Not signed in (Sign In)
Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
East Lansing: City Center II (formerly Michigan Museum Place)
Bottom of Page-
Didn't expect this, but Strathmore has paid up it's taxes on the development and is now moving forward on it.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20100126/NEWS01/301260006 -
This is good news. The amended site plan will be considered by the East Lansing Planning Commission at its Feb. 24 meeting.
-
Really good news. I'd imagine they wouldn't bother if they had the idea this thing was going to die, but who knows. Here's the State News article for those interested.
-
- CommentAuthorMichMatters
- CommentTimeJan 27th 2010
They'd have bothered, alright. We're talking about taxes, here. You don't have a choice in that. That's messing with the Feds, if you don't. It's why I haven't taken this news for much.
Repaying deliquent taxes isn't a net step forward, it simply brings the project back to square one, all over again. That he didn't even specify a tentative start date -- or any other details for that matter such as the demolition of the bank building -- was probably the most telling thing about the announcement. I guess what I'm saying is that you can continue to count me in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category. This is hardly the first time this developer has announced plans to go forward with the project. In my opinion, at this moment, he's just as likely to sell off the project as he to go through with it.
So...meh. -
- CommentAuthorDetroitMan
- CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2010
Looks like the developer has a new plan.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20100223/NEWS03/2230323/1004/NEWS03 -
- CommentAuthorMichMatters
- CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2010
It's new"ish". The only real change is that the five-story building can also be developed as offices instead of forcing it to be mixed use. I'm still skeptical of the developer's funding as for the zillionth time, he's refused to talk about who is financing the project which is almost always a sign that financing hasn't been completely lined up. Anyway, I give the chances of this another "meh". I'll believe it when I see it. -
I would truly love to see this project happen, but I will not be holding my breath to see this thing get underway. It would be awesome to see it actually start this summer though.
-
The apparent loss of Hotel Indigo is no surprise, but a disappointment nonetheless.
-
Amended plan for City Center gets green light from East Lansing
This is just a follow up of yesterday's story. -
Approval of the site plan amendment gives Strathmore another 12 months to secure financing and move on with the project.
That last sentence right there says so much about this change in plans... -
The State News notes this morning that City Center II has been approved for inclusion of office space rather than simply retail/residential. What's more interesting to me in the article, however, is the point made by Scott Chappelle. He claims that "[t]he demand for space in the City Center project has surpassed our most optimistic projections."
If that were the case, wouldn't they be all over getting this thing done ASAP so they can make some money? I'm guessing they're struggling to acquire the requisite amount of capital, because, based on Chappelle's statements at least, it's not a lack of potential tenants that's keeping this baby from moving forward. -
Didn't read the entire article, but the State News reports that a few EL residents, including an MSU professor, aren't thrilled with the way City Center II is progressing so far. The main issues are the acquisition of property, as well as the financing of the project.
Phil Bellfy, an associate writing professor at MSU, appears to believe $5.5 million in taxpayer money is going to the project inappropriately in the form of parking garage funding. Vic Loomis disputes this, and other claims, defending the integrity of the development. -
If the city is going to own and operate the parking garage, I see no issue with this. The city should profit from it, I know Lansing does quite well on its parking lots and garages.
-
Forgot about this shot I took yesterday. The banner is located on the facade of the old Thai Hut. But hey, they're gonna get started soon! *nudge nudge, wink wink*:
-
I noticed in the East Lansing DDA minutes that Riverfront Bicycles will be extending their lease through October, 2011. They are located in one of the buildings where the parking structure will be built. The city did not have a problem with the lease extension.
Pope said Doug Cron advised her that Evergreen Cycles and Repair’s lease at 341 Evergreen ends on August 31, 2010, and they would like to renew their lease through October 31, 2011 because they don’t want to move in the summer, their busiest time.. Mullins said this would not conflict with the structure of the parking structure. The Board concurred.
Obviously this means that the city does not plan to get shovels in to the ground until at least November, 2011 for their part of City Center 2. -
Stalled again. The State News is reporting that the August finance meeting between Chappelle and city officials has resulted in a date for demolition still not being set in stone for this project. Chappelle is claiming that acquiring HUD funding is the main hangup, and a strong demand for HUD, considering the economy, is the reason for the delay. I just hate to see prime downtown property continue to sit there with silly "Future Redevelopment Site" banners hanging from buildings that have been empty forever.
The article also mentions that the DDA has purchased land on Evergreen Avenue where the "ramps are located." I'm assuming that means where the ramps built as a portion of the project will be located? -
- CommentAuthorMichMatters
- CommentTime1 day ago
What's particularly worrisome is that demolition is usually the first thing a developer does (often to the chagrin of the community) because taxes are less and fewer on a vacant piece of land. It shows me that maybe he hasn't even had enough cash on hand over these past few years to even pay for the demolition of the properties. -
Demolition of an existing building also could be held up by any mortgage holders on the property. If there is any value in the building being torn down, the bank may not want it demolished until financing can be lined up for the new project - that way they don't end up with less valuable property as collateral. That said, given that these buildings have been vacant for awhile, who knows how much value is left to them.