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.
@Lymon89 It kinda hurts to hear stories like that about the developer trying to cut costs to the absolute bone, it's much appreciated insight once again though. I guess at some point it's really the buyer's/lessee's responsibility to have higher expectations, if someone can churn out trash at minimal cost and make a fortune it's hard to argue with their logic.
I do figure at some point we'll see some higher quality projects in the core, there's certainly plenty of suitable sites along Washington, Grand and even Capitol. I hope to at least see one of the projects I've hear about come to the surface this year, possibly something significant to go along with the performing arts center or maybe the local venture capital guys high rise. I do agree that these projects are better than blighted land I just wish they'd invest a little more in the design, even Block 600 is decent enough to shut me up, I think that level of design and quality should be attainable.
One of the Red Cedar buildings almost finished is the senior building on the southwest side which was built with steel bricks and cement, and I think that it looks of a higher quality in design. The hotels so far, steel and cement are being used, it could be for a parking deck? I am hoping for just a bit of flair in the designs of those two buildings. One recent apartment building that looks better than it has to, in terms of design is the Walnut Park Apartments, on Willow. I would like to see this type of quality in downtown projects. Some places do impose an architectural design review of projects, that would have been a good thing over at the Disneyland like carwash being built at the Waverly golf course site. Maybe they wanted to start at a very low bar so the rest will seem nicer!
@gbdinlansing As far as I know there will be no parking in the structure of the hotels there, I'm pretty sure these are just going to be a concrete first floor with mostly wood construction on the upper floors. Agreed on Walnut Park, that's my go-to example for a cheap building that looks good and will age well.
I don't hate that new car wash too much, it looks interesting and seems well built. A lot better than the traditional cinder block tunnel that car washes typically are. I honestly don't even hate to see suburban style commercial designs along Saginaw there in general, my beef with that project is the poor use of the overall site in their early site plan, not so much commercial stuff fronting Saginaw. I don't think it would be even remotely realistic to expect urban-style or mixed use development along that stretch anyhow, nor would it really benefit anyone or anything. I would like to see the inward facing aspects of the development take on a more urban/neighborhood feel, I do think that would be beneficial for all involved.
I read about an entertainment venue being developed in the building at 224 S Washington Sq. which the LSJ points out is the site of the original Knapp's Store built in 1915. I have to say I did not know this was the address of the first Knapp's, I wonder if much of the original build is still behind the false facade? It sounds like these folks are for real about this and are planning a first-class venue. I would be happy with anything that looks better than the present storefront.
It looks like Lansing is closer to getting the new GM battery plant as funds have been approved for some of the costs to develop the site. I wonder why they did not consider any of the huge pieces of GM owned land already in the city of Lansing, with all the utilities roads rails etc. in place? In the words of our former mayor "what's so great about Delta?":}
Comments
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.
I do figure at some point we'll see some higher quality projects in the core, there's certainly plenty of suitable sites along Washington, Grand and even Capitol. I hope to at least see one of the projects I've hear about come to the surface this year, possibly something significant to go along with the performing arts center or maybe the local venture capital guys high rise. I do agree that these projects are better than blighted land I just wish they'd invest a little more in the design, even Block 600 is decent enough to shut me up, I think that level of design and quality should be attainable.
I don't hate that new car wash too much, it looks interesting and seems well built. A lot better than the traditional cinder block tunnel that car washes typically are. I honestly don't even hate to see suburban style commercial designs along Saginaw there in general, my beef with that project is the poor use of the overall site in their early site plan, not so much commercial stuff fronting Saginaw. I don't think it would be even remotely realistic to expect urban-style or mixed use development along that stretch anyhow, nor would it really benefit anyone or anything. I would like to see the inward facing aspects of the development take on a more urban/neighborhood feel, I do think that would be beneficial for all involved.