300 Grand (formerly Gateway)



  • Nice, thanks for the picture! I like the use of color on here. All brick would have been cool, but the colors here look tasteful and not too loud. I think this was a very nicely done project with the exception of the drive-thru lane.
  • I'm not really sure how I feel about the looks of this building. I don't not like it, but I'm not quite sure if I like it, it's a little haphazard looking but is mostly decent quality. I'll be interested in seeing it when the facade is fully completed with all the details in place.
  • Looks good! I never like everything about a building, I think the rooftop detail what ever you call the flat boxes they put on top are not necessary and look dated 2006. The brick is nice and I like the glass facade. I think every architect in Lansing went to the same design class, is there suppose be a Lansing look?
  • Article in ELI about 300 Grand, includes some internal shots. Here.
  • I was by here, today, and was surprised how squished it looks from the street, but it certainly fills its corner.
  • I'm not saying they aren't nice, but the price people are paying for these 2-bedroom apartments downtown continues to shock me. We had a 2-bedroom condo in Brentwood Park, about a mile north of downtown on Saginaw, and slightly bigger than these places, and we paid (via mortgage and taxes) about 1/3 what it would have cost downtown. We would have rather lived downtown too but... whew.
  • Now that I see the pics. I am liking the building less. The facades seems to want to be three or four different buildings in a row, but fail. Would some one hire a new architect from I don't know Chicago, New York. The sameness and design of the applied details and colors are disappointing, and look kind of cheap and phony [like Eastwood]. A mortgage payment of $1,800 a month could put you into a pretty nice house around here, who are these people that will rent there? I guess what ever the market will bare is the answer, if it works at those prices than great.
  • Walked behind the development today, looks nice, note the underground parking entrance at right. Building looks bigger than it really is from the front, you think it's a square, when it's really just an L.

  • edited March 2019

    Forgot this thread existed, but glad I found it so I can put this in the right place. The owner of 300 Grand proposed late last year to turn the western part of the ground floor along Grand River into 6 efficiency units having had trouble signing commercial/retail tenants. In addition, earlier last year in July, the city had approved allowing Bigby to move from across the street into the new development.

    Somehow, these have been tied to each other by the city, which is why we are seeing this back before the planning commission when it had already made it to the city council. The council sent this back to the planning commission at their Feb 26th meeting over a technicality. The planning commission debated and recommended last year to include a condition on the Bigby move that the cafe only be open from 6AM to 10PM. Somehow, this condition was left off the planning commission recommendation, so council sent it back to have it added on. lol

    So this is what is holding up approving the site plan and special land use for the conversion of part of the ground floor to six more residential units, apparently.

  • edited April 2019

    What I thought was going to be a rather routine meeting to fix the technicallity of adding back the hours of operation for the remaining retail space - a drive-thru Bigby Coffee that hasn't even committed to the site, yet, because of this - turned out to be the planning commission rehashing the exact same debate they had last year.

    According to the meeting minutes for March 27th, they sent a handful of questions back to the planning department including wanting to know ALL of the hours of operations for drive-thrus in the city, if limited hours of operations have been imposed on other drive-thrus, if limited hours of operations are imposed on any other mixed-use building in the city, if there are currently any 24-hour businesses in mixed-use building in the city, etc...

    Anyway, this one comes back up for this week's meeting, and it appears looking at the agenda that the planning department answered their five questions about this one. Hopefully, it is now to their liking and they can quit holding this project up, for which the retail component is only a side-issue. This all restarted because the developer is requesting to repurpose the existing western retail space with six efficiency apartments.

    This is all so ridiculous.


    Edit: Looks like the DTN got sick of the micro-managing and pulled the plan, altogether.


    Probably best they did that. They need to seperate the modifications they want to make to each of these retail section so that the planning commission can't keep holding up the western unit conversion to residential because of some dispute over the hours of operation for the eastern unit.

Sign In or Register to comment.