I won't be holding my breath, but I view it as inevitable that he will eventually develop those lots. Maybe he's waiting for the city to fund a parking solution, I'm not sure how likely that is though.
I'm not a developer, so I don't know the costs associated with underground parking, but there must be diminishing returns on this or you'd think he would build underground for parking and use the surface for additional units in dense...or intended dense districts like downtown.
It seems as though the Marketplace lot could have supported a phase 3 equal in size to the previous phases if we invested in underground parking from the beginning.
Are parking lots so lucrative that "developers" just sit on these huge areas of downtown and rake in parking fees? Building owners are required to keep up their property why do these lot owners get away with these eyesores? I may be wrong but it seems the Urban Systems guys are doing the same thing. Nearly all the surface lots on the south side of downtown have new signage that says Lansing Community Housing on the same lots they have been talking about developing.
Here is my bright idea, the city could build a couple of massive parking structures on the Cedar Larch corridor, offer a free and easy trip to the center of downtown, charge far less for parking than the surface lots and take away their customers. This could inspire these guys to build something and make more money from rents and leases in a building. How about making the city parking free! Would anarchy brake out?:} Maybe the taxes collected on now built on surface lots would offset much of the loss of revenue from parking fees. It's my belief that paying for parking is the one thing that keeps many people from even considering going downtown. It has been the same problem for about 70 years or whenever they started charging. Just brainstorming I know this is very unlikely.
Caught this little thing in tonight's council agenda. P&D committee is forwarding to the council a request for an easement along Michigan Avenue for some underground (3-to-5 feet down) footings. It's funny, because the footings would only extend 24"/2' into the Michigan Avenue right-of-way, but they have to request it.
I guess that thing I see onsite isn't a pile driver then if they are only pouring footings, or maybe part of it will have footings and part will be supported by piles. I don't know the technical aspects of this one. In any case, further proof that construction will pick up very quickly in the next month.
Saw that they had put up a nice stone retaining wall on the south property line, or at least something fashioned to look like stone if it isn't. I was just glad to see they didn't put up some crude cinder-block retaining wall.
The wall looks good, and the remaining houses will be above the parking lot on the hill there which is better than being right on the same level as the lot I would think.
There were so many service stations back in the day I bet there are many more of these buried treasures in every neighborhood of Lansing. In Mass.[sorry for the Mass reference again!] the property owner has to dig them up when they close a gas station permanently. They can not just let the tanks sit in the ground.
Do the gas stations have to pay a fee to the state when they bury a tank? I wonder if some of the money for the brownfield payment comes from the gas station owner. What I hope would happen is:
1. Company proposes to build a gas station
2. Company has to prepay the cost of removal of the tanks
3. In the event that the gas station closes, then the tanks can get removed automatically by the state
The benefit here would be that we could get environmental cleanup before someone wants to build on the property.
All underground storage tanks have to be removed in Michigan, too, within a year of abandonment. Of course, I doubt the law (signed in '94) is retroactive. BTW, a new underground storage tank (UTS) cleanup fund was signed into law at the end of 2014.
Comments
I'm not a developer, so I don't know the costs associated with underground parking, but there must be diminishing returns on this or you'd think he would build underground for parking and use the surface for additional units in dense...or intended dense districts like downtown.
It seems as though the Marketplace lot could have supported a phase 3 equal in size to the previous phases if we invested in underground parking from the beginning.
Are parking lots so lucrative that "developers" just sit on these huge areas of downtown and rake in parking fees? Building owners are required to keep up their property why do these lot owners get away with these eyesores? I may be wrong but it seems the Urban Systems guys are doing the same thing. Nearly all the surface lots on the south side of downtown have new signage that says Lansing Community Housing on the same lots they have been talking about developing.
Here is my bright idea, the city could build a couple of massive parking structures on the Cedar Larch corridor, offer a free and easy trip to the center of downtown, charge far less for parking than the surface lots and take away their customers. This could inspire these guys to build something and make more money from rents and leases in a building. How about making the city parking free! Would anarchy brake out?:} Maybe the taxes collected on now built on surface lots would offset much of the loss of revenue from parking fees. It's my belief that paying for parking is the one thing that keeps many people from even considering going downtown. It has been the same problem for about 70 years or whenever they started charging. Just brainstorming I know this is very unlikely.
Caught this little thing in tonight's council agenda. P&D committee is forwarding to the council a request for an easement along Michigan Avenue for some underground (3-to-5 feet down) footings. It's funny, because the footings would only extend 24"/2' into the Michigan Avenue right-of-way, but they have to request it.
I guess that thing I see onsite isn't a pile driver then if they are only pouring footings, or maybe part of it will have footings and part will be supported by piles. I don't know the technical aspects of this one. In any case, further proof that construction will pick up very quickly in the next month.
Saw that they had put up a nice stone retaining wall on the south property line, or at least something fashioned to look like stone if it isn't. I was just glad to see they didn't put up some crude cinder-block retaining wall.
Look what they've found during excavation: the old gasoline tanks!
https://twitter.com/GillespieGrp/status/1145692323759738881
Now this one was a true brownfield for sure.
The wall looks good, and the remaining houses will be above the parking lot on the hill there which is better than being right on the same level as the lot I would think.
There were so many service stations back in the day I bet there are many more of these buried treasures in every neighborhood of Lansing. In Mass.[sorry for the Mass reference again!] the property owner has to dig them up when they close a gas station permanently. They can not just let the tanks sit in the ground.
Do the gas stations have to pay a fee to the state when they bury a tank? I wonder if some of the money for the brownfield payment comes from the gas station owner. What I hope would happen is:
1. Company proposes to build a gas station
2. Company has to prepay the cost of removal of the tanks
3. In the event that the gas station closes, then the tanks can get removed automatically by the state
The benefit here would be that we could get environmental cleanup before someone wants to build on the property.
All underground storage tanks have to be removed in Michigan, too, within a year of abandonment. Of course, I doubt the law (signed in '94) is retroactive. BTW, a new underground storage tank (UTS) cleanup fund was signed into law at the end of 2014.
Act 451 of 1994
FAQ: Registration of Underground Storage Tanks
Nice I didn't know that. Yeah, it will take a long time before the pre-1994 stations have been cleaned up.