Stadium North Lofts

2

Comments

  • That makes sense! What doesn't make sense is why they'd later put it back closer unless requested.
  • Even if not a part of this project I expect the city/BWL to work on burying lines along the Cedar/Larch corridor. The city has made it clear that they want more of this sort of development there and looking out at rickety old power poles isn't conducive to that development. I certainly hope that the city isn't overlooking the importance of burying utilities along these corridors that they want zero-setback urban development on.
  • edited September 2023
    I don't expect it, at all. It will require pressuring them; they don't do anything with lines they don't have to do. With all of the street construction and other utility construction going on around that area, that they didn't put them under with all this going on is evidence of how they view things.
  • I guess the logic is that construction workers won't be in danger post construction and it shouldn't affect residents.

    I'm with you all though. Looks terrible to have powerlines like this right up against a brand new building. As an architect, we have having to show renderings with them but it's false advertising to pretend they're not they're. Often they're a necessary evil because they rarely get put underground with a project this size.

    On a more positive note, the development looks better than expected and better than recent projects, so it's hard to complain too much about this one.
  • edited September 2023
    Oh, no doubt. Most of my comments are about how nice they look, particularly given that they aren't high-end units, and it's adding much needed affordable housing in the area. They started painting them, today, in fact.

    But yeah, you just wish there was more coordination and kind of social buy-in from the public sphere side of things. Development shouldn't just be thought of as a private entity thing, but a comprehensive thing. These kind of things do go through public city reviews, so it's not like none of that happens. But BWL (and most utilities, really) does not value general aesthetics, particularly if it costs anything. It's funny, because Consumers just announced they'll be burying more of their lines.
  • No need to wait for BWL, the city could push for and help pay for it or if enough property owners in the area are interested I'm sure they could vote for an assessment to do it as well. I also think this corridor is likely approaching time for a makeover by the state, that'd be the opportune time do the work. Same goes on all points for other streetscape improvements. As I've probably mentioned too many times by now, with a little work and foresight this corridor could see massive growth in the coming decades.
  • They are painting and putting some of the siding on the market-rate building. Something else I'd noticed I hadn't before is that they're almost finished with the internal parking lot. But what I noticed was how low the new grade is over the previous lot. I thought they'd fill it back in site to help with drainage, but the new grade looks a good 2-3 feet below the old one.

    30a9qayraz45.jpg
  • I asked about burying utility lines out of curiosity after this and was told the cost is simply too great for the City/BWL to have any hand in it. I didn't get hard numbers but got the impression I don't understand the scale of what it actually entails.
  • @citykid With all do respect to the city administration it NEEDS to be done if this area is going to be successful, many other municipalities have figured out how to do it there's no reason it can't be done here. In areas where the city wants to develop an attractive urban neighborhood utility lines simply HAVE to be buried, it's not a matter of officials just shrugging it off and saying it's too hard or expensive. If can be times with road and/or sewer work but it ultimately has to happen.

    Remind them it's a literal investment in the future of the city, just like a business would make. Bury utilities and fix the streetscaping up and you'll see a boom in development that will pay dividends in taxes, same logic holds true with the need for more parking in strategic locations around the city. This area has long been stuck in some sort of death spiral mentality.

    I got a similar response at the friends of the trail meeting regarding a trail extension west along Moores River Dr, saying it'd be "too expensive" to build a boardwalk on the river or a retaining wall along the street between Moores Park and MLK. This is said after the county has spent nearly $4 million on the less than 1.5 mile phase 1 of the Lake Lansing Trail. I didn't argue at the moment but was a bit dumbfounded at what I was hearing, throwing your hands up and saying "it's too hard" to one of the most important regional trail connections in the city isn't acceptable in my opinion. It's another thing that's not a matter of "do we build it" it's "how and when can we build it".
  • The new part of the trail by Frances Park has a similar steep bank so they did build retaining walls there, I wonder why it would be so impossible to build a wall or boardwalk along the eastern side of Moores River Drive. I think there is enough space at the riverbank level to build a trail below the street level and then go under the MLK bridge into Riverside Park, then there could be a combination sidewalk/bike trail along Moorse River Drive on the south side of the street with perhaps a wider smother sidewalk. I don't think it would be so busy there that you would have to separate the bike lanes, and this is the shared set up on most of the river trail. I think if this project were to be coupled with repaving of the street and the removal of the stupid speed bumps the neighborhood would go for it. I find it kind of ironic the Mayor and the Govenor both drive down that beat up street every day.
Sign In or Register to comment.