Yeah, I'm not too worried about this development. The developers aren't asking for a large brownfield credit (that I can remember) and the developers aren't asking the city to build/own a parking garage. This development should move along quickly like the Stonehouse Village developments.
The FB comments to this project are pretty bad. The EL residents don't want it, are upset about it, and don't want more student housing. They learn nothing.
I like this project. That's the kind of location I'd like to see built up in East Lansing. I do wonder how the developer is managing to do this without TIFs while other developers in EL seemingly found that impossible. Do they have better access to financing? Is the land cheaper? Or is it due to the lack of onerous requirements like condos or senior apartments? If getting rid of the latter is all it takes, EL should wipe such requirements entirely off of the books.
Makes sense to me on the parking, but a lot of old timers in EL can't conceive of a community that doesn't drive as much as they do, so I'd still expect pressure from that very vocal minority on this project.
Also, I'd like to see the city working more with the university to discourage or restrict students bringing cars to campus, especially for residents of these large apartment complexes that border campus. That kind of planning could go a long way towards getting rid of many of the eyesore surface lots around town, especially along that stretch of Grand River.
Fair enough. I did know that the university did some parking restriction on campus, but perhaps they could go further. And agreed, the planning commission is being backwards-looking on parking requirements for this project. So as you suggest, at this point in time, perhaps it's best for the developer to take point on integrating the desires/requirements of the city, the university, and the future occupants.
For example, on a project like this, which is clearly oriented towards students, why not propose building a structure with zero parking, enforced by a requirement on the lease that the renters will not bring a vehicle to the city, and come armed to the city planning commission with some sort of green award or university planning seal-of-approval for reducing car traffic on campus? Maybe this is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it would provide a model for student-apartment oriented developers to make pretty much everybody happy and maximize the # apartments ($$$) they could build relative to required parking spaces.
ELi reported last week that the EL planning commission failed to recommend this project.
Not the end of the road, of course, since the ELPC is advisory. Although the commission was split (3 for, 3 against, and 3 absent) the project is being hobbled by the usual complaints... too tall, not enough parking... Interestingly, one of the complainants was Hagan Realty. It seems like they want smaller buildings with more parking. Perhaps they're afraid of the competition?
On a more humorous note, the developers seem to think they're going to move things along fast enough to break ground, in East Lansing, by February!
I was disappointed that Rory Neuner was absent from the Planning Commission meeting that night. She seems pretty progressive and forward thinking about bike advocacy and I think she would have approved this because this development pushes students to bike more than drive. Her vote could have broken the tie.
Well, I think the main problem is that there is a very vocal and involved minority in EL that absolutely refuses to believe that things should change from the 1986 status quo. And not just the NIMBYs. I've had conversations with people who are still angry at the city council/downtown developers that so much retail has left the downtown area, and seem to have no clue that this is a long-term, market-driven, nation-wide trend. I've also heard from people at council meetings that cannot fathom how students would be able to get groceries without a car, and use that as a justification for not developing the downtown.
Mich - I'd be shocked to find out Beier is the mayor, as she barely seems to want her city council seat...
Comments
Yeah, I'm not too worried about this development. The developers aren't asking for a large brownfield credit (that I can remember) and the developers aren't asking the city to build/own a parking garage. This development should move along quickly like the Stonehouse Village developments.
Worth noting that East Lansing passed form-based zoning code for this area. I think this may be the first development that will be based on it.
The FB comments to this project are pretty bad. The EL residents don't want it, are upset about it, and don't want more student housing. They learn nothing.
I like this project. That's the kind of location I'd like to see built up in East Lansing. I do wonder how the developer is managing to do this without TIFs while other developers in EL seemingly found that impossible. Do they have better access to financing? Is the land cheaper? Or is it due to the lack of onerous requirements like condos or senior apartments? If getting rid of the latter is all it takes, EL should wipe such requirements entirely off of the books.
Are there any big city infrastructure requirements attached to this project? If not, that could be why they don't need the TIFs.
Makes sense to me on the parking, but a lot of old timers in EL can't conceive of a community that doesn't drive as much as they do, so I'd still expect pressure from that very vocal minority on this project.
Also, I'd like to see the city working more with the university to discourage or restrict students bringing cars to campus, especially for residents of these large apartment complexes that border campus. That kind of planning could go a long way towards getting rid of many of the eyesore surface lots around town, especially along that stretch of Grand River.
Fair enough. I did know that the university did some parking restriction on campus, but perhaps they could go further. And agreed, the planning commission is being backwards-looking on parking requirements for this project. So as you suggest, at this point in time, perhaps it's best for the developer to take point on integrating the desires/requirements of the city, the university, and the future occupants.
For example, on a project like this, which is clearly oriented towards students, why not propose building a structure with zero parking, enforced by a requirement on the lease that the renters will not bring a vehicle to the city, and come armed to the city planning commission with some sort of green award or university planning seal-of-approval for reducing car traffic on campus? Maybe this is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it would provide a model for student-apartment oriented developers to make pretty much everybody happy and maximize the # apartments ($$$) they could build relative to required parking spaces.
ELi reported last week that the EL planning commission failed to recommend this project.
Not the end of the road, of course, since the ELPC is advisory. Although the commission was split (3 for, 3 against, and 3 absent) the project is being hobbled by the usual complaints... too tall, not enough parking... Interestingly, one of the complainants was Hagan Realty. It seems like they want smaller buildings with more parking. Perhaps they're afraid of the competition?
On a more humorous note, the developers seem to think they're going to move things along fast enough to break ground, in East Lansing, by February!
I was disappointed that Rory Neuner was absent from the Planning Commission meeting that night. She seems pretty progressive and forward thinking about bike advocacy and I think she would have approved this because this development pushes students to bike more than drive. Her vote could have broken the tie.
Well, I think the main problem is that there is a very vocal and involved minority in EL that absolutely refuses to believe that things should change from the 1986 status quo. And not just the NIMBYs. I've had conversations with people who are still angry at the city council/downtown developers that so much retail has left the downtown area, and seem to have no clue that this is a long-term, market-driven, nation-wide trend. I've also heard from people at council meetings that cannot fathom how students would be able to get groceries without a car, and use that as a justification for not developing the downtown.
Mich - I'd be shocked to find out Beier is the mayor, as she barely seems to want her city council seat...