I tried digging through the meeting minutes from last week's council meeting, but I couldn't really see anything relating to the K-Zoo Gateway project (I read something somewhere that said it had been renamed Lansing Gateway). And since tonight was the latest meeting, it doesn't look like we'll be able to get the info. Maybe something happened tonight.
LMich, thanks for the complimentary review of the SOC speech. The mayor's reference was to giving the city more "curb appeal", a common term in the real estate business that means "dressing up" a property so it has more aesthetic appeal and therefore a better chance to sell. He didn't use the term in relation to any specific project. It followed a sentence that said we are "reinventing Lansing's urban landscape" - a reference to the combined impact of all the new developments, including things like the Michigan Avenue streetscape enhancements.
Thanks to all of you on this forum for paying close attention to what is going on. I stop in here regularly to soak up your feedback.
His only reference to an unannounced project: "Stay tuned for even more good news. Soon we will announce yet another major new development in the heart of our downtown."
Knapps building facade does not work for any use and even if they keep the building the facade will have to be removed and a new more user friendly facade will have to be installed. Personally I think it should be torn down.
Pardon my disagreeing with you, but the Knapp's building IS the facade. It's one of the few iconic buildings left in Lansing, and I'm fairly certain that any redevelopment will see the majority of the facade retained/rehabbed. The only major change in style I foresee would be the replacement of the glass block with more conventional windows. Otherwise, I think we'll see the Knapp's building staying largely intact. There's no reason to tear it down either. Dumpier buildings in downtown Lansing have been completely rehabbed in the last few years (Arbaugh, MotorWheel, and now the BWL).
the facade is structurally unsound and is on the verge of falling into the street. Any office tenant would want windows and any residential tenant would want balconies and windows, can you think of any other use that doesn't need windows? MW and Arbaugh both had great fenestrations that the developers could work with.
I think the building is only worth saving if the facade can be saved, and I think it can be. Residential tenants don't need balconies either, look at the Arbaugh, or any of the storefront lofts. Balconies are nice, but not a neccesity.
Indeed. And I for one don't want to be around for the public outcry if a developer either 1) wants to tear down the building, or 2) wants to remove the facade. ESPECIALLY if the redevelopment receives public tax breaks or other incentives. Good grief, the gadflies would have a fit.
I think the council regulars beef would be the tax incentives themselves. I do agree that you would almost certainly see a public outcry though. On the other hand, I don't think council would even suggest to a developer that they would grant incentives for such a project.
Well I think we have found the reason why the building has been vacant for so long; it is difficult to make it work with the facade that is there but to eliminate it would be cause for major hatred.
Comments
Thanks to all of you on this forum for paying close attention to what is going on. I stop in here regularly to soak up your feedback.
Cheers
His only reference to an unannounced project: "Stay tuned for even more good news. Soon we will announce yet another major new development in the heart of our downtown."