I think this looks pretty cool and very different than the recent developments. Which is great progress in my opinion. I think these projects will spur others. Making downtown a beautiful place where people work and live will help to create an "urban village" that will replace the office park/ major retail district that downtown was, but I don't think will ever be again. The concept has worked pretty well in downtown East Lansing, even when school is out there is a lot of activity and foot traffic, many retail shops are open past 5pm and pretty much all the restaurants at night. If you have the people there, you will have business.
It's funny because a year or so ago when i brought up loving to see some taller buildings constructed here, it was frowned upon. Now here we are. I'm all for it and have been. Yes, it should cater to the right things of course. I just feel as though this city fell behind years ago with evolving to cater to the 30's age range, let alone things to do for the youth. The majority of 20's-40's age range leaves Lansing for things to do and that's money down the drain. After this project i'd love to see someone focus on getting College students to spend more money in Lansing, enhance tourism...etc. Keep money in Lansing!
I hate to start out negative but creating another tunnel on Grand Ave is a non-starter for me, that absolutely should not be allowed under any circumstances, it'd be a big mistake. If given a choice I'd actually pass on Lansing's new tallest over something like that.
Besides that I love the locations and scale of all the projects. I've wanted the old Prudden HQ to switch to apartments since before the last time they did an office remodel so that one's great to see. Seeing some density on W Ottawa is fantastic, I noticed those houses boarded up a couple months ago and wondered what was in store. The Tower on the Grand is what I hope to be the first of multiple riverfront/Grand Ave high-rises.
All that being said, the actual designs shown in the renderings are 'meh' at best, but the quality of the renderings themselves are poor so I don't put too much stock into what I'm seeing in those pictures, they seem preliminary. I like the overall shape and look of the Grand Ave building while I'm less thrilled with the squat look of that curved front on the Ottawa & Walnut building. A little care to rework the Prudden building's ground floor retail storefronts back to something more period correct or to modern frameless glass would be huge for the street level, the brick that's there is horribly ugly. As always, quality of materials will be a huge factor in how these turn out.
My big, big beef is just with the building going over Grand Ave creating a tunnel. It's bad for the streetscape and could be massively detrimental to future development along Grand. If he *needs* connectivity with his Atrium Building/Washington Sq he can build a skywalk. I hope this isn't a sticking point.
They say the storefronts would remain but the "property behind them will become a parking ramp". I actually get this move, that building does need parking and there's nothing close enough to be convenient for residents. I do wonder how they're going to do this exactly though? Tear down the back of the building and actually build a small ramp?
No excuse for the Grand Ave tower tunnel though, although I admit the large rooftop play area would be cool for residents. Not worth hampering Grand Ave's prospective future as the prime residential high-rise street though imo.
Reading the article, I like the "tunnel" over grand for the reason of using the old theater arcade as an entrance off Washington. It allows and entrance for the project right in the more desirable part of downtown, and more traffic to what remains of a beautiful building.
That said, it's a lot of bad for some good. I also had the immediate though of no tunnel over Grand, but is that the worst thing for Grand given what it is right now? Tunnel situations like this aren't uncommon for major cities. It does seem like excessive parking on top of the available parking we have. Though, people that don't frequent downtown seem to think there is a shortage and don't want to pay a dime...
Anyways, I'm conflicted on the tunnel/bridge. I'm personally 50/50 on the approach.
Without getting into detail, the designs are horrible and I REALLY hope they're preliminary and just for shape and space. These designs are so outdated and horrible.
@Lymon89 I couldn't disagree more strongly tbh. Lansing cannot survive thinking that 5 blocks of Washington Sq is going to save downtown. We need square blocks of ground floor retail and mid to high-rise residential, just part of why Grand Ave needs to be focused on as its own entity. The main factor is that most of the city's best sites for high rise residential, like this proposal, are on Grand Ave; I expect it to be the premier residential street in the city if downtown continues to improve. A tunnel ruins the streetscape, the views of the city, even the views of this tower.
It basically gives the developer a free pass to hurt the surrounding area and prospective future developments so they can build a larger playground for residents on the roof. If it was just about parking or access through the atrium building he could make the ramp a couple floors taller and just do a skybridge across Grand... I'm just kinda unhappy that we get a proposal for a new tallest building and it just has to include some gotcha like this.
Yeah, the renderings are pretty crude. I imagine they're either early in the design process or they're placeholders to some extent.
I get what you're all saying, but I also think a Grand only entrance would be a hard sell right now for anyone leasing. I'm not suggesting we only cater to Washington, but at this point that's a pretty desolate stretch of grand. I think building it behind the atrium would have been nice but I also don't think that site is big enough for a 25 story tower. Once you put in at least 2 stairs, elevators, mechanical, etc. there wouldn't be much left for anything else it seems like.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of all that parking either. It's creating another building that lacks a street presence. I'm on the same page as you all, just saying I don't think it's the worst thing in the world.
Of course, there's always room for change as they work through design development. I don't understand why a developer wants to pay for that much parking, to be honest. It's my understanding that it's not required for its location.
Though, I do worry with them planning to start construction by the end of the year, they may be well into construction documents. Or were looking at a later start date, if it happens.
Just saying that I don't think it's the worst. It could have been better for sure, but not a disaster by any means.
IMO the problem is just that it's a basically tunnel, I don't care whether it's parking or some other use. I wouldn't call any structure built over a street that's almost a half a block long just a skywalk. I just don't want the street closed in like that. I'm definitely not gonna put energy into complaining about the Washington Ave ramp: it looks like storefronts, has no driveway onto Washington and is truly needed for that project to work.
I feel like if there's too much complaining about too many things the administration is likely to just ignore the complaints or kill the projects. I'm not thrilled with every aspect of these plans, but that garage going over Grand HAS to be stopped imo. My energy will be exclusively focused on that.
Cherry Hill - I am glad they are proposing a second building and it will help the configuration be not so dumb. I'm interested in seeing what the purchase agreement will be with the city since that site had been my personal bet on the city hall location. Sadly MSHDA (LIHTC) requires parking even if the project is urban/near transit. The city encouraged the development team to seek a variance with them for this though so hopefully the number can go down a bit more.
OPRA - probably a better question for LEDC since I do not know the ins and outs of all the incentives. It is my understanding commercial residential can still qualify for it so I don't know why changing it from commercial to residential matters. The stated goal is 'to, increase commercial activity, create employment, retain employment, prevent a loss of employment, revitalize urban areas, or increase the number of residents'. The letter in the agenda packet mentions NEZ so my guess is they get more money through that than OPRA.
from that CP article:
"The Capital Area Transportation Authority is eyeing the construction of an administrative building with space for homeless services on the south end of the block that the city’s old Center for the Arts — which housed BoarsHead Theatre — occupied. It would possibly have apartments as well.
Both projects, with their emphasis on helping low-income and homeless people, are strategically located across the street from the CATA Transportation Center. LHC would need to demolish buildings that were the home of Davenport University before it moved to 200 S. Grand Ave. in 2011. CATA would build on a city-owned parking lot that replaced the arts complex after it closed about the same time."
The development team is applying for a second LIHTC so that is what my comments were about. I don't have a rendering to share though.
Comments
Besides that I love the locations and scale of all the projects. I've wanted the old Prudden HQ to switch to apartments since before the last time they did an office remodel so that one's great to see. Seeing some density on W Ottawa is fantastic, I noticed those houses boarded up a couple months ago and wondered what was in store. The Tower on the Grand is what I hope to be the first of multiple riverfront/Grand Ave high-rises.
All that being said, the actual designs shown in the renderings are 'meh' at best, but the quality of the renderings themselves are poor so I don't put too much stock into what I'm seeing in those pictures, they seem preliminary. I like the overall shape and look of the Grand Ave building while I'm less thrilled with the squat look of that curved front on the Ottawa & Walnut building. A little care to rework the Prudden building's ground floor retail storefronts back to something more period correct or to modern frameless glass would be huge for the street level, the brick that's there is horribly ugly. As always, quality of materials will be a huge factor in how these turn out.
My big, big beef is just with the building going over Grand Ave creating a tunnel. It's bad for the streetscape and could be massively detrimental to future development along Grand. If he *needs* connectivity with his Atrium Building/Washington Sq he can build a skywalk. I hope this isn't a sticking point.
No excuse for the Grand Ave tower tunnel though, although I admit the large rooftop play area would be cool for residents. Not worth hampering Grand Ave's prospective future as the prime residential high-rise street though imo.
That said, it's a lot of bad for some good. I also had the immediate though of no tunnel over Grand, but is that the worst thing for Grand given what it is right now? Tunnel situations like this aren't uncommon for major cities. It does seem like excessive parking on top of the available parking we have. Though, people that don't frequent downtown seem to think there is a shortage and don't want to pay a dime...
Anyways, I'm conflicted on the tunnel/bridge. I'm personally 50/50 on the approach.
Without getting into detail, the designs are horrible and I REALLY hope they're preliminary and just for shape and space. These designs are so outdated and horrible.
https://www.fox47news.com/neighborhoods/downtown-old-town-reo-town/real-estate-company-unveils-215m-project-to-redevelop-downtown-lansing?fbclid=IwAR0YjKsTug-P7x2P6J0vT7ZmORn0-HILJ_2lj3wAWAaxYnL98t3Rh9PPTNM
@Lymon89 I couldn't disagree more strongly tbh. Lansing cannot survive thinking that 5 blocks of Washington Sq is going to save downtown. We need square blocks of ground floor retail and mid to high-rise residential, just part of why Grand Ave needs to be focused on as its own entity. The main factor is that most of the city's best sites for high rise residential, like this proposal, are on Grand Ave; I expect it to be the premier residential street in the city if downtown continues to improve. A tunnel ruins the streetscape, the views of the city, even the views of this tower.
It basically gives the developer a free pass to hurt the surrounding area and prospective future developments so they can build a larger playground for residents on the roof. If it was just about parking or access through the atrium building he could make the ramp a couple floors taller and just do a skybridge across Grand... I'm just kinda unhappy that we get a proposal for a new tallest building and it just has to include some gotcha like this.
Yeah, the renderings are pretty crude. I imagine they're either early in the design process or they're placeholders to some extent.
EDIT: Screenshot the skyline render:
Like I said, I'm not a fan of all that parking either. It's creating another building that lacks a street presence. I'm on the same page as you all, just saying I don't think it's the worst thing in the world.
Of course, there's always room for change as they work through design development. I don't understand why a developer wants to pay for that much parking, to be honest. It's my understanding that it's not required for its location.
Though, I do worry with them planning to start construction by the end of the year, they may be well into construction documents. Or were looking at a later start date, if it happens.
Just saying that I don't think it's the worst. It could have been better for sure, but not a disaster by any means.
I feel like if there's too much complaining about too many things the administration is likely to just ignore the complaints or kill the projects. I'm not thrilled with every aspect of these plans, but that garage going over Grand HAS to be stopped imo. My energy will be exclusively focused on that.
OPRA - probably a better question for LEDC since I do not know the ins and outs of all the incentives. It is my understanding commercial residential can still qualify for it so I don't know why changing it from commercial to residential matters. The stated goal is 'to, increase commercial activity, create employment, retain employment, prevent a loss of employment, revitalize urban areas, or increase the number of residents'. The letter in the agenda packet mentions NEZ so my guess is they get more money through that than OPRA.
"The Capital Area Transportation Authority is eyeing the construction of an administrative building with space for homeless services on the south end of the block that the city’s old Center for the Arts — which housed BoarsHead Theatre — occupied. It would possibly have apartments as well.
Both projects, with their emphasis on helping low-income and homeless people, are strategically located across the street from the CATA Transportation Center. LHC would need to demolish buildings that were the home of Davenport University before it moved to 200 S. Grand Ave. in 2011. CATA would build on a city-owned parking lot that replaced the arts complex after it closed about the same time."
The development team is applying for a second LIHTC so that is what my comments were about. I don't have a rendering to share though.