So I'm not a fan of all this surface parking but I actually am liking the other changes made here. The former senior apartment building at Michigan and Clippert is now labeled as "Multifamily housing with first floor retail," while the building to the south of it remains for seniors. The addition of retail in this building is a really good thing as is the switch to market rate apartments over senior-only apartments. I really didn't like the student housing building that was directly south of the hotel either so I'm very happy to see that eliminated, in the long run there will be an opportunity to develop that central surface parking lot in a far better way than it otherwise would have. I'm disappointed in that central surface parking lot but besides that this site plan is a step up from the last iteration IMO, it may still not be what I had hoped for initially but it's decent with an opportunity to be improved in the future. As for that surface lot nearer Brody I'm not going to defend it as a good thing in any way, but my (very rough) count puts it at around 600 spaces. Not too far out of line for 792 students.
I am happy to see this project is continuing without the subsidy from the state. It is kind of unbelievable that they want to build a brand new parking crater away from the other buildings. It seems like it would be cheaper to create a green space that would be easier to dig up and develop later. It seems to be wrong to me if they do make it a pay parking lot for students, but it is now a more private enterprise so I guess they will seek to make money in whatever way they can. It seems like there is always this disappointment factor in our Lansing developments as to what actually gets built. There are not many that are nicer than they have to be.
Oh, I see, I was thinking of the fact that they were continuing the project with or without the MEDC funding. I think it is a good thing that they will try again that the first ruling seemed arbitrary to me. I know that the state may not see it this way. Greater Lansing has three downtown districts, Downtown Lansing, Frandor, and Downtown East Lansing, if we were one city the whole area from the Capitol to Hagadorn could be called downtown so I hope they take another look at this project and realize that this money would be well spent and this project will be a great thing for our downtowns economy. Sorry for using "it seems like" so often!
I think they're hoping that the elimination of one student housing building and turning the senior apartment building into market rate apartments with retail will be enough to change the mind of the MEDC. It seems plausible, besides the elimination of the plinth I like the changes and I would think it pushes the project at least closer to what the MEDC is looking for also.
The senior building is still there; it's behind the market rate building. This was done all the way back in February 2019. Only thing they are changing is removing the plinth and reducing student housing.
In the last plan the building at Clippert and Michigan was an age restricted independent living facility with no retail, that's the big brick building in the renderings. There was then a smaller assisted living facility behind that, it appears they made that building bigger and they're now calling the "senior village".
I guess the debate is what any one person considers market-rate; restricting apartments to age doesn't mean that it's not market-rate. In any case, the senior village had been moved off the corner as of the February 2019 revision with was passed in April 2019 (see page 14). Only major changes, again, are the removal of the remaining plinth and the reduction in student housing.
I never saw that revision, I guess that shows how much I've been paying attention lately. That does make the MEDC decision a little harder for me to understand.
LANSING - The Michigan Strategic Fund board unanimously approved a brownfield proposal for the Red Cedar project Tuesday, bringing to an end a series of plan submissions and denials for the project, which broke ground last winter.
The revised plan decreases the scope of work for the project. In previous proposals, the project was projected to cost around $275 million. It is now just over $255 million.
"That's primarily due to a parking structure removal from the scope of work," Lori Mullins, director of community development incentives for the MEDC, said Tuesday.
The approved proposal also decreased the amount of state tax capture requested by developers by over $12 million. The project will now capture just under $20 million in state taxes over 22 years beginning in 2021.
"There are 90 units less of student housing and there are 31 more units of multifamily housing or workforce housing added to the project," Mullins said.
"The increase in multifamily housing along this corridor is really significant because it's a key corridor connecting a lot of different employers," Mullins said.
The Red Cedar project will include two hotels, more than 180 units of market-rate multifamily housing, nearly 300 units of student housing, a five-story assisted living and memory care facility and restaurants as well as public space improvements.
Comments