building.
This is related to Park District, though it'd apply to any future development, but the developers are requesting an amendment to the B-3 City Center zoning district to eliminate the special set-back requirement for buildings on Grand River Avenue. Currently, any building on Grand River must be set back 22 feet from the curb.
To allow for more pedestrian amenities on the north side of the property the residential high-rise was shifted slightly south and would thus only be 20 feet from the curb. The amended ordinance would get rid of this special requirement for properties on Grand River west of MAC.
I imagine this little special setback rule was originally to allow for a wider-than-usual sidewalk on Grand River and/or to prevent too many shadows. I guess I'd be okay with slightly smaller sidewalks in this specific location. And it sounds like Park District literally only want to encroach about two feet into the existing sidewalk. From what I can tell from Park Districts siteplans it looks like most buildings on Grand River are set 12-to-15 feet back from their actual property lines to allow for the wider sidewalk.
Anyway, this is to be introduced at Tuesday's city council meeting and referred to the planning commission for consideration.
Hmm, hadn't even thought of that. Does seem like a weird way to go about this, then, huh? It makes you wonder if they have other plans. Then again, if it's just west of MAC in the B-3 district, that literally only include Park District and Center City, and then the few buildings on either side of Center City. So it's hard to imagine that this is for something else planned and in effect it'd basically be a variance given how narrow this zoning is in this area of town; it's a two block overlay
Comments
The Biggby building isn't that notable. It's an old Arby's franchise if I remember right. But it is Biggby's first location, and having grown to the size that they are now I think the building should be landmarked. If Biggby continues to grow, people may come visit the location like the original Starbucks in Seattle.
While it's not exactly the Louvre or anything, it has been noted for it's architecture in the past, and it's definitely unique for that area among buildings in the city lining Grand River, and I quite like the "futuristic" 60's look of the thing.
That said, I don't see how anything that's only one story is going to end up surviving on Grand River.
It was an Arby's and I went there some back in college during the late 70's, but I thought the "roast beef" was weird, I did like the hash brown potato squares. Back then this block had lots of shade trees a little bus station and I think the first site of the E.L. Food Co-Op. It would be a shame to lose that last little unique piece of the past, around here not much can stand in the way of development perhaps the Bigby Coffee lovers should start a preservation movement!
I'd prefer that this be the last one story building on Grand River to go. There are plenty of other places that are prime for development and not architecturally or historically significant.
Why not get the best of both worlds? If they knocked down everything but the first 30 feet or so of the domed part of the building, they could use it as the entrance for for the new building.
Yeah, we could at least save the facade, or make this the "top" of a new building.
This is related to Park District, though it'd apply to any future development, but the developers are requesting an amendment to the B-3 City Center zoning district to eliminate the special set-back requirement for buildings on Grand River Avenue. Currently, any building on Grand River must be set back 22 feet from the curb.
To allow for more pedestrian amenities on the north side of the property the residential high-rise was shifted slightly south and would thus only be 20 feet from the curb. The amended ordinance would get rid of this special requirement for properties on Grand River west of MAC.
I imagine this little special setback rule was originally to allow for a wider-than-usual sidewalk on Grand River and/or to prevent too many shadows. I guess I'd be okay with slightly smaller sidewalks in this specific location. And it sounds like Park District literally only want to encroach about two feet into the existing sidewalk. From what I can tell from Park Districts siteplans it looks like most buildings on Grand River are set 12-to-15 feet back from their actual property lines to allow for the wider sidewalk.
Anyway, this is to be introduced at Tuesday's city council meeting and referred to the planning commission for consideration.
Do they really need to make an amendment to the zoning rules? I would rather them propose a variance for them instead.
Hmm, hadn't even thought of that. Does seem like a weird way to go about this, then, huh? It makes you wonder if they have other plans. Then again, if it's just west of MAC in the B-3 district, that literally only include Park District and Center City, and then the few buildings on either side of Center City. So it's hard to imagine that this is for something else planned and in effect it'd basically be a variance given how narrow this zoning is in this area of town; it's a two block overlay