Arbor Park

[geaux_sioux]

Watching this video actually changed my vote to being in favor of this development. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Just watch the video and it answers alot of questions.

http://jlgarchitects.com/projects/gfk-4th-street-development

[UNDBIZ]

Are they building something on that corner lot at the Demers intersection too?  Or did they just put a building there for the video?

[geaux_sioux]

2 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Are they building something on that corner lot at the Demers intersection too?  Or did they just put a building there for the video?

I've heard JLG is planning on moving there. It's all conjecture until it's built though obviously. 

[fightingsioux4life]

I honestly don't believe that not developing Arbor Park will result in a depressed Downtown. I am convinced that the people who want the condos will push to develop every single open space there is downtown.

Leave Arbor Park alone. Build your condos someplace else.

[geaux_sioux]

1 minute ago, fightingsioux4life said:

I honestly don't believe that not developing Arbor Park will result in a depressed Downtown. I am convinced that the people who want the condos will push to develop every single open space there is downtown.

Leave Arbor Park alone. Build your condos someplace else.

Have you seen what is planned for right now? It may actually be an improvement on the existing park.

[SIOUXFAN97]

my two cents is the condo designs aren't tall enough...they are gonna run out of space soon dtown...brady martz needs new digs, jlg needs new digs, and evergreen is out of space at the cloud nine buidling and  says it might build just north of its existing buidling....

[jdub27]

59 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

I honestly don't believe that not developing Arbor Park will result in a depressed Downtown. I am convinced that the people who want the condos will push to develop every single open space there is downtown.

Leave Arbor Park alone. Build your condos someplace else.

There are plenty of pocket parks downtown right now (in fact there are 4 just on that block and that doesn't count the Town Square on the corner of 3rd and Demers). If someone wants to stick millions of dollars into bringing more businesses and living space downtown, I think they should be able to. Makes a lot more sense for the taxpayers than turning over the park for $1 to the Park Board to take care of for the next 99 years.

[Fetch]

Nothing should impede quality & legal development anywhere in Grand Forks that helps the tax base

[northernraider]

I have received two flyers in the mail about developing Arbor Park. I don't care either way, as it will not change my Grand Forks experience either way. Just seems a little suspicious that some money is being put into single vote issue by the develop Arbor Park crowd.  Truthfully, I wish the council would have just made the decision as they are elected to do for these type of issues. 

[northernraider]

5 minutes ago, Fetch said:

Nothing should impede quality & legal development anywhere in Grand Forks that helps the tax base

Whoever develops the park will certainly get a significant amount of tax credits. 

[Fetch]

For a while 

[geaux_sioux]

24 minutes ago, northernraider said:

I have received two flyers in the mail about developing Arbor Park. I don't care either way, as it will not change my Grand Forks experience either way. Just seems a little suspicious that some money is being put into single vote issue by the develop Arbor Park crowd.  Truthfully, I wish the council would have just made the decision as they are elected to do for these type of issues. 

The city council has no balls

[northernraider]

5 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

The city council has no balls

true, hence the library saga. 

[SiouxVolley]

Not a resident, but it seems like the Arbor Park protectionists would be happiest if the down town was demolished so it can all be made into pocket parks.  The flood created an enormous park, yet they are still not happy.  A downtown needs buildings, and some new ones, to even be a functioning downtown.  Let's just plow all of Grand Forks over and make a park out of it all.  

[Cratter]

3 hours ago, geaux_sioux said:

Have you seen what is planned for right now? It may actually be an improvement on the existing park.

It's a modern 5 story condo building with green space. 

How many pocket parks are optimal downtown? Zero? Five?

[geaux_sioux]

1 hour ago, Cratter said:

It's a modern 5 story condo building with green space. 

How many pocket parks are optimal downtown? Zero? Five?

As many as possible. That one on the corner is worthless but the other ones are great. It doesn't sound like they will build on the other parks other than part of arbor and the one on the corner. I a huge proponent of maximal green space because that adds a certain quality that buildings cannot. There's a reason NYC did the hi line. I really like the design proposal for arbor park because it isn't just plopping a building down on the entire site footprint. They were very considerate of the existing park and incorporated it into the new plan.

[fightingsioux4life]

18 hours ago, jdub27 said:

There are plenty of pocket parks downtown right now (in fact there are 4 just on that block and that doesn't count the Town Square on the corner of 3rd and Demers). If someone wants to stick millions of dollars into bringing more businesses and living space downtown, I think they should be able to. Makes a lot more sense for the taxpayers than turning over the park for $1 to the Park Board to take care of for the next 99 years.

Downtown is doing good right now. It will continue doing good with or without these condos. Green space, on the other hand, is finite and once it is gone, it is gone forever (unless we have another flood and/or fire, and we don't want that). People that saw downtown before the 1997 flood will remember it as a run-down slum with empty department stores and that God-awful City Center Mall. The development crowd is trying to sell the fiction that not developing Arbor Park will spell doom for downtown. That is reason alone to vote yes.

[fightingsioux4life]

I don't always agree with C.T. Marhula, but he is spot-on here:

http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/letters/4282651-letter-myths-advanced-development-advocates

Here is one example of the misleading claims being made by the pro-development lobby:

Quote

Claim: "Businesses closing ... tax revenue declining."

Fact: Half Bros. Brewery, the old Sanders, Jimmy Johns, Simonson Apartments, Sonic, Turning Point, old Borrowed Bucks, Chick-fil-A, old Happy Host site and a 110 new entry-level homes are all under construction. Property tax revenue is expected to grow at 7 percent—hardly a doomsday scenario.

He closes the letter with this gem:

Quote

There is an axiom in politics: "If you're losing, try confusing." Don't let them confuse you. The development can be done at a different location and the park can be saved.

 

[jdub27]

8 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

Downtown is doing good right now. It will continue doing good with or without these condos. Green space, on the other hand, is finite and once it is gone, it is gone forever (unless we have another flood and/or fire, and we don't want that). People that saw downtown before the 1997 flood will remember it as a run-down slum with empty department stores and that God-awful City Center Mall. The development crowd is trying to sell the fiction that not developing Arbor Park will spell doom for downtown. That is reason alone to vote yes.

As someone who spends a lot more time downtown than you, I wouldn't go as far to say it is "doing good right now".

• There are some good things and some not so good ones and there has been a lot of time and effort (mainly from the Downtown Development Association) just to get it where it is but there is still a lot of room for it to get better.
• As for green space, why exactly does one city block need 4 pocket parks with another huge town square the next block over? It isn't because they are constantly being used and are full all the time.
• No one (except your hyperbole) is saying that not developing it spells doom, they are saying that someone wanting to invest millions of dollars to offer some mid to upper level housing for people and add more business space is a lot more beneficial for the city than preventing an empty lot from being developed for the next 100 years.
• Since we're throwing hyperbole out there: The non-development crowd would have you believe that the park itself is the lifeblood of the downtown area and developing it would somehow turn the whole downtown into buildings and concrete.

[fightingsioux4life]

1 minute ago, jdub27 said:

As someone who spends a lot more time downtown than you, I wouldn't go as far to say it is "doing good right now".

• There are some good things and some not so good ones and there has been a lot of time and effort (mainly from the Downtown Development Association) just to get it where it is but there is still a lot of room for it to get better.
• As for green space, why exactly does one city block need 4 pocket parks with another huge town square the next block over? It isn't because they are constantly being used and are full all the time.
• No one (except your hyperbole) is saying that not developing it spells doom, they are saying that someone wanting to invest millions of dollars to offer some mid to upper level housing for people and add more business space is a lot more beneficial for the city than preventing an empty lot from being developed for the next 100 years.
• Since we're throwing hyperbole out there: The non-development crowd would have you believe that the park itself is the lifeblood of the downtown area and developing it would somehow turn the whole downtown into buildings and concrete.

Check out Marhula's letter in the Heraldo today, the development crowd is hinting at economic decline if we don't develop Arbor Park. If you are going to attack me for "hyperbole", then you better include the pro-development people as well.

[fightingsioux4life]

3 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

As someone who spends a lot more time downtown than you, I wouldn't go as far to say it is "doing good right now".

• There are some good things and some not so good ones and there has been a lot of time and effort (mainly from the Downtown Development Association) just to get it where it is but there is still a lot of room for it to get better.
• As for green space, why exactly does one city block need 4 pocket parks with another huge town square the next block over? It isn't because they are constantly being used and are full all the time.
• No one (except your hyperbole) is saying that not developing it spells doom, they are saying that someone wanting to invest millions of dollars to offer some mid to upper level housing for people and add more business space is a lot more beneficial for the city than preventing an empty lot from being developed for the next 100 years.
• Since we're throwing hyperbole out there: The non-development crowd would have you believe that the park itself is the lifeblood of the downtown area and developing it would somehow turn the whole downtown into buildings and concrete.

Why does New York City need Central Park? The city could make mad money selling it off to developers and make money for years to come via property taxes, but they don't. It's a quality of life issue, which is just as important as growing the tax base.

And please note, most (if not all) of the people actively pushing to develop Arbor Park are the same people that stand to directly benefit from having condos there. I don't hear too many people outside of those circles forcefully lobbying to build condos there. I think they are hoping for a small voter turnout, which would make it easier for them to win, which is probably why this is being voted on in June in a non-election year.

[jdub27]

15 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

Check out Marhula's letter in the Heraldo today, the development crowd is hinting at economic decline if we don't develop Arbor Park. If you are going to attack me for "hyperbole", then you better include the pro-development people as well.

Yes, because he's never been one to use hyperbole, which is exactly what he's doing by claiming the other side is "hinting" at something. As for his actual point, I'd love to hear how a park is better for economic development than someone that wants to put up a $10+ million building? I have quite a bit of confidence that the development of that lot will lead to at least one or two other very good things for downtown.

 

9 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

Why does New York City need Central Park? The city could make mad money selling it off to developers and make money for years to come via property taxes, but they don't. It's a quality of life issue, which is just as important as growing the tax base.

And please note, most (if not all) of the people actively pushing to develop Arbor Park are the same people that stand to directly benefit from having condos there. I don't hear too many people outside of those circles forcefully lobbying to build condos there. I think they are hoping for a small voter turnout, which would make it easier for them to win, which is probably why this is being voted on in June in a non-election year.

Seriously? Comparing Central Park to a pocket park that was an eyesore for how many years and rarely gets used? Again, there are currently 4 pocket parks on that same block with Town Square on the adjacent block not to mention the Greenway a whopping 2 blocks away. Does NYC have 20% of each block dedicated to parks? 

I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is the people who would benefit from the condos being the direct beneficiaries. In fact, I'm not even sure who is the one that benefits from having the condos there other than maybe the developer? Seems to me that the majority of businesses downtown are in favor of it along with a lot of people who are business owners in town, because they understand how adding something like this downtown is beneficial. I'd be Amazing Grains would have loved another 100 or so people living downtown along with a handful more businesses.

You are also completely wrong on the timing of the vote (talk about selling fiction or trying to confuse people). It is being held when it is because of when the petition by those against development submitted it.

[Teeder11]

17 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

Why does New York City need Central Park? The city could make mad money selling it off to developers and make money for years to come via property taxes, but they don't. It's a quality of life issue, which is just as important as growing the tax base.

And please note, most (if not all) of the people actively pushing to develop Arbor Park are the same people that stand to directly benefit from having condos there. I don't hear too many people outside of those circles forcefully lobbying to build condos there. I think they are hoping for a small voter turnout, which would make it easier for them to win, which is probably why this is being voted on in June in a non-election year.

We have our own Central Park with the Greenway, and it's only a couple blocks away.  The loss of this pocket park known as "Arbor Park," which was always intended to be developed once the an offer came along, will not mean the demise of recreational green space in the city. I wish Grand Forks would quit getting in the way of businesses who want to do business in our fare city. Dakota Commercial took advantage of a state Ren Zone incentive for tax credits that was open to anyone who had the vision and resources to develop something. They will use that incentive and pass along those savings to the future homebuyers of the condos.  There's no taxpayer risk here.The developer absorbs the risk and an existing state tax incentive program, that is there anyways, gets utilized.

[fightingsioux4life]

9 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is the people who would benefit from the condos being the direct beneficiaries. In fact, I'm not even sure who is the one that benefits from having the condos there other than maybe the developer? Seems to me that the majority of businesses downtown are in favor of it along with a lot of people who are business owners in town, because they understand how adding something like this downtown is beneficial. I'd be Amazing Grains would have loved another 100 or so people living downtown along with a handful more businesses.

The people that have come out publicly in favor of development would benefit the most from such development. The Downtown Development Association and The Grand Forks Herald are two examples. And I don't think building condos would have saved Amazing Grains; they were done in by having that new organic food grocery store at the corner of 32nd Ave S and S 20th Street.

[jdub27]

10 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

The people that have come out publicly in favor of development would benefit the most from such development. The Downtown Development Association and The Grand Forks Herald are two examples. And I don't think building condos would have saved Amazing Grains; they were done in by having that new organic food grocery store at the corner of 32nd Ave S and S 20th Street.

So you mean people who's livelihood (business owners) or quality of life (current residents) that would most directly be affected by what happens to the park are in favor of developing it? Seems like a good reason to "Vote No to Grow".

Maybe, maybe not on saving Amazing Grains, but there is absolutely zero argument that those extra people would have helped them out.