I was bored and started messing with my old Sketchup model of downtown, I wanted to add some of the new proposals but mostly wanted to visualize how the new block across from the CATA station might look with the new City Hall and apartments (and possibly parking), so I created a couple massings of possible layouts.
The new City Hall is in blue at the SW corner of Kalamazoo & Cherry, parking ramp in yellow, LHC apartments in purple, pedestrian plaza in green and ready-to-develop land in orange. In both versions the City Hall are about 80k-90k sq ft or so and 7-8 floors, the ramp would be roughly 600-800 spaces and the LHC apartment building would be around 100k sq ft. In the model with the apartment build wrapped around (preferable imo) the ramp the LHC apartments would be 8 floors instead of 5. The idea of building the relatively large ramp is to supply parking for future developments in the area so they will not need on-site parking.
Anyways, I did this to amuse myself and figured I'd share....
Nice to see the massing of these projects, thanks for that. The one thing that comes to mind for the first housing concept is that the corridors are going to most likely be double loaded, and I'm not sure units facing the parking structure are desirable or even feasible (for many reasons). I love the idea of wrapping it, but its more likely few floors of parking underneath the whole thing and house on top. Or, something like the second option.
What depth did you use for the "legs" of the housing building? The inside corners on housing structures can also be difficult to work with. It will likely end up just a rectangle...which is unfortunate.
The standalone apartment building is shown as 65' wide while the parking ramp wraparound is 40 ft deep. I've seen apartments built like that before, Grand Rapids had a similar apartment building/parking ramp built (38 Commerce Ave SW) maybe 10 years ago. I haven't been in one but I assume that they typically have a corridor that parallels the parking ramp with units on only one side. One advantage of this sort of setup is that the apartments and ramp can share their stairs/elevators. I don't know how it would work between the city owning the parking ramp and LHC owning the apartments, but if they could come to an agreement I'd love to see something like that.
That can work, but biggest bang for your buck will have a corridor down the center and units on both sides. Developers generally want that and have a depth of 120-140. So your scenario could work but only if they're willing to be less efficient with it. With the size of the site, I'm not sure they'll be willing to. You never know though. I'd really prefer what you proposed. I really hate a parking garage right at street level unless it's wells screened, which is something I've noticed with newer parking garages in GR.
Sharing the levels between the two is nice, if you can get the clearances to work out, which also can be tricky. I'm not sure on the separate ownership but I only imagine that would complicate things.
I'm just happy to see something happen at this site. Fingers crossed it happens.
Which dimension are you talking about for the 120'-140' depth? All the recent apartment builds I measured in the stadium district, downtown and on Michigan Ave have a depth/width/short axis dimension of 55'-70'.
I know that the apartments wrapping the parking garage is unlikely. I know it'd require the ramp having higher than normal floor-to-floor heights, negates the possibility of a stick built structure and would require the city and LHC to work out a potentially complex agreement. I'd really like the (assumedly inevitable) parking structure on this site hidden from the street.
I also couldn't be happier to having most of a block of surface parking likely going away.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I was thinking it was the short axis that was 120', but now I'm second guessing myself for a double loaded, residential corridor. I'm going to have to look at some past projects, and maybe a coworker that's done a lot of them in their past. The 60-70' for the short axis is seeming reasonable when I break it down. All I know is that there is a short axis dimension that is the most efficient and cost effective for developers...just might be confusing what that number is. If you're measuring 55-70', it must be working here. I'm probably just mistaken.
No worries, I appreciate the insight nonetheless. I just went around measuring a bunch of the modern 5 over 1 style buildings on Google Maps and all came up in that range. For the dimension of the apartments wrapped around the garage I just measured the one in GR that I remembered seeing from lurking on the GR UrbanPlanet forum years ago, I'd love to know just how rare those types of setups are.
What a basic, nondescript building. It looks like it belongs in a suburban office park in anywhere USA, if you told me it was literally a copy and paste design I wouldn't be surprised. I can't believe they wouldn't orient it to the corner if it was actually designed for this site. At least the facade isn't cheap metal panels or fiber cement or something, so that's a positive. Still being downtown is something I suppose. But even at the scale of a basic three floor building... Is doing something slightly more interesting with the design that hard? Take the same brick design, cut out a courtyard at the corner facing Grand and put the entrance there with a little glass and maybe small atrium. Add a (partial?) fourth floor with a different look (change the brick color, larger windows, maybe taller floor-to-ceiling height) for Council/other meeting chambers and the Mayor's (and maybe council's) offices. That doesn't seem too much to ask for.
New Vision and Ovation have a lot to make up for. Finger crossed that in 5 years there'll be enough positives where the Eastern and City Hall disappointments are overshadowed by better news.
When I think of the two City Halls Lansing built in the past, I think of the excellent designs that reflected the era they were built. A Romanesque castle and a Mid-Century classic office and public meeting building. Remember the marbled walls and water fall in the lobby, the public square in front, the bas- relief sculpture on the street facing facade. I am not sure, but I think those buildings were built with local funds only, with no 40 million from the state. What the two former buildings had that in their designs that this one seems to lack is pride in the design as a reflection of the aspirations and vision of the future that the people of the day thought should be a part of any public structure in Lansing. This design could be any office, high school, hospital, anywhere USA. Nothing about Lansing or it's people. Very disappointing! I have one question that seems to apply to life today "why".
I've always been and continue to be in favor of bonding out extra money to build a city hall that'll be worth keeping for generations. I'd love to see the school district include themselves and to consolidate all/most city offices here. I don't see how they get away without building a parking structure, I would think any parking structure could be financed separately through the parking system or perhaps through a developer to avoid going against the city's bond amount.
I forgot to mention among my disappointments above the fiasco that is the public safety bond and the moving of those facilities out of downtown, let alone the specific design of the new site. The courts should have joined or been adjacent to 54b and I'd have preferred to have the police at city hall. My distaste for the prospect of decades of money out of my pocket to pay for something I firmly believe is a net-negative persists.
Comments
The new City Hall is in blue at the SW corner of Kalamazoo & Cherry, parking ramp in yellow, LHC apartments in purple, pedestrian plaza in green and ready-to-develop land in orange. In both versions the City Hall are about 80k-90k sq ft or so and 7-8 floors, the ramp would be roughly 600-800 spaces and the LHC apartment building would be around 100k sq ft. In the model with the apartment build wrapped around (preferable imo) the ramp the LHC apartments would be 8 floors instead of 5. The idea of building the relatively large ramp is to supply parking for future developments in the area so they will not need on-site parking.
Anyways, I did this to amuse myself and figured I'd share....
What depth did you use for the "legs" of the housing building? The inside corners on housing structures can also be difficult to work with. It will likely end up just a rectangle...which is unfortunate.
Sharing the levels between the two is nice, if you can get the clearances to work out, which also can be tricky. I'm not sure on the separate ownership but I only imagine that would complicate things.
I'm just happy to see something happen at this site. Fingers crossed it happens.
I know that the apartments wrapping the parking garage is unlikely. I know it'd require the ramp having higher than normal floor-to-floor heights, negates the possibility of a stick built structure and would require the city and LHC to work out a potentially complex agreement. I'd really like the (assumedly inevitable) parking structure on this site hidden from the street.
I also couldn't be happier to having most of a block of surface parking likely going away.
lol
What a basic, nondescript building. It looks like it belongs in a suburban office park in anywhere USA, if you told me it was literally a copy and paste design I wouldn't be surprised. I can't believe they wouldn't orient it to the corner if it was actually designed for this site. At least the facade isn't cheap metal panels or fiber cement or something, so that's a positive. Still being downtown is something I suppose. But even at the scale of a basic three floor building... Is doing something slightly more interesting with the design that hard? Take the same brick design, cut out a courtyard at the corner facing Grand and put the entrance there with a little glass and maybe small atrium. Add a (partial?) fourth floor with a different look (change the brick color, larger windows, maybe taller floor-to-ceiling height) for Council/other meeting chambers and the Mayor's (and maybe council's) offices. That doesn't seem too much to ask for.
New Vision and Ovation have a lot to make up for. Finger crossed that in 5 years there'll be enough positives where the Eastern and City Hall disappointments are overshadowed by better news.
https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2025/03/06/andy-schor-lansing-state-of-the-city/81799770007/
https://www.ramsa.com/projects
https://www.dmsas.com/portfolio/
I've always been and continue to be in favor of bonding out extra money to build a city hall that'll be worth keeping for generations. I'd love to see the school district include themselves and to consolidate all/most city offices here. I don't see how they get away without building a parking structure, I would think any parking structure could be financed separately through the parking system or perhaps through a developer to avoid going against the city's bond amount.
I forgot to mention among my disappointments above the fiasco that is the public safety bond and the moving of those facilities out of downtown, let alone the specific design of the new site. The courts should have joined or been adjacent to 54b and I'd have preferred to have the police at city hall. My distaste for the prospect of decades of money out of my pocket to pay for something I firmly believe is a net-negative persists.