Yeah, I don't think the self storage business is expanding at a rapid pace, but as people's incomes decrease or stagnate some people have been forced to downsize their residence but have a hard time letting go of items. I think that's where some of the increased demand comes from.
We're also seeing a shift towards smaller homes (tiny homes) and apartments (studios and micro-studios). People may only think of these homes as temporary and just want to store their extra items until they move somewhere larger.
For those of us opposed to the process of how Bernero is trying to sell City Hall on his way out the door, in a 5-to-3 vote, the council set public hearing for December 11th. That means three councillers didn't even want to debate this plan...council will need six votes to pass this should they even get that far. Unless someone flips, which is not likely, this particular process/proposal is as good as dead.
Incoming Mayor Andy Schor has said he is “90 percent” behind the plan but still has questions about it, including where and how the city will come up with a location and funding for the court, jail and police operations that are part of the current complex at Michigan and Capital avenues.
How are you going to be "90 percent" behind something you allegedly have so little info on? How irresponsible a way to govern is that? I hope to god he's not a "take anything a developer offers you" kind of mayor.
I'm not necessarily against the idea of a new city hall, but I'm completely against this particular half-baked proposal and rushed process to do it. Anyway, if they hoped to get this done by the end of the year, the council would have to set a special meeting sometimes in between the 11th and the end of the year. I think Bernero is rushing this through, because the incoming council may not be as friendly to this idea.
It seems to me that the mayor would do better getting the Red Cedar project underway during his administration as his legacy project, rather than this city hall deal. Moving city hall to a side street on the edge of downtown does not seem like such a great accomplishment. I also like the point that there are about ten other very good spots to locate a hotel downtown.
I hope that those three votes don't change their mind. While I'm still not 100% against a new city hall either, I've grown to like the idea of properly renovating/restoring the current city hall building. The more I think about it, any location for City Hall that's not adjacent to the Capitol just wouldn't seem right, the fact that City Hall occupies one of the most prominent corners in the city and facing the front of the Capitol makes it special. There's no reason to push so hard for a hotel at that location, I understand the desire to be close to the Capitol but there are other possible locations for a hotel adjacent to the Capitol.
In my opinion for the sale and reconfiguration/destruction of the current city hall building to be even considered it has be after downtown has filled in much, much more and it ought to be something truly impressive replacing it.
We were just talking about them, but some sad news. George Eyde, the company's patriach, has passed away. However, it says he was actively handing off more and more responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the company to four of his six sons. At the moment, the Eyde's are working on a renovation of a tower down in Toledo, as well as the Oliver Towers redevelopment. It'll be interesting to see if this speeds that project up or slows it down.
In this last years, he'd found his way back downtown with the renovation of the Knapps Centre. Hopefully, the sons continue their fathers change-of-heart concerning reinvesting in the urban areas as opposed to the suburban properties he was known for.
@hood: I believe the thinking is that you could attract a higher quality hotel with the current city hall location than you could with the empty lots in downtown. Let's face it, having a hotel facing the Capitol and just a block away from Washington Square is a better sell to visitors than something on a forsaken stretch of Grand Ave. I feel like a hotel on Grand Ave, for example, would need to be part a larger development that would include something visitors would be interested in, like a brewery or trendy retail. I know Grand Ave isn't far from the Capitol, but people want their hotel to be in an immediately attractive setting.
That would make sense were we talking about some expansion downtown, but we're talking literally a block or two walk. And even entertaining that a hotel absolutely needs some kind of view of the capitol, there is literally a huge surface lot kitty corner at Walnut and Allegan that would have a direct sight-line to the Capitol. Or kitty-corner at Grand and Allegan where the empty Farnum Building now sits. In fact, as renovations of a mid-century modernist building go, you could even more easily carve a hotel out of the Farnum than you could City Hall.
There just isn't any compelling reason why a downtown hotel absolutely has to be at Michigan and Capitol. In reality, proximity to activity centers is more important than a visual sight-line. And given how activity nodes have formed, Grand would make more sense for a hotel than just about anywhere else. It's a block from Washington, but also connects you to the convention center, ballpark, city market and the River Trail, and the bar scene to the east along Michigan. The Radisson does just fine along Grand. Grand also gives a developer a clean-slate to developed ground floor retail along and any rear parking structures/loading areas that may be needed to service a large building.
There was a hotel at Michigan and Capitol that was called the Hotel Olds and it was the center of a lot of activity downtown. Then it was called The Jack Tar Hotel but they failed to modernize and the building was sold to the State at some point and is called the Romney Building. While the point that this corner would be a good place for a hotel is valid because it was, but think remodeling the current city hall for city government and moving the police and courts down to the old LSJ building might work out better. I could see the Masonic Temple on Capitol Ave as a potential spot for a hotel, there is a surface parking lot next door that could be part of a larger hotel complex. The Farnum building stands next door to an older but tall building called Capitol Hall. I could see a hotel development there similar to the Shinola Hotel that is re-proposing four old buildings in Detroit. One reason Grand Ave is not so grand is that there are no buildings, building a hotel on Grand Ave would help change that.
@MichMatters: I'd hope that they were aiming higher than a Radisson-level hotel. Not that Radisson is a bad company, but it's not very sexy. You're right that the corner of Walnut and Allegan wouldn't be terrible, but you can't deny that it's inferior to Michigan and Capitol. Walnut and Allegan is a very desolate spot from a pedestrian perspective. It's like a office park.
I think apartments make more sense on Grand Avenue than a flagship hotel, as it stands presently. Visitors to the city shouldn't be the vanguards of a street's renaissance. You want to impress visitors as much as possible.
I think a visitor to downtown Lansing would likely be skeptical of there being much to do in the vicinity. If you put them in a desolate spot I see people getting into their cars and driving to East Lansing or Old Town for the evening. It only takes a few blocks to form the wrong impression. There's nothing most Americans dislike more than aimless walking. They will give up faster than you'd think.
It's interesting how much I don't seem to agree with this message board. I was against knocking down historic East Lansing commercial buildings and now I'm for a renovated hotel at Michigan and Capitol, assuming no shady financial shenanigans are in play. I feel like there is a really strong consensus here. It's interesting.
@The_Lansing_Magnate Well having more varied opinions is a great thing, echo chambers are boring and unproductive. We all need to be exposed to different ideas and for our own ideas to be critiqued.
I understand the desire to put a hotel at that corner, I really do, but I don't think it's worth losing the current city hall. I certainly don't want to see city hall move to some mediocre building in a nondescript location just to have the old city hall's architecture destroyed to get a building the same size and footprint. If the old city hall building is going to be significantly altered I'd much rather just see it demolished in favor of 20 or 30+ floor building. What's being proposed to us is a joke, the current deal proposes:
-City hall will move to an old, undesirable building in an undesirable location, the city will pay $50 million for this privilege.
-The old city hall will be sold for a mere $4 million
-The old city hall's architecture and plaza will be heavily altered/destroyed, but we won't get a larger, taller or more beautiful building in return, we just get a bastardized city hall building.
-There's no (public) plan for what to do with the police or courts, I'm betting some sweetheart lease-to-own deal will be proposed to benefit a local developer.
The land at Michigan and Capitol is exceptionally valuable, if city hall is going anywhere I want that corner to get a new landmark building for downtown, preferably something over 30 floors, not a bastardized city hall building. This is a horrible deal for the city and it's counter productive if your goal is to create sustainable growth downtown. I just can't ramble on long enough to drive home just how against this particular deal I am...
Comments
We're also seeing a shift towards smaller homes (tiny homes) and apartments (studios and micro-studios). People may only think of these homes as temporary and just want to store their extra items until they move somewhere larger.
For those of us opposed to the process of how Bernero is trying to sell City Hall on his way out the door, in a 5-to-3 vote, the council set public hearing for December 11th. That means three councillers didn't even want to debate this plan...council will need six votes to pass this should they even get that far. Unless someone flips, which is not likely, this particular process/proposal is as good as dead.
However, I am super disappointed and actually kind of unpleasantly surprised in incoming Mayor Schor's take on this.
How are you going to be "90 percent" behind something you allegedly have so little info on? How irresponsible a way to govern is that? I hope to god he's not a "take anything a developer offers you" kind of mayor.
I'm not necessarily against the idea of a new city hall, but I'm completely against this particular half-baked proposal and rushed process to do it. Anyway, if they hoped to get this done by the end of the year, the council would have to set a special meeting sometimes in between the 11th and the end of the year. I think Bernero is rushing this through, because the incoming council may not be as friendly to this idea.
It seems to me that the mayor would do better getting the Red Cedar project underway during his administration as his legacy project, rather than this city hall deal. Moving city hall to a side street on the edge of downtown does not seem like such a great accomplishment. I also like the point that there are about ten other very good spots to locate a hotel downtown.
I hope that those three votes don't change their mind. While I'm still not 100% against a new city hall either, I've grown to like the idea of properly renovating/restoring the current city hall building. The more I think about it, any location for City Hall that's not adjacent to the Capitol just wouldn't seem right, the fact that City Hall occupies one of the most prominent corners in the city and facing the front of the Capitol makes it special. There's no reason to push so hard for a hotel at that location, I understand the desire to be close to the Capitol but there are other possible locations for a hotel adjacent to the Capitol.
In my opinion for the sale and reconfiguration/destruction of the current city hall building to be even considered it has be after downtown has filled in much, much more and it ought to be something truly impressive replacing it.
We were just talking about them, but some sad news. George Eyde, the company's patriach, has passed away. However, it says he was actively handing off more and more responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the company to four of his six sons. At the moment, the Eyde's are working on a renovation of a tower down in Toledo, as well as the Oliver Towers redevelopment. It'll be interesting to see if this speeds that project up or slows it down.
In this last years, he'd found his way back downtown with the renovation of the Knapps Centre. Hopefully, the sons continue their fathers change-of-heart concerning reinvesting in the urban areas as opposed to the suburban properties he was known for.
@hood: I believe the thinking is that you could attract a higher quality hotel with the current city hall location than you could with the empty lots in downtown. Let's face it, having a hotel facing the Capitol and just a block away from Washington Square is a better sell to visitors than something on a forsaken stretch of Grand Ave. I feel like a hotel on Grand Ave, for example, would need to be part a larger development that would include something visitors would be interested in, like a brewery or trendy retail. I know Grand Ave isn't far from the Capitol, but people want their hotel to be in an immediately attractive setting.
That would make sense were we talking about some expansion downtown, but we're talking literally a block or two walk. And even entertaining that a hotel absolutely needs some kind of view of the capitol, there is literally a huge surface lot kitty corner at Walnut and Allegan that would have a direct sight-line to the Capitol. Or kitty-corner at Grand and Allegan where the empty Farnum Building now sits. In fact, as renovations of a mid-century modernist building go, you could even more easily carve a hotel out of the Farnum than you could City Hall.
There just isn't any compelling reason why a downtown hotel absolutely has to be at Michigan and Capitol. In reality, proximity to activity centers is more important than a visual sight-line. And given how activity nodes have formed, Grand would make more sense for a hotel than just about anywhere else. It's a block from Washington, but also connects you to the convention center, ballpark, city market and the River Trail, and the bar scene to the east along Michigan. The Radisson does just fine along Grand. Grand also gives a developer a clean-slate to developed ground floor retail along and any rear parking structures/loading areas that may be needed to service a large building.
There was a hotel at Michigan and Capitol that was called the Hotel Olds and it was the center of a lot of activity downtown. Then it was called The Jack Tar Hotel but they failed to modernize and the building was sold to the State at some point and is called the Romney Building. While the point that this corner would be a good place for a hotel is valid because it was, but think remodeling the current city hall for city government and moving the police and courts down to the old LSJ building might work out better. I could see the Masonic Temple on Capitol Ave as a potential spot for a hotel, there is a surface parking lot next door that could be part of a larger hotel complex. The Farnum building stands next door to an older but tall building called Capitol Hall. I could see a hotel development there similar to the Shinola Hotel that is re-proposing four old buildings in Detroit. One reason Grand Ave is not so grand is that there are no buildings, building a hotel on Grand Ave would help change that.
@MichMatters: I'd hope that they were aiming higher than a Radisson-level hotel. Not that Radisson is a bad company, but it's not very sexy. You're right that the corner of Walnut and Allegan wouldn't be terrible, but you can't deny that it's inferior to Michigan and Capitol. Walnut and Allegan is a very desolate spot from a pedestrian perspective. It's like a office park.
I think apartments make more sense on Grand Avenue than a flagship hotel, as it stands presently. Visitors to the city shouldn't be the vanguards of a street's renaissance. You want to impress visitors as much as possible.
I think a visitor to downtown Lansing would likely be skeptical of there being much to do in the vicinity. If you put them in a desolate spot I see people getting into their cars and driving to East Lansing or Old Town for the evening. It only takes a few blocks to form the wrong impression. There's nothing most Americans dislike more than aimless walking. They will give up faster than you'd think.
It's interesting how much I don't seem to agree with this message board. I was against knocking down historic East Lansing commercial buildings and now I'm for a renovated hotel at Michigan and Capitol, assuming no shady financial shenanigans are in play. I feel like there is a really strong consensus here. It's interesting.
@The_Lansing_Magnate Well having more varied opinions is a great thing, echo chambers are boring and unproductive. We all need to be exposed to different ideas and for our own ideas to be critiqued.
I understand the desire to put a hotel at that corner, I really do, but I don't think it's worth losing the current city hall. I certainly don't want to see city hall move to some mediocre building in a nondescript location just to have the old city hall's architecture destroyed to get a building the same size and footprint. If the old city hall building is going to be significantly altered I'd much rather just see it demolished in favor of 20 or 30+ floor building. What's being proposed to us is a joke, the current deal proposes:
-City hall will move to an old, undesirable building in an undesirable location, the city will pay $50 million for this privilege.
-The old city hall will be sold for a mere $4 million
-The old city hall's architecture and plaza will be heavily altered/destroyed, but we won't get a larger, taller or more beautiful building in return, we just get a bastardized city hall building.
-There's no (public) plan for what to do with the police or courts, I'm betting some sweetheart lease-to-own deal will be proposed to benefit a local developer.
The land at Michigan and Capitol is exceptionally valuable, if city hall is going anywhere I want that corner to get a new landmark building for downtown, preferably something over 30 floors, not a bastardized city hall building. This is a horrible deal for the city and it's counter productive if your goal is to create sustainable growth downtown. I just can't ramble on long enough to drive home just how against this particular deal I am...