Wow. This is the essence of a forum. Although we wish there was some sort of wand that could be waived and we could see the end result, but we cant.
The thing about momentum, and I say this because I was the ED for Reo Town last year when we had tons of momentum. Businesses inquiring about moving in, more foot traffic than since the factory days, 4 huge events etc. It wasnt by any means the toast of the town, but it had momentum. Then a thing happened and it all fell apart. This year there was one event, the Reo Town bike show. There is no Music Festival and other events. Cadillac Club transformed from a struggling resturant into an "issue" and 3 other businesses folded or moved.
I say that to say that we are in between (in my opinion) what LMich & Randy believe. If this falters we lose the momentum that will be numbing, but not crippling. Its not the end all be all. Yet that loss of momentum, like in Reo Town, may have unforseen consequences that will indeed make things more difficult to attract prospective developers for God knows how long. One thing that I have learned is that developers are very sensitive when it comes to these types of setbacks and get a bit pouty if they dont receive what they think they should. Whether or not thats right or not, doesnt make much of a difference if multiple other developments get scratched because Gillespe gets upset at this vote.
In conclusion, I think it prudent of us to voice our concerns to the appropriate individuals. The power has always been in the hands of the people and thus our future is as well. Which wheel is going to squeak the loudest?
I'm new here but migrated from UrbanPlanet where I've kept tabs on Lansing since I left E.L. almost a decade ago. My parents still live in East Lansing, so I obviously have a vested interest in the metro. Anyhow, after seeing how lively this site is and how much more action it gets than UrbanPlanet (no offense, UP), I decided to sign up here.
Since everyone else is making their opinion known, of course I am for the Market and the other two developments tied into it. I do think that it will be a huge blow to growth in Lansing if it doesn't pass, but it won't be the nail in the coffin that some say. However, I think even a 'blow' to growth would be disastrous. If growth slows even a little bit, the critical mass will be even farther away, and another surge will take what, 5? 10 years? If the ball stops rolling or even slows down, we have to do everything we have already done with this current revival to start it going again.
I just wanted to address LMich's earlier comment as well. You mentioned that credibility was lost if you're a 'fair weather' fan... I understand what you're saying, but I think these fair weather fans are the very people we should be listening to. Isn't it this group, the educated, young professionals with urban ideas and progressive thinking the ones that Lansing incessantly talks about NEEDING to attract? These are the people that might, like micro, move here for a job etc., but it is our job to keep them here. Maybe they don't have the same 'best interest' as you do in Lansing at heart, but it is in OUR 'best interest' to keep them interested at all! Without people who take a chance on Lansing, we'll never grow the numbers dedicated to Lansing's best interest. Micro represents the exact group of people that Lansing has been trying to attract for years, and is finally able to do it. But, like he says, people moving to the area don't have the ties, the devotion, etc. to Lansing that others do, but that's all the more reason to cater to them. If Chicago and New York didn't cater to visitors and those wishing to flock to them, and only catered to residents with its 'best interest' at heart, they'd implode. Any thriving, urban city has to attract fresh meat - sophisticated, urbane, and educated newcomers like Micro, that come here for a job or school, and stay because Lansing wins them over. I think Micro sums up Lansing's major problem very well - we're competing with not just Chicago, but Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Columbus, Milwaukee, and the other 'urban revival' communities around the midwest. I think that has to inform our call to action, to make the city what we want for ourselves. What are we going to do to make sure it's Lansing they choose instead?
I'll say that I realized the risk in putting my personal story out there. But I did so because I wanted people to see that the work that's already been done to attract young professionals is in fact working. Often, I think people think that when they hear the mayor or other developers talk about attracting this group they blow it off as just talk, a dream or BS. So I wanted to put myself out there to say it's not just talk, that what's been happening can and is attracting people who aren't coming here just cause they have family here and with continued improvement we WILL attract more.
Again, I have calmed down a bit with the end of times talk, and I completely agree that this WON'T be the nail in the coffin. But my worry, and I think a very legitimate one, is how long will it take to recover from this potential setback. And as I've already said, even though I'm a "fair weather fan" I'm not going to go running out the door in the next couple of months if this doesn't pass, I will stick out it for a while longer, but if in the next 1-2 years 2-3 more projects fall apart (Such as BallPark North, Capitol Club and Kalamazoo Gateway), that is when I'll have to reconsider whether I want to stick around. So to be clear, I'm not taking a threat approach to the City Market in which "if they vote no I'll leave", but more of a concern for how this will affect growth in the next 3-5 years. I have no doubt that Lansing would rebound from a defeat on this project in 10-15 years, but for me personally, I don't know if I can stick around that long to see it happen.
Also, one thing that is frustrating to me about this, is as a few people pointed out at the City Council meeting, the vast majority of the complaints presented by the opponents, and one's I think are fair arguments, were detailed contractual things that could be worked out and moved forward.
I saw this article today and I wonder what people here think about this issue? I really am not knowledgable/experienced with this topic so I don't know what to think.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080806/NEWS03/808060352/1004/NEWS03
I'm all for new development, attracting new citizens, and get just as excited as everyone else when projects such as Marketplace are proposed. There is not one central city development project that I have not supported and cheered on.
But, a sorespot is hit when hyperbole and stage theatrics are introduced to the discussion, and when attracting new residents is raised above keeping those we have. I'm also not keen on the idea that we need to attract new residents at the expense of the ones that have been here for years helping keep the city from becoming the next Flint, which often gets overlooked in these discussions. I'm also a bit tired with the "fair-weather" visitors who display a complete and utter self-centeredness when it comes to this city. Contrary to popular belief, though Lansing is a better city with more people, Lansing was a city before them, and it will be a city whether they choose to stay here of not. I'm tired of the hyperbole. If anyone had been in Lansing in the 80's or early 90's, they'd know that though Lansing has gone through changes in population, the city is FAR better off than it was then in almost all regards.
You see, my Lansing is a living and breathing thing. You want to see the Lansing that allows for this downtown revitalization to even have a chance to happen in the first place? Go spend a day with the likes of Joan Nelson of the Allen Neighborhood Center who are on the frontlines of keeping Lansing livable. Go visit Councilwoman Kathie Dunbar who's also the director of the South Lansing Community Development Association and see her work. Go volunteer with the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition who've taken dozens and dozens of dilapidated historic homes across this city and allowed folks that otherwise would have a chance to own their first homes. Lansing not simply some Disneyland and play-thing for Generation Me-Me-Me impatients, drama kings and queens, the dubiously labeled "creative class", and trust fund babies and brats.
I'll cheer on Market Place and Ballpark North and all of the others. I'll write in support of all of these like I've done every other project. But, I will not be under any illusions, as some obviously are, that Lansing will all but cease to exist if it doesn't make it (which it will). I'm also in my 20's, but I grew up here. I've seen the Lansing neighborhoods that rarely ever see the benefit of these projects, yet they support them anyway.
I guess I simply want you all to remember that there is a Lansing outside of downtown, a Lansing that was, is, and will continue to be with or without Market Place. Next time you're downtown, think about the 110,000 or so other folks who live outside the core, for once, and make an effort to get to know the rest of it.
Point taken, LMich, and in rereading my post I thought it might come off more of a critique of your statement than I meant. I completely agree with what you're saying, but I think our focuses are just different. I think that for any city to be successful there needs to be a healthy balance of both of our positions. I lived in East Lansing for 20 years, went to classes at LCC, and am a huge proponent of the area, and that's precisely what fuels my desire to introduce new people to the city. I don't think anyone has suggested alienating the current residents - as you said, you yourself have supported most every downtown development proposal, so I don't think anything said here has been advocating that. In any gentrification there will be 'losers', often the former residents of an area and the poor. I don't think that equals alienating the residents, but it is a big concern obviously. I also think it's a two-way street. Lansing residents that aren't affected 'directly' by developments like these still benefit. More choices, more ameneties, more options, more recreation, more diversity...The trust fund babies (though I kinda object to that - it's not their fault they have a trust fund ;-) ) should step out of the core and explore, but the residents that don't think they benefit from a strong core would suffer (see: Flint, etc.) if the momentum dies. I understand what you're saying though - there is a Lansing outside downtown and the development going on, and there will always be that thriving world. That's why I love developments like this though - they draw the new people in, who, while they may be the 'me' generation or trust fund babies, can then do the 'discover your own city' walks, or the art tours, or trips to the local markets and community centers, and discover the rest of Lansing. I live in New York City now, and ask any tourist what they love, it will be the theaters and Times Square and all the central attractions that get people here in the first place. But any resident will tell a different story - one of the neighborhoods and the side markets and the street fairs that people don't usually see until they live here. But, no one would want to move here in the first place without the central attractions. I guess that's how I formed my opinion and why I feel so passionately about it. I want people to discover the Lansing that both you and I know, and become part of it, largely because of exactly what you said - we don't want it to become another Flint. I don't think anyone is saying that Lansing would cease to exist, but there are obviously different opinions on how a failed Market Place would impact the momentum downtown. I know there's a whole Lansing out there that doesn't get talked about on these forums, but when people are attracted by an awesome core, they'll discover the rest that surrounds it. In any case, I hope I didn't offend you at all - I know your efforts and commitment from over on Urban Planet and you're a great asset to Lansing. Long story short, I think it's pretty clear Market Place will pass, and no one can say the effect it would have if it didn't (and hopefully we'll never have to find out). I didn't mean to be confrontational, just put in a word for the newbie - guess I'm just happy to have another Lansing convert
My latest responses was also not so much directed at you, and I don't bear any anger towards you. You seem to have thought this issue out, and it appears we're on the same page. I had to vent.
My objection to the responses from the very beginning had much less to with development (as I said, I'm pro-development in every sense of the word), and everything to do with the whipping up of hysteria of fear of this project failing when NO evidence existed to suggest that the council would not pass this.
Maybe it needs to keep being repeated, but the council has never turned down a major development project in the core, for which they are vociferously criticized by the anti-development folks that often come to the council to speak.
Secondly, very rarely do we ever have the votes counted in the paper for a development, so that we don't know the count, or no only two on the record have come out in favor of this, doesn't mean anything.
So, as you admit yourself, this thing is going to pass. Given the likelihood of this passing, then, it was irresponsible for the LSJ to try and trump up the idea of "trouble" for this project. It was then irresponsible for people to rush here whipping up a faux-frenzy and controversy when one didn't exist. And, finally, if all of that was the case, it was unconscionable for a city official to further foment this faux-controversy.
It's one thing to simply ask for folks to write the council in support of the project, it's a whole other thing to have what appears to have been an orchestrated controversy to whip up the same support that would have come with simply asking folks to do it.
I'm not against this development; I'm against the absolutely shameless and unnecessary fear-mongering tactics used to whip up support that would have been given, otherwise. Needless to say, folks don't like to be manipulated into doing something. If you can't be transparent and honest, you're not helping your cause. It's tactics like this that will make me rethink who I support, and who I trust, in the new Lansing development community. Someone has shot themselves in the foot...
Well amen to that, LMich...
One thing I have lost touch with a bit is the local politics of Lansing - which I probably should have become more interested in, as I'm in law school now... I totally agree though - no reason for fear-mongering etc. It's a bit over the top - it's not like this project is teetering on the edge or anything. I do think it will be an amazing addition to downtown, though... possibly the biggest change there has been. I think the one thing Lansing needs the most is a vibrant waterfront, and this will be a big step towards that. Oklahoma City, Cleveland, San Antonio (and a lot of others - I'm just most familiar with these), all have built districts based on the waterfront they are blessed with, and those are the areas that lead the cultural revitalization of those cities. I can't wait for the day Lansing-ites can go walk around a market, grab a coffee on the 'boardwalk', or have a bite to eat next to the river and walk down to the museum before hitting a Lugnuts game and off out to the downtown bars...
The opinion article sounds more like they are disagreeing because of who supports the project, without much consideration for the project itself. I gave up reading when I read this: "But does it have to be on what little riverfront property we have left downtown? Think about it. Except for Riverfront Park, what in-town expanse do we have along the river for everyone’s use?"
I beleive there is already too much underutilized space along the riverfront, thats besides the fact that this project is going to make that stretch of river much nicer, more inviting and it WILL be able to be used by everyone. Thats just my little rant, I think City Pulse really needs to watch what it publishes and where it publishes, mixing opinion and news stories is a bad idea.
Both articles seemed pretty negative, and almost saying 'here's the big bad market-destroyers...but what about this lovely rendering of a refurbished old market! Isn't it nice!' Ah well. What do we all think about the vote being delayed?
Comments
The thing about momentum, and I say this because I was the ED for Reo Town last year when we had tons of momentum. Businesses inquiring about moving in, more foot traffic than since the factory days, 4 huge events etc. It wasnt by any means the toast of the town, but it had momentum. Then a thing happened and it all fell apart. This year there was one event, the Reo Town bike show. There is no Music Festival and other events. Cadillac Club transformed from a struggling resturant into an "issue" and 3 other businesses folded or moved.
I say that to say that we are in between (in my opinion) what LMich & Randy believe. If this falters we lose the momentum that will be numbing, but not crippling. Its not the end all be all. Yet that loss of momentum, like in Reo Town, may have unforseen consequences that will indeed make things more difficult to attract prospective developers for God knows how long. One thing that I have learned is that developers are very sensitive when it comes to these types of setbacks and get a bit pouty if they dont receive what they think they should. Whether or not thats right or not, doesnt make much of a difference if multiple other developments get scratched because Gillespe gets upset at this vote.
In conclusion, I think it prudent of us to voice our concerns to the appropriate individuals. The power has always been in the hands of the people and thus our future is as well. Which wheel is going to squeak the loudest?
Love this forum!
Since everyone else is making their opinion known, of course I am for the Market and the other two developments tied into it. I do think that it will be a huge blow to growth in Lansing if it doesn't pass, but it won't be the nail in the coffin that some say. However, I think even a 'blow' to growth would be disastrous. If growth slows even a little bit, the critical mass will be even farther away, and another surge will take what, 5? 10 years? If the ball stops rolling or even slows down, we have to do everything we have already done with this current revival to start it going again.
I just wanted to address LMich's earlier comment as well. You mentioned that credibility was lost if you're a 'fair weather' fan... I understand what you're saying, but I think these fair weather fans are the very people we should be listening to. Isn't it this group, the educated, young professionals with urban ideas and progressive thinking the ones that Lansing incessantly talks about NEEDING to attract? These are the people that might, like micro, move here for a job etc., but it is our job to keep them here. Maybe they don't have the same 'best interest' as you do in Lansing at heart, but it is in OUR 'best interest' to keep them interested at all! Without people who take a chance on Lansing, we'll never grow the numbers dedicated to Lansing's best interest. Micro represents the exact group of people that Lansing has been trying to attract for years, and is finally able to do it. But, like he says, people moving to the area don't have the ties, the devotion, etc. to Lansing that others do, but that's all the more reason to cater to them. If Chicago and New York didn't cater to visitors and those wishing to flock to them, and only catered to residents with its 'best interest' at heart, they'd implode. Any thriving, urban city has to attract fresh meat - sophisticated, urbane, and educated newcomers like Micro, that come here for a job or school, and stay because Lansing wins them over. I think Micro sums up Lansing's major problem very well - we're competing with not just Chicago, but Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Columbus, Milwaukee, and the other 'urban revival' communities around the midwest. I think that has to inform our call to action, to make the city what we want for ourselves. What are we going to do to make sure it's Lansing they choose instead?
Again, I have calmed down a bit with the end of times talk, and I completely agree that this WON'T be the nail in the coffin. But my worry, and I think a very legitimate one, is how long will it take to recover from this potential setback. And as I've already said, even though I'm a "fair weather fan" I'm not going to go running out the door in the next couple of months if this doesn't pass, I will stick out it for a while longer, but if in the next 1-2 years 2-3 more projects fall apart (Such as BallPark North, Capitol Club and Kalamazoo Gateway), that is when I'll have to reconsider whether I want to stick around. So to be clear, I'm not taking a threat approach to the City Market in which "if they vote no I'll leave", but more of a concern for how this will affect growth in the next 3-5 years. I have no doubt that Lansing would rebound from a defeat on this project in 10-15 years, but for me personally, I don't know if I can stick around that long to see it happen.
Also, one thing that is frustrating to me about this, is as a few people pointed out at the City Council meeting, the vast majority of the complaints presented by the opponents, and one's I think are fair arguments, were detailed contractual things that could be worked out and moved forward.
I saw this article today and I wonder what people here think about this issue? I really am not knowledgable/experienced with this topic so I don't know what to think.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080806/NEWS03/808060352/1004/NEWS03
I'm all for new development, attracting new citizens, and get just as excited as everyone else when projects such as Marketplace are proposed. There is not one central city development project that I have not supported and cheered on.
But, a sorespot is hit when hyperbole and stage theatrics are introduced to the discussion, and when attracting new residents is raised above keeping those we have. I'm also not keen on the idea that we need to attract new residents at the expense of the ones that have been here for years helping keep the city from becoming the next Flint, which often gets overlooked in these discussions. I'm also a bit tired with the "fair-weather" visitors who display a complete and utter self-centeredness when it comes to this city. Contrary to popular belief, though Lansing is a better city with more people, Lansing was a city before them, and it will be a city whether they choose to stay here of not. I'm tired of the hyperbole. If anyone had been in Lansing in the 80's or early 90's, they'd know that though Lansing has gone through changes in population, the city is FAR better off than it was then in almost all regards.
You see, my Lansing is a living and breathing thing. You want to see the Lansing that allows for this downtown revitalization to even have a chance to happen in the first place? Go spend a day with the likes of Joan Nelson of the Allen Neighborhood Center who are on the frontlines of keeping Lansing livable. Go visit Councilwoman Kathie Dunbar who's also the director of the South Lansing Community Development Association and see her work. Go volunteer with the Greater Lansing Housing Coalition who've taken dozens and dozens of dilapidated historic homes across this city and allowed folks that otherwise would have a chance to own their first homes. Lansing not simply some Disneyland and play-thing for Generation Me-Me-Me impatients, drama kings and queens, the dubiously labeled "creative class", and trust fund babies and brats.
I'll cheer on Market Place and Ballpark North and all of the others. I'll write in support of all of these like I've done every other project. But, I will not be under any illusions, as some obviously are, that Lansing will all but cease to exist if it doesn't make it (which it will). I'm also in my 20's, but I grew up here. I've seen the Lansing neighborhoods that rarely ever see the benefit of these projects, yet they support them anyway.
I guess I simply want you all to remember that there is a Lansing outside of downtown, a Lansing that was, is, and will continue to be with or without Market Place. Next time you're downtown, think about the 110,000 or so other folks who live outside the core, for once, and make an effort to get to know the rest of it.
My latest responses was also not so much directed at you, and I don't bear any anger towards you. You seem to have thought this issue out, and it appears we're on the same page. I had to vent.
My objection to the responses from the very beginning had much less to with development (as I said, I'm pro-development in every sense of the word), and everything to do with the whipping up of hysteria of fear of this project failing when NO evidence existed to suggest that the council would not pass this.
Maybe it needs to keep being repeated, but the council has never turned down a major development project in the core, for which they are vociferously criticized by the anti-development folks that often come to the council to speak.
Secondly, very rarely do we ever have the votes counted in the paper for a development, so that we don't know the count, or no only two on the record have come out in favor of this, doesn't mean anything.
So, as you admit yourself, this thing is going to pass. Given the likelihood of this passing, then, it was irresponsible for the LSJ to try and trump up the idea of "trouble" for this project. It was then irresponsible for people to rush here whipping up a faux-frenzy and controversy when one didn't exist. And, finally, if all of that was the case, it was unconscionable for a city official to further foment this faux-controversy.
It's one thing to simply ask for folks to write the council in support of the project, it's a whole other thing to have what appears to have been an orchestrated controversy to whip up the same support that would have come with simply asking folks to do it.
I'm not against this development; I'm against the absolutely shameless and unnecessary fear-mongering tactics used to whip up support that would have been given, otherwise. Needless to say, folks don't like to be manipulated into doing something. If you can't be transparent and honest, you're not helping your cause. It's tactics like this that will make me rethink who I support, and who I trust, in the new Lansing development community. Someone has shot themselves in the foot...
One thing I have lost touch with a bit is the local politics of Lansing - which I probably should have become more interested in, as I'm in law school now... I totally agree though - no reason for fear-mongering etc. It's a bit over the top - it's not like this project is teetering on the edge or anything. I do think it will be an amazing addition to downtown, though... possibly the biggest change there has been. I think the one thing Lansing needs the most is a vibrant waterfront, and this will be a big step towards that. Oklahoma City, Cleveland, San Antonio (and a lot of others - I'm just most familiar with these), all have built districts based on the waterfront they are blessed with, and those are the areas that lead the cultural revitalization of those cities. I can't wait for the day Lansing-ites can go walk around a market, grab a coffee on the 'boardwalk', or have a bite to eat next to the river and walk down to the museum before hitting a Lugnuts game and off out to the downtown bars...
For a better Lansing ... for all (OPINION)
Apples and oranges
The opinion article sounds more like they are disagreeing because of who supports the project, without much consideration for the project itself. I gave up reading when I read this: "But does it have to be on what little riverfront property we have left downtown? Think about it. Except for Riverfront Park, what in-town expanse do we have along the river for everyone’s use?"
I beleive there is already too much underutilized space along the riverfront, thats besides the fact that this project is going to make that stretch of river much nicer, more inviting and it WILL be able to be used by everyone. Thats just my little rant, I think City Pulse really needs to watch what it publishes and where it publishes, mixing opinion and news stories is a bad idea.