The real issue is that corner south of Lenawee on the southbound side of MLK but I get that is never going to get fixed unless the bridges all need replacing at the same time and they can reroute it then. In a perfect world all the boulevards would be gone and the land reclaimed for other purposes, and could be further road dieted in the future, but the amount of money that would take unless it needs to be rebuilt due to age would be way too high.
Ah, I hadn't even thought about it that way. It's going to be a headache no matter how they do it, then. But, yeah, that clearly say in between Ionia and St. Joseph. So you're going to have to stop and make a right at St. Joseph to access the bridge. I feel they haven't throught this through. That's going to be a major point of congestion.
Edit: Wait, how long has this been up on the city website?! I just went to the two-way conversion page for public service; I hadn't seen this on there the last time I went.
What it shows is something different than talked about - and which makes more sense. Southbound is still maintained around the curve south of Kalamazoo. And, yeah, basically everything is aligned to the existing southbound ROW leaving a lot of extra MDOT ROW on the downtown-side.
I was around before this street was converted to the present configuration; the project cleared out a lot of old homes and neighborhood business districts including my old hood along South Logan and Barnes. Those places would be "Old Towns" these days. I believe the huge boulevard was never needed although at the time it did relieve congestion when thousands not hundreds worked at the Olds plant. It is a positive sign that they are going to try to fix this old mistake. I wish they could replace the wicked ugly highway style bridge [I know that won't happen] over the Grand River, the old one was of course, outdated but it had a nice-looking high rounded arch over the river and tracks. It would be nice if they planted a forest of trees on the reclaimed land not just a couple of dozen stick trees. If you look closely at old photos of the Capitol you can see the wall of "the woods" began just about where MLK is now.
I mean, I hope they sell the land so as to actually make this a neighborhood again with shops along MLK. I found the concerns in the city pulse story a bit annoying, as the issue isn't a lack of greenspace in that area, but that it was divided from the rest of the downtown in the first place. The part north of the freeway was built the way it was as part of the Capitol Loop to quickly ferry in and out of town state workers along I-496. Now that most people agree that's a problem, and with us converting the streets back to two-way, there isn't a need for this kind of wide expanse separating the Westside from downtown, anymore, and we shouldn't lock that divide into place by leaving that land vacant and planting some trees. That neighborhood needs neighborhood shops more than anything else.
I continue to wish they'd restore Washtenaw St or at least reserve it for a pedestrian ROW, there's no reason the 7 block property should be developed as a monolithic building. I'm not sure if the newly created parcels adjacent to here will be deep enough for a separate development. The land should probably be combined with the 7-block land but that'd be a hard pill to swallow as long as Eyde controls it, given their track record there.
I'm not sure what could practically be developed on the narrow lots created between Ottawa & Ionia and Kalamazoo & Lenawee, I'm all for a RFP for those properties to see what people come up with. It's probably safe to say the area behind the Hall of Justice will stay with the State, lets hope they do something cool with it as part of the new Capitol Complex park project.
Sounds like they aren't going to do anything within the reconfigured right-of-way aside from put in a larger sidewalk (euphamism used is "pathway") on the east side.
Feels like a missed opportunity. Anything that gets built next to the right-of-way, then, will have it's "back" to the road. I guess the benefit is that you get a safer, slower road. But this does nothing to reconnect the Westside to Downtown if all you're doing is replacing the median with what is essentially a green buffer on the eastside of the road.
BTW, here's an excerpt from the parcel map. The boundary of the ROW is irregular and awkward. The ROW north of Ionia is around 65 feet wide, but along the boulevard, it is as wide as 310+ feet in between Washtenaw and Kalamazoo.
I do have real concerns about wasted space and how well the city is going to keep this reconfigured ROW maintained. The island kind of works as is in terms of aesthetics, because it's not where people stay, so it stays relatively clear of litter. I don't know what they are going to do with land that's not going to be an island, but also not dedicated parkland. It's these kind of "dead" zones that people treat as such. When land's use is not clearly defined, you can't expect people to know what to do with it/how to use it.
That's certainly a disappointment, I don't like the idea of having a 50'+ greenspace in the ROW that doesn't do anyone much good and will almost certainly end up poorly maintained. It doesn't make sense.
LSJ has picked this up now. While I have concerns, I can't wrap my head around the concerns of some of the community members. The basics of the project - shrinking the road down to make it slower with better connections - are an indisputed good. Yet a lot of the complaints in the story are the same non-sensical ones we heard in the City Pulse article. A a new one: Someone brought up compensation.
He said he remains interested in whether the homeowners on the west side of the street could be compensated or helped in some way. The project will make the northbound lanes closer to their homes, potentially lowering their property values and quality of life.
lol, shut up.
Anyway, you can see why the city didn't talk to any of the big land owners are on the east side of the road: many of the community members seem to think this is a big conspiracy and land grab. I just really wish people would approach these things with a listening ear and open mind. You don't have to be accusatory straight out of the gate. And, yeah, the city has to take some blame for this for not being more open about the planning; the city has to get better on that. But, I'm tired of seeing people complain about our roads being too wide and two fast...and then in the very next breath complaining about how they don't want the roads shrunk down when it actually comes time for that.
[Some residents aired concerns that the road project is secretly a handout for developers interested in building in the area, which Kilpatrick said is not true.[/quote]
Cheryl Brand said she remained opposed to the project.
"It's fixing a situation that's not broken," she said.
The city finally has up some formal drawings for the MLK redo. Despite moving the northbound lanes adjacent to the southbound lanes, the new roadway only goes from 55.5 feet wide curb-to-curb to 62 feet wide because the left turn lanes get consolidated, and the travel lanes are narrowed by about a foot each. The new shared-use pathway on the east side of the street is 10 feet in width, double the 5-foot existing sidewalks, which makes room for both pedestrians and cyclists. There is also a full wall of trees to be added on the east side of the street and of many different types, so more than is even existing.
This means you've getting at least 55 feet of greenspace and much more than that because of the wide median that will be taken out.
You can't get there from here! I have never seen so much road work being done all at the same time, I have started to take the CATA bus which is a quite relaxing way to get downtown from EL.
Comments
Edit: Wait, how long has this been up on the city website?! I just went to the two-way conversion page for public service; I hadn't seen this on there the last time I went.
https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/05251562-c440-4a83-8a54-9a7334c34b31
What it shows is something different than talked about - and which makes more sense. Southbound is still maintained around the curve south of Kalamazoo. And, yeah, basically everything is aligned to the existing southbound ROW leaving a lot of extra MDOT ROW on the downtown-side.
I'm not sure what could practically be developed on the narrow lots created between Ottawa & Ionia and Kalamazoo & Lenawee, I'm all for a RFP for those properties to see what people come up with. It's probably safe to say the area behind the Hall of Justice will stay with the State, lets hope they do something cool with it as part of the new Capitol Complex park project.
https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2024/02/28/mlk-boulevard-lansing-median-removal-westside-neighborhood/72762966007/
Feels like a missed opportunity. Anything that gets built next to the right-of-way, then, will have it's "back" to the road. I guess the benefit is that you get a safer, slower road. But this does nothing to reconnect the Westside to Downtown if all you're doing is replacing the median with what is essentially a green buffer on the eastside of the road.
BTW, here's an excerpt from the parcel map. The boundary of the ROW is irregular and awkward. The ROW north of Ionia is around 65 feet wide, but along the boulevard, it is as wide as 310+ feet in between Washtenaw and Kalamazoo.
I do have real concerns about wasted space and how well the city is going to keep this reconfigured ROW maintained. The island kind of works as is in terms of aesthetics, because it's not where people stay, so it stays relatively clear of litter. I don't know what they are going to do with land that's not going to be an island, but also not dedicated parkland. It's these kind of "dead" zones that people treat as such. When land's use is not clearly defined, you can't expect people to know what to do with it/how to use it.
lol, shut up.
Anyway, you can see why the city didn't talk to any of the big land owners are on the east side of the road: many of the community members seem to think this is a big conspiracy and land grab. I just really wish people would approach these things with a listening ear and open mind. You don't have to be accusatory straight out of the gate. And, yeah, the city has to take some blame for this for not being more open about the planning; the city has to get better on that. But, I'm tired of seeing people complain about our roads being too wide and two fast...and then in the very next breath complaining about how they don't want the roads shrunk down when it actually comes time for that.
[Some residents aired concerns that the road project is secretly a handout for developers interested in building in the area, which Kilpatrick said is not true.[/quote]
Just silliness all over the place.
This means you've getting at least 55 feet of greenspace and much more than that because of the wide median that will be taken out.