Yeah, citykid talked about an Act 33 review for Tower on Grand, before. Though, I still don't get how it would trigger that, or how the law is interpreted to require it:
I'm not sure how that act would relate to this project, its wording isn't terribly clear. Obviously one can't just unilaterally decide to build a structure over a public ROW, I guess the question is if what the planning commission/council already approved grants air rights for that section of Grand Ave? If not then what's their plan moving forward? Wait until construction on the tower is already underway?
I'd be elated if we were to somehow see the full height tower constructed without the structure going over the street.
Yeah, I guess my point was that I'm kind of interested to see what law covers this just as a kind of academic exercize, because the laws and ordinances I've been referenced don't actually address building over streets. And, yeah, you know I'm in complete agreement that I'd love to see this without a parking garage going over Grand.
I'm generally not in favor of structures over the road. I was thrilled to see the portion of the parking deck over Grand go years ago. However, I'm not completely opposed in this situation. I know I've said it before, and I know I'm the odd one out, but I'm curious to see how it plays out. I guess I'll be fine whichever way it goes.
Those renderings of the housing look better, but the development still looks terribly cheap, depressing and institutional. I know there's only so much budget for affordable/workforce housing but I feel like they could've done better. It's replacing a long boarded up building though (if I'm understanding it's location correctly), so that's something.
Of course, new buildings that have people living there will be a great improvement over those strange buildings that are there now, we can hope they will look better that these A.I. [?] depictions. Not a lot of imagination in these pictures.
Looks like we rank pretty low on a list of Best Capital City where Lansing [not Greater Lansing] is ranked #39! I think maybe that is too low, but they did not ask me!
Act 33 - not every community does it Lansing's way but per Public Act 33 of 2008 (and Act 285 before that) Planning Commission is tasked with reviewing the topics Mich linked but here PC also makes recommendations for sale/purchase of real property, street vacations, and permanent easements for use of public land. Lansing used to do this for every little thing, like literally 30-60 Act reviews annually during the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Somewhere down the road the city started to allow temporary use of rights-of-way to be approved administratively with a license agreement, but permanent use still has to have Council vote. Most recently use of air rights was decided for the Anderson House Office building over Ottawa St. and Sparrow's skywalk over Michigan.
Gentilozzi's group is well aware the need for approval for their project as they publicly proposed but I can't speak to their schedule. Given the timeline for constructing only the tower that is their main focus and they are in site plan review.
It's good to hear that they're moving forward with the tower without explicitly seeking approval for the over-road garage. That would seem to mean that it's not a make or break item for their plan, I mean they'd save a lot of money not doing it and I don't think the lack of that large recreation deck would kill the desire for people to live there, they could still do it on top of the garage and connect it with a simple skywalk.
Regardless, I had gotten to the point where I had begrudgingly accepted that this structure would be built over the street. If it still happens, oh well, we still get a new tallest building. If not then Grand Ave's prospects as retail/restaurant corridor improve, as do views of the new tower. Now that Grand is 2-way I'd like to lose a northbound lane in the 100-300 blocks to build bump outs for parking and allow better pedestrian crossings, add some pedestrian islands as well. N Grand is a mess that needs a total rebuild.
Comments
https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/55a2ef9b-e736-44f7-ba72-21effa459073?cache=1800
The way I've always read this is that it's talking about a city government developing something.
I'd be elated if we were to somehow see the full height tower constructed without the structure going over the street.
Those renderings of the housing look better, but the development still looks terribly cheap, depressing and institutional. I know there's only so much budget for affordable/workforce housing but I feel like they could've done better. It's replacing a long boarded up building though (if I'm understanding it's location correctly), so that's something.
Gentilozzi's group is well aware the need for approval for their project as they publicly proposed but I can't speak to their schedule. Given the timeline for constructing only the tower that is their main focus and they are in site plan review.
Regardless, I had gotten to the point where I had begrudgingly accepted that this structure would be built over the street. If it still happens, oh well, we still get a new tallest building. If not then Grand Ave's prospects as retail/restaurant corridor improve, as do views of the new tower. Now that Grand is 2-way I'd like to lose a northbound lane in the 100-300 blocks to build bump outs for parking and allow better pedestrian crossings, add some pedestrian islands as well. N Grand is a mess that needs a total rebuild.