It is good to see the development happening, I like the parking is behind the buildings. I hope they plan an urban style design for the facades, like the rowhouse style down the street on Grand Ave and St. Joe.
To be honest it looks like the kind of project that will leave me thinking "meh" at best or leaving me wish it was still vacant land at worst. Even with a good design and all masonry construction it's still not exciting, it looks like MLK will be seeing the backside of buildings (is that line implying fencing along MLK?) and the side streets will be seeing the sides and driveways. I'd like to see them go back to the drawing board on the site plan, buildings should be oriented to the streets, not to a parking lot. IMO this should be a non-negotiable for downtown, no more mistakes like Capitol Commons or Riverfront Towers.
I guess no privacy fence is a plus but with the massive setback from MLK and the lack of any sidewalks leading up to the doors from MLK I'm going to assume they're just meeting the letter of the zoning code in that regard. I'm just not a fan of this and I already had relatively low expectations for the site. IMO there's no excuse for this lazy of site planning.
As someone that has done a lot of work with site plans, those lines are most likely the right or way or property line and then the required setback by the city. Hard to tell looking at the small image on my phone, but I'm guessing based on the line types, locations and the dimension shown. It looks like they're keeping the buildings as close to MLK as permitted. Why there is this setback at MLK, I'm not sure. I'd like to see them right up to MLK for a more urban feel...
I can only critique what is presented, it would be unwise for a developer to show a conceptual site plan that is inferior to what they actually intend to build. I take them at their word that they intend to build something along the lines of what they have drawn up, it's not like it's some generic drawing, there was thought and effort put in.
Just for fun, I went into Sketchup to see what I could work up for illustrative purposes. The four blue buildings represent two-floor townhouses or flats just like their proposal, they would come in just slightly smaller at about 36k sq ft total vs roughly 40k sq ft in that site plan. I was able to squeeze in 75-80 parking spaces versus their 70. Then I added in the red building, which I would propose would be a small three-floor apartment building with the leasing office, community room, gym, etc on the first floor along with maybe a small commercial space. If they really wanted to stick to their parking ratios they could eliminate one of the blue buildings. My goal here was to have outward facing buildings with less of the street frontage occupied by driveways and the edges of parking lots. It only took an hour or so of minimal effort to think this up, and I have no education, training or professional experience with site planning. I expect better from people who make a living doing it.
That is a great view! I hope we hear about the block being filled with the development of the Washington Ave side. The project in this area between Cedar and Larch is one place I would have thought would never be developed into housing, but there must be a market plan that says it's a good idea. I would like to see safer and more pleasant pedestrian sidewalks as part of these new projects.
The Stadium North project is an important one when it comes to utilizing the Cedar/Larch corridor to eventually connect Downtown and Old Town, I hope to eventually see the whole stretch there become urbanized. I'm not going to jump for joy at a couple more four-floor almost certainly stick built apartment buildings with no ground floor retail, but given the context of the area I'm not going complain a ton either. I agree that seeing the NW corner of Erie and Cedar remain empty isn't optimal but I'm going to assume they plan on reserving that corner for a future and likely more prominent building.
One minor complaint is that the design of the buildings is very blah, it's the same exact facade pattern present on the Red Cedar apartments, The Venue and innumerable other apartment buildings of this scale here and across the country, I really wish architects would either be more creative or stay more traditional rather than repeating this design over and over and over with slight variations in facade material. Besides that complaint, which I have with many recent projects, this one will be great to see.
Regarding the Lake Trust site, they are a bit further along than in those photos now. All the first floor columns are complete and it looks like they've poured maybe 1/3-1/2 of the second floor as of now. They also completed the elevator tower which confirmed that the building will still be five floors even with its larger than originally planned L shaped footprint, it may seem silly but I was quite pleased to see it be five rather than four or three floors.
@hood, regarding your wish that architects would stop repeating that design, I'm 100% with you. However, it's generally not the architect to blame. It's the client, usually a developer, who is trying to build as cheap as possible, use quality materials sparingly as to meet varying ordinances and a product that can be pushed and pulled to fit any site they go with. They're usually capped out at 4 to 5 story, again either for code, ordinances or to avoid having to go with something other than wood structure. The brick is usually stopped around level 3 to avoid more serious structural reinforcement. Everything with this design, I've done before. Everything they did was for a cheap reason.
As an architect, who worked for a developer in the past, I can definitely vouch that that's likely the case. Can't tell you how many of these I "designed" and played the push/pull game with. Developers ruin architecture.
I really wish Lansing could get some more architecturally please buildings these days, and more than just stick built. It's a better use of that site than currently, so it's also hard to complain...
@Lymon89 That is completely believable, I've even wondered how much of role the developers play in these cheap-out decisions versus the financiers. I've really wanted to be able to pick a knowledgeable developers brain for years now just to ask them about the logic in building these low quality structures. I want to know if they really believe that going so chintzy on things will even be beneficial financially when looking at the 10+ year timeframe? How do the low quality facades and interior finishes do in regards to maintenance costs? Are these large stick built structures even going to be safe over time? How vulnerable are they to fire and water damage? How does that effect insurance costs over the life of the structure versus wood or steel or even pre fab steel stud walls? How much more does it really cost to go with a concrete/steel structure and all masonry/glass/stone/etc facade? I just wish I knew the answers to some of these questions so I knew how justified I am in my judgement of those involved lol
I appreciate some of the insight, I never thought about the reason why every one of these things has the masonry stop before the top, I had never thought about the need for extra structural support needed to go higher. It doesn't make me any happier to see it, but it's nice to know they're not being so cheap they just don't wanna pay for a little extra brick.
And I wholeheartedly echo the sentiment of wanting higher quality design, that's a dead horse I'll continue to beat indefinitely. As I've said before, I've been hoping for years that with enough of these smaller, cheaper developments proving profitable eventually the developers would want to and be able to finance more grandiose projects while at the same time the renters/buyers would become more sophisticated and raise their expectations for material quality/design, so far these things have not happened unfortunately. Still not a single multi floor condo building downtown, no high rise apartments and not even any truly good quality low rise apartments built in almost 20 years of me following these things closely; it's left me a little disheartened and seeing things like those apartments on Ottawa has been downright depressing. I do hope we reach that tipping point sooner rather than later.
I just wanted to speak up for the architects, because we would rather be working on different projects, but these we can copy and paste and make money on. Well, the developer I worked with was not the most knowledgeable, in my opinion, but he was smart enough with money. To answer some of that, the financing was generally never an issue. We'd be given a budget by our development team, come in under budget, then we the CEO would tell us to cut the budget by a third or more. At one point we had a retail project, tenants ready, on budget, approved by the municipality; everything was going to work out. It would be an easy project. He decided look at doing it as a pole barn to save money...WHAT?!
A lot of your questions about durability wouldn't concern the developer I worked for. Their plan was to improve property and sell it off long before it was a maintenance issue, and they made decent money doing that. As far as safety, fire, water, etc., also not a concern. It met code when it was built and that's what they aimed for. Everything in these building was the bare minimum to meet code. If it was going to require fire suppression, we had to look at ways to modify it so it wouldn't require that expense. I could rant forever about this, but I don't want to bore people too much or give too much away about said developer publicly.
While I've been in the profession for a decade or so, I didn't know some of these things. I never knew that about the masonry until I worked at a developer. Going back to durability though, the smarter projects will have brick at the first floor, at least, for durability. If you start going with EIFS, metal panel, etc., it will be beat to hell in less than a year. If you want to sell it down the road, you want the ground level looking good and be some quality material.
The Ottawa apartments definitely come to mind; those are such a disappointment. All I can say, for some glimmer of hope, is that my experience across multiple firms proved that there are some larger, more exciting projects in the urban core of the city, but they've also been in the works for a long time. Who knows if they will ever come to fruition. I've always thought its ridiculous we can't have some higher end high rise living when they're already charging a premium for bland downtown apartments. Hopefully as these smaller developments continue to happen, someone will realize there is a large enough demand for something a bit bigger and nicer. These projects are still better than blighted land I guess.
Comments
Just for fun, I went into Sketchup to see what I could work up for illustrative purposes. The four blue buildings represent two-floor townhouses or flats just like their proposal, they would come in just slightly smaller at about 36k sq ft total vs roughly 40k sq ft in that site plan. I was able to squeeze in 75-80 parking spaces versus their 70. Then I added in the red building, which I would propose would be a small three-floor apartment building with the leasing office, community room, gym, etc on the first floor along with maybe a small commercial space. If they really wanted to stick to their parking ratios they could eliminate one of the blue buildings. My goal here was to have outward facing buildings with less of the street frontage occupied by driveways and the edges of parking lots. It only took an hour or so of minimal effort to think this up, and I have no education, training or professional experience with site planning. I expect better from people who make a living doing it.
One minor complaint is that the design of the buildings is very blah, it's the same exact facade pattern present on the Red Cedar apartments, The Venue and innumerable other apartment buildings of this scale here and across the country, I really wish architects would either be more creative or stay more traditional rather than repeating this design over and over and over with slight variations in facade material. Besides that complaint, which I have with many recent projects, this one will be great to see.
Regarding the Lake Trust site, they are a bit further along than in those photos now. All the first floor columns are complete and it looks like they've poured maybe 1/3-1/2 of the second floor as of now. They also completed the elevator tower which confirmed that the building will still be five floors even with its larger than originally planned L shaped footprint, it may seem silly but I was quite pleased to see it be five rather than four or three floors.
As an architect, who worked for a developer in the past, I can definitely vouch that that's likely the case. Can't tell you how many of these I "designed" and played the push/pull game with. Developers ruin architecture.
I really wish Lansing could get some more architecturally please buildings these days, and more than just stick built. It's a better use of that site than currently, so it's also hard to complain...
I appreciate some of the insight, I never thought about the reason why every one of these things has the masonry stop before the top, I had never thought about the need for extra structural support needed to go higher. It doesn't make me any happier to see it, but it's nice to know they're not being so cheap they just don't wanna pay for a little extra brick.
And I wholeheartedly echo the sentiment of wanting higher quality design, that's a dead horse I'll continue to beat indefinitely. As I've said before, I've been hoping for years that with enough of these smaller, cheaper developments proving profitable eventually the developers would want to and be able to finance more grandiose projects while at the same time the renters/buyers would become more sophisticated and raise their expectations for material quality/design, so far these things have not happened unfortunately. Still not a single multi floor condo building downtown, no high rise apartments and not even any truly good quality low rise apartments built in almost 20 years of me following these things closely; it's left me a little disheartened and seeing things like those apartments on Ottawa has been downright depressing. I do hope we reach that tipping point sooner rather than later.
A lot of your questions about durability wouldn't concern the developer I worked for. Their plan was to improve property and sell it off long before it was a maintenance issue, and they made decent money doing that. As far as safety, fire, water, etc., also not a concern. It met code when it was built and that's what they aimed for. Everything in these building was the bare minimum to meet code. If it was going to require fire suppression, we had to look at ways to modify it so it wouldn't require that expense. I could rant forever about this, but I don't want to bore people too much or give too much away about said developer publicly.
While I've been in the profession for a decade or so, I didn't know some of these things. I never knew that about the masonry until I worked at a developer. Going back to durability though, the smarter projects will have brick at the first floor, at least, for durability. If you start going with EIFS, metal panel, etc., it will be beat to hell in less than a year. If you want to sell it down the road, you want the ground level looking good and be some quality material.
The Ottawa apartments definitely come to mind; those are such a disappointment. All I can say, for some glimmer of hope, is that my experience across multiple firms proved that there are some larger, more exciting projects in the urban core of the city, but they've also been in the works for a long time. Who knows if they will ever come to fruition. I've always thought its ridiculous we can't have some higher end high rise living when they're already charging a premium for bland downtown apartments. Hopefully as these smaller developments continue to happen, someone will realize there is a large enough demand for something a bit bigger and nicer. These projects are still better than blighted land I guess.