Our Concerns

The townhomes proposed for 2450 Seventh Street NW are the wrong kind of development for our neighborhood. Here’s why.

The Shawmut Hills neighborhood has been part of Grand Rapids for nearly 70 years. Minutes from downtown and with plenty of green space, it’s no surprise to those of us who call this place home that it caught the developers’ attention. 

Our city’s housing needs are real, but they must be balanced with residents’ legitimate desire to protect our neighborhood and existing homes.  

Preserving neighborhood character

The City of Grand Rapids classifies Shawmut Hills as a Low-Density, Mid-20th Century neighborhood. Stretching from Leonard Street to Lake Michigan Drive, and Oakleigh Road to Collindale Avenue, the neighborhood consists entirely of single-family homes. 

Grand Rapids zoning laws require all new housing developments to be “compatible with the valued characteristics of the existing built environment.” 

The development proposed for 2450 7th Street NW—32 townhomes packed onto a 5-acre parcel—is not only unprecedented for the area; it is completely out of character with the existing neighborhood. 

Residents should have a say in what their neighborhood looks like—and how it grows. Shawmut Hills residents overwhelmingly oppose the plan put forward by Rogo Property Group, Construction Simplified, Create 3 Architecture, and Moore + Bruggink. 

This alone should be reason enough for the Grand Rapids Planning Commission to send them back to the drawing board, to come up with a plan that’s compatible with the character of our neighborhood and acceptable to existing residents.    

Balancing housing needs with optimal neighborhood density

Addressing the city’s housing needs and maintaining neighborhood character are not mutually exclusive. Grand Rapids officials seem to agree, at least on paper. The city’s master plan, Bridge to Our Future, calls for neighborhoods to evolve in ways that: 

• “Build on the local identity and aspiration of the place” 

• “Minimize differences in scale between existing and new development”

The city’s master plan also directs that higher-density housing projects should be situated along transit corridors or other major roadways, in transition areas, or in mixed-use zones. This proposed development, however, would be located in the exact middle of a low-density neighborhood.

We want the City of Grand Rapids to apply its own standards to the proposed 7th Street development. 

In this case, the “difference in scale” is massive: 32 townhouses on 4.95 acres. This is 2.5 to 3x greater than the current neighborhood density.  

We don’t expect every new development to match the exact density of the surrounding area, but the developers should not expect us to accept a plan this far out of sync with the rest of the neighborhood. 

We want the developers to put forward a plan more compatible with the existing density and character of our neighborhood—and start treating residents with the respect we deserve. 

Traffic and pedestrian safety

Building 32 townhouses would add between 200 and 250 vehicle trips to our streets per day, according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers. In fact, this may be an undercount, as the developers in this case are hoping to cater to young professionals, who are significantly more likely to share housing—meaning more cars per townhouse. 

Our neighborhood streets are already poorly equipped to handle traffic and ensure pedestrian safety. A development of this scale will only make things worse. 

None of the streets surrounding the proposed development have sidewalks, despite the fact that children have to walk every day to and from Shawmut Hills Elementary—a school for nearly 300 local children. The campus also serves a transportation hub for even more students attending Grand Rapids Public Schools throughout the city. 

While the posted speed limit on all neighborhood streets is 25 mph, vehicles routinely travel through the area at much faster speeds, endangering pedestrians. 

In other words, neighborhood children have no choice but to walk our streets every day—with no protection from speeding traffic.

Adam Rogalski’s proposed development will put them at even greater risk.

No development should be approved without adequate measures to minimize negative traffic impacts—including: 

• Sidewalks 

• Speed bumps 

• Other traffic calming measures 

Drainage and flooding concerns

There’s a good reason the parcel at 2450 7th Street NW has gone undeveloped for nearly 70 years, despite being bought and sold multiple times. The site is known to be a natural wetland. The vegetation, soil, and hydrology are all consistent with wetland presence.

Residents whose properties border the proposed development—and even those across the street from it—have spent years battling wet basements and saturated backyards. Some properties have drains running underneath houses that are connected to the site. In the winter and early spring, backyards flood for weeks or months at a time. 

And that’s before developers pour a thousand tons of concrete on top of a wetland. 

The developers promise to make water mitigation a priority—namely, by building a storm water basin that, in their words, will be capable of handling a “once-in-a-century rain event.” However, these plans do nothing to address groundwater issues already impacting homes. These issues will only be worsened by paving over most of the site’s green space. 

In addition, there is reason to doubt the effectiveness of the developers’ rainwater mitigation plans. Former Kent County Drain Commissioner William Byl once acknowledged that a once-in-four-years rain event is enough to overwhelm the neighborhood’s drainage capabilities. 

Building for a once-in-a-century rain event is, well, a drop in the bucket.  

There is precedent for the city protecting and even establishing new green space to better manage water in our neighborhood. In 2012, 8 nearby houses were razed and the land converted to green space because of recurring flooding issues.

The developers and the city would be wise to learn from recent history—and work with nature instead of against it. 

What this isn’t about

We’re not opposed to any development of the 7th Street parcel. We oppose irresponsible development that fails to adhere to the established character of our neighborhood or address legitimate safety concerns. 

We want our neighborhood to be accessible and inclusive. We want it to grow responsibly with the rest of the city. We want it to continue to be a safe, welcoming place to raise a family. 

Property values and crime rates—two of the more common arguments invoked to oppose new housing developments—are not the main concern here. 

The developers have a responsibility to work with the community toward a solution that’s a win for everyone—existing residents, potential new residents, and the city as a whole. That requires true collaboration, rather than trying to force their plan down our throats.