Reading more of this, I'm a bit excited that so much of this will be workforce housing, and because so much of this is funded with the affordable housing grants we got in the state budget, this isn't a wishful-thinking set of projects. A huge part of the financing is already nailed down because of that. Also, the office space already has a tenant. This was well coordinated. I also like that the Gentilozzi's are saying they don't want their tower to be the tallest for long; they are hoping this gets other nearby property owners to stop sitting on their lots. *ahem Grangers ahem Eydes ahem*
I'd REALLY like to see the South Grand Ramp torn down, though, to open that area to the river, though I know this isn't going to happen.
It's funny because a year or so ago when i brought up loving to see some taller buildings constructed here, it was frowned upon. Now here we are. I'm all for it and have been. Yes, it should cater to the right things of course. I just feel as though this city fell behind years ago with evolving to cater to the 30's age range, let alone things to do for the youth. The majority of 20's-40's age range leaves Lansing for things to do and that's money down the drain. After this project i'd love to see someone focus on getting College students to spend more money in Lansing, enhance tourism...etc. Keep money in Lansing!
I hate to start out negative but creating another tunnel on Grand Ave is a non-starter for me, that absolutely should not be allowed under any circumstances, it'd be a big mistake. If given a choice I'd actually pass on Lansing's new tallest over something like that.
Besides that I love the locations and scale of all the projects. I've wanted the old Prudden HQ to switch to apartments since before the last time they did an office remodel so that one's great to see. Seeing some density on W Ottawa is fantastic, I noticed those houses boarded up a couple months ago and wondered what was in store. The Tower on the Grand is what I hope to be the first of multiple riverfront/Grand Ave high-rises.
All that being said, the actual designs shown in the renderings are 'meh' at best, but the quality of the renderings themselves are poor so I don't put too much stock into what I'm seeing in those pictures, they seem preliminary. I like the overall shape and look of the Grand Ave building while I'm less thrilled with the squat look of that curved front on the Ottawa & Walnut building. A little care to rework the Prudden building's ground floor retail storefronts back to something more period correct or to modern frameless glass would be huge for the street level, the brick that's there is horribly ugly. As always, quality of materials will be a huge factor in how these turn out.
My big, big beef is just with the building going over Grand Ave creating a tunnel. It's bad for the streetscape and could be massively detrimental to future development along Grand. If he *needs* connectivity with his Atrium Building/Washington Sq he can build a skywalk. I hope this isn't a sticking point.
I heard someone say that the parking was required to get financing for this; I hope that's not true. I'm not a fan of building over the street, either, but my thing is that you literally have a parking garage next to another parking garage; it's overkill. I get that it's two different owners and you'll be adding hundreds of people, but at some point someone has to be able to just build useable space literally downtown without directly connected/dedicated parking. This does absolutely nothing to activate Grand, which should be one of the city's goals, especially since it's been switched back to two-way.
I think acceptance of the state grants to build all of this goes through council. The mayor wants to rush, but I want council to apply some pressure to see if they can get better site plans for Tower on the Grand. BTW, am I crazy, or are they turning the low-rise building on Washington into parking for the Washington Square Office Building redo? That's a no-go for me; I don't care if there is ground floor retail and especially if that's just a facade they will be putting on it. The parking stuff is just too much for the literal middle of a downtown area.
They say the storefronts would remain but the "property behind them will become a parking ramp". I actually get this move, that building does need parking and there's nothing close enough to be convenient for residents. I do wonder how they're going to do this exactly though? Tear down the back of the building and actually build a small ramp?
No excuse for the Grand Ave tower tunnel though, although I admit the large rooftop play area would be cool for residents. Not worth hampering Grand Ave's prospective future as the prime residential high-rise street though imo.
Reading the article, I like the "tunnel" over grand for the reason of using the old theater arcade as an entrance off Washington. It allows and entrance for the project right in the more desirable part of downtown, and more traffic to what remains of a beautiful building.
That said, it's a lot of bad for some good. I also had the immediate though of no tunnel over Grand, but is that the worst thing for Grand given what it is right now? Tunnel situations like this aren't uncommon for major cities. It does seem like excessive parking on top of the available parking we have. Though, people that don't frequent downtown seem to think there is a shortage and don't want to pay a dime...
Anyways, I'm conflicted on the tunnel/bridge. I'm personally 50/50 on the approach.
Without getting into detail, the designs are horrible and I REALLY hope they're preliminary and just for shape and space. These designs are so outdated and horrible.
@Lymon89 I couldn't disagree more strongly tbh. Lansing cannot survive thinking that 5 blocks of Washington Sq is going to save downtown. We need square blocks of ground floor retail and mid to high-rise residential, just part of why Grand Ave needs to be focused on as its own entity. The main factor is that most of the city's best sites for high rise residential, like this proposal, are on Grand Ave; I expect it to be the premier residential street in the city if downtown continues to improve. A tunnel ruins the streetscape, the views of the city, even the views of this tower.
It basically gives the developer a free pass to hurt the surrounding area and prospective future developments so they can build a larger playground for residents on the roof. If it was just about parking or access through the atrium building he could make the ramp a couple floors taller and just do a skybridge across Grand... I'm just kinda unhappy that we get a proposal for a new tallest building and it just has to include some gotcha like this.
Yeah, the renderings are pretty crude. I imagine they're either early in the design process or they're placeholders to some extent.
We keep calling it a tunnel, but that would essentially be a skywalk, which wouldn't be the worst thing. The problem is not that it's a tunnel, it's that it's a whole damn parking garage built over the street. We literally just corrected that mistake when we tore down the eastern half of the garage up the street. Cities have (rightfully) gotten away from these kind of planning mistakes; it'd be crazy to literally go backwards. And not to continue to belabor the point too much, but it's literally a parking garage that will back up to another parking garage to creat an 'L' of parking! lol I think on top of it just being beyond silly, that it actually makes it harder to rent the place out. You're building a tower on a street and on the riverfront that looks like it doesn't interact with either. I can't even put into words how crazy that sounds typing that.
What I was expecting was that they'd build the tower on the lot behind the Atrium Building. You could then use the office building as an entrance off of Washington OR use an entrance on Grand. If you need a parking garages, then build that shit on the lots the blocks to the south which certainly couldn't have been more expensive than the lots they had to purchase on the riverfront. The siting of this is completely ass-backwards and I hope the city pressures them into thinking more creatively about how this is site.
As for Washington, I don't really care about the existing building, but I'm a firm "no" to having any kind of parking on the only semi-intact corridor we have downtown. I'm not for continuing to create dead-spaces, let alone on Washington.
More housing? Great! More height? Great! Everything else? Well, that needs A LOT of work and reimagination. We're trying to fit things into downtown, now, instead of trying to fit downtown around these things. This project is making the mistake of trying to do the latter, again.
I get what you're all saying, but I also think a Grand only entrance would be a hard sell right now for anyone leasing. I'm not suggesting we only cater to Washington, but at this point that's a pretty desolate stretch of grand. I think building it behind the atrium would have been nice but I also don't think that site is big enough for a 25 story tower. Once you put in at least 2 stairs, elevators, mechanical, etc. there wouldn't be much left for anything else it seems like.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of all that parking either. It's creating another building that lacks a street presence. I'm on the same page as you all, just saying I don't think it's the worst thing in the world.
Of course, there's always room for change as they work through design development. I don't understand why a developer wants to pay for that much parking, to be honest. It's my understanding that it's not required for its location.
Though, I do worry with them planning to start construction by the end of the year, they may be well into construction documents. Or were looking at a later start date, if it happens.
Just saying that I don't think it's the worst. It could have been better for sure, but not a disaster by any means.
IMO the problem is just that it's a basically tunnel, I don't care whether it's parking or some other use. I wouldn't call any structure built over a street that's almost a half a block long just a skywalk. I just don't want the street closed in like that. I'm definitely not gonna put energy into complaining about the Washington Ave ramp: it looks like storefronts, has no driveway onto Washington and is truly needed for that project to work.
I feel like if there's too much complaining about too many things the administration is likely to just ignore the complaints or kill the projects. I'm not thrilled with every aspect of these plans, but that garage going over Grand HAS to be stopped imo. My energy will be exclusively focused on that.
Comments
I'd REALLY like to see the South Grand Ramp torn down, though, to open that area to the river, though I know this isn't going to happen.
Besides that I love the locations and scale of all the projects. I've wanted the old Prudden HQ to switch to apartments since before the last time they did an office remodel so that one's great to see. Seeing some density on W Ottawa is fantastic, I noticed those houses boarded up a couple months ago and wondered what was in store. The Tower on the Grand is what I hope to be the first of multiple riverfront/Grand Ave high-rises.
All that being said, the actual designs shown in the renderings are 'meh' at best, but the quality of the renderings themselves are poor so I don't put too much stock into what I'm seeing in those pictures, they seem preliminary. I like the overall shape and look of the Grand Ave building while I'm less thrilled with the squat look of that curved front on the Ottawa & Walnut building. A little care to rework the Prudden building's ground floor retail storefronts back to something more period correct or to modern frameless glass would be huge for the street level, the brick that's there is horribly ugly. As always, quality of materials will be a huge factor in how these turn out.
My big, big beef is just with the building going over Grand Ave creating a tunnel. It's bad for the streetscape and could be massively detrimental to future development along Grand. If he *needs* connectivity with his Atrium Building/Washington Sq he can build a skywalk. I hope this isn't a sticking point.
I think acceptance of the state grants to build all of this goes through council. The mayor wants to rush, but I want council to apply some pressure to see if they can get better site plans for Tower on the Grand. BTW, am I crazy, or are they turning the low-rise building on Washington into parking for the Washington Square Office Building redo? That's a no-go for me; I don't care if there is ground floor retail and especially if that's just a facade they will be putting on it. The parking stuff is just too much for the literal middle of a downtown area.
No excuse for the Grand Ave tower tunnel though, although I admit the large rooftop play area would be cool for residents. Not worth hampering Grand Ave's prospective future as the prime residential high-rise street though imo.
That said, it's a lot of bad for some good. I also had the immediate though of no tunnel over Grand, but is that the worst thing for Grand given what it is right now? Tunnel situations like this aren't uncommon for major cities. It does seem like excessive parking on top of the available parking we have. Though, people that don't frequent downtown seem to think there is a shortage and don't want to pay a dime...
Anyways, I'm conflicted on the tunnel/bridge. I'm personally 50/50 on the approach.
Without getting into detail, the designs are horrible and I REALLY hope they're preliminary and just for shape and space. These designs are so outdated and horrible.
https://www.fox47news.com/neighborhoods/downtown-old-town-reo-town/real-estate-company-unveils-215m-project-to-redevelop-downtown-lansing?fbclid=IwAR0YjKsTug-P7x2P6J0vT7ZmORn0-HILJ_2lj3wAWAaxYnL98t3Rh9PPTNM
@Lymon89 I couldn't disagree more strongly tbh. Lansing cannot survive thinking that 5 blocks of Washington Sq is going to save downtown. We need square blocks of ground floor retail and mid to high-rise residential, just part of why Grand Ave needs to be focused on as its own entity. The main factor is that most of the city's best sites for high rise residential, like this proposal, are on Grand Ave; I expect it to be the premier residential street in the city if downtown continues to improve. A tunnel ruins the streetscape, the views of the city, even the views of this tower.
It basically gives the developer a free pass to hurt the surrounding area and prospective future developments so they can build a larger playground for residents on the roof. If it was just about parking or access through the atrium building he could make the ramp a couple floors taller and just do a skybridge across Grand... I'm just kinda unhappy that we get a proposal for a new tallest building and it just has to include some gotcha like this.
Yeah, the renderings are pretty crude. I imagine they're either early in the design process or they're placeholders to some extent.
EDIT: Screenshot the skyline render:
What I was expecting was that they'd build the tower on the lot behind the Atrium Building. You could then use the office building as an entrance off of Washington OR use an entrance on Grand. If you need a parking garages, then build that shit on the lots the blocks to the south which certainly couldn't have been more expensive than the lots they had to purchase on the riverfront. The siting of this is completely ass-backwards and I hope the city pressures them into thinking more creatively about how this is site.
As for Washington, I don't really care about the existing building, but I'm a firm "no" to having any kind of parking on the only semi-intact corridor we have downtown. I'm not for continuing to create dead-spaces, let alone on Washington.
More housing? Great! More height? Great! Everything else? Well, that needs A LOT of work and reimagination. We're trying to fit things into downtown, now, instead of trying to fit downtown around these things. This project is making the mistake of trying to do the latter, again.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of all that parking either. It's creating another building that lacks a street presence. I'm on the same page as you all, just saying I don't think it's the worst thing in the world.
Of course, there's always room for change as they work through design development. I don't understand why a developer wants to pay for that much parking, to be honest. It's my understanding that it's not required for its location.
Though, I do worry with them planning to start construction by the end of the year, they may be well into construction documents. Or were looking at a later start date, if it happens.
Just saying that I don't think it's the worst. It could have been better for sure, but not a disaster by any means.
I feel like if there's too much complaining about too many things the administration is likely to just ignore the complaints or kill the projects. I'm not thrilled with every aspect of these plans, but that garage going over Grand HAS to be stopped imo. My energy will be exclusively focused on that.