Look at this Kodachrome shot taken from the Michigan Avenue bridge (Grand Avenue crossing in the mid-ground) from 1957 courtesy the Jamie Silvers who shared it with the historical socieities Facebook ground.
It's the little buildings that give cities life, and while we saved a lot of the high-rises, we did very poorly keeping the streetwalls along the cross-streets (Michigan, Shiawassee, Ottawa, Allegan, K'zoo, etc.)
Agreed on your last point. I think one of the biggest things holding downtown back at this point is the fact our downtown commercial district basically consists of three and a half blocks of Wahsington Sq, to have a metro area with a downtown who's core shopping district is just a few blocks of a single road is incredibly embarrassing. To feel somewhat complete downtown needs to have Washington's storefronts extend further north and south, all the east-west streets between Capitol and Grand need to be better developed as does Capitol and especially Grand Ave, then there's the Stadium district which is it's own beast and seems to be on a better path than the core of downtown has been. We have a very long road to a truly walkable downtown with a proper shopping/restaurant district.
It's true that we tore down a lot of great buildings that framed the streets downtown. In hindsight, many of them could have been saved. It looks so busy full of people and businesses. I think that any restoration of a downtown retail district would have to include more people living there, and retail shops that serve those people, like the new Capital City Market. North Washington Square really has nothing that would entice LCC students to cross the street to shop and eat. There are surface lots there that were cleared for "urban renewal" in the '70s that could be sites for housing with ground-floor retail and restaurant space. A more useful and attractive pedestrian bridge connecting the riverfronts could be an attraction in itself. Add more civic attractions to give people a reason to come downtown. I think that once we pass the present situation people will want to come back to the city center if there is a reason to be there, we could also use a more energetic and imaginative business association. I have observed that people around here really love getting together downtown and would do so more for almost any reason. It also seems like there are a lot of landowners that are just sitting on there properties for decades, what are they waiting for? the city should be more aggressive in getting those empty lots developed. The place naming thing may be hindering "Downtown" development as well, maybe there are potential tenants and developers who would consider building or like to live in the Stadium District, but would not consider living Downtown which is just a few blocks west due to long-held negative and outdated impressions of what is and isn't downtown. In my thoughts it is all "downtown" from REOtown to Old Town from East Michigan to Sparrow to the Capitol Complex is all downtown in my mind. All these great places are "Downtown Lansing", which could be a better way of marketing the whole area.
gbinlansing I think the landowners are waiting to make more money. Sitting on undeveloped land is very cheap and incentivized compared to developing it and/or selling it right away. Until things change, expect those empty lots/parking to remain.
Of course, I understand that it's all about money. Thirty or forty years is a "long term" investment that's for sure. Meanwhile, the rest of us get to look at a half-empty downtown. I know business people do not have to be civic-minded and many are actually, it just seems pretty selfish and depresses the downtown neighborhoods to sit on these important sections of our city waiting for the big day when someone meets their price. Lower your price, build something, and make money from that! The above photo shows that if there is someplace to visit [stores, restaurants, theaters, service businesses, hotels] people will come downtown.
I was happy to see in the City Pulse that the Holmes Street School project is moving towards the start of construction. I could not find the drawings referred to in the article but I like the "Blackboard District" name.
There are ways to fix the problems created by land speculators. NYC has been pushing towards an added tax to pied-à-terre residences as an example of taxing people more for use cases that are not helping the community. Lansing could propose a higher tax for surface parking lots for example, which could remove most of the profits that the speculators are taking and force them to build or sell.
Yes, I think that this would be one way to get these landowners into action. I think the city could also require landscaping and fencing in the downtown district as another way to add cost to their operations. Maybe a tax credit for pulling up blacktop or building on vacant lots could work. I am thinking that with the new work from home ethic taking hold there will be a reduced market of customers for the surface parking lots this could also work to get them to build something.
I've been studying this in the zoning code as a means of understanding how we can make things better. From my reading of the current zoning code, landscaping/buffering seems to only be required when a non-residential use abuts a primarily residential use or when a single family or duplex abuts a higher-density residential use. And yard requirements for a parking lot depend on the district in which the parking is located. So for instance, there are no yard requirements for downtown, so none of the parking downtown is required to have any setbacks or landscaping, though a few do, anyway.
I'm kind of a broken record on this, but the long-proposed Form Based Code would greatly restrict leveling existing buildings for parking. Each zone would now also include landscaping requirements, instead of them just being listed generally and seperately later in the code. In the FBC, with a few exceptions, no demolition permit could be issued for non-required parking. That means that if there is enough parking around to meet all of the requirements of the surrounding properties, you couldn't tear down a building to make extra parking. And even more specifically, a demolition permit could not be issued to demolish a structure on a site zoned for non-residential purposes simply to make open spaces. Exceptions include when a development plan is made between the City and the owner, in which the City could careful review the plan for the development as opposed to a typical project which goes through the Planning Office. Another exception also goes through the City in which it could be part of a special land use review. Another major one is if the city building safety office deems it a hazardous structure.
Long story short, it'd become much harder to tear down buildings for parking under the new FBC, and especially for parking. Furthermore, the FBC would abolish the current J Parking zoning district the zoning code currently has (though it's pretty rarely used). The restrictions on demolitions would incentivize owners to fix/restore existing properties or build something more intense in its place. They'd no longer be allowed to demolish a building and put up parking or grass over the site and just sit on it for years/decades.
The Planning Office told me a month or two ago that they'd be sending the FBC to council 'before the end of the year.' But we're getting close and I've not seen it placed on any city council agenda yet. If anyone else can get any info out of them on whether 3 years the new mayor got in they'll send the FBC to council by contacting the Planning Office Director, here you go...
Comments
It's the little buildings that give cities life, and while we saved a lot of the high-rises, we did very poorly keeping the streetwalls along the cross-streets (Michigan, Shiawassee, Ottawa, Allegan, K'zoo, etc.)
Agreed on your last point. I think one of the biggest things holding downtown back at this point is the fact our downtown commercial district basically consists of three and a half blocks of Wahsington Sq, to have a metro area with a downtown who's core shopping district is just a few blocks of a single road is incredibly embarrassing. To feel somewhat complete downtown needs to have Washington's storefronts extend further north and south, all the east-west streets between Capitol and Grand need to be better developed as does Capitol and especially Grand Ave, then there's the Stadium district which is it's own beast and seems to be on a better path than the core of downtown has been. We have a very long road to a truly walkable downtown with a proper shopping/restaurant district.
I'm kind of a broken record on this, but the long-proposed Form Based Code would greatly restrict leveling existing buildings for parking. Each zone would now also include landscaping requirements, instead of them just being listed generally and seperately later in the code. In the FBC, with a few exceptions, no demolition permit could be issued for non-required parking. That means that if there is enough parking around to meet all of the requirements of the surrounding properties, you couldn't tear down a building to make extra parking. And even more specifically, a demolition permit could not be issued to demolish a structure on a site zoned for non-residential purposes simply to make open spaces. Exceptions include when a development plan is made between the City and the owner, in which the City could careful review the plan for the development as opposed to a typical project which goes through the Planning Office. Another exception also goes through the City in which it could be part of a special land use review. Another major one is if the city building safety office deems it a hazardous structure.
Long story short, it'd become much harder to tear down buildings for parking under the new FBC, and especially for parking. Furthermore, the FBC would abolish the current J Parking zoning district the zoning code currently has (though it's pretty rarely used). The restrictions on demolitions would incentivize owners to fix/restore existing properties or build something more intense in its place. They'd no longer be allowed to demolish a building and put up parking or grass over the site and just sit on it for years/decades.
The Planning Office told me a month or two ago that they'd be sending the FBC to council 'before the end of the year.' But we're getting close and I've not seen it placed on any city council agenda yet. If anyone else can get any info out of them on whether 3 years the new mayor got in they'll send the FBC to council by contacting the Planning Office Director, here you go...
https://www.lansingmi.gov/266/Planning-Office