I do appreciate the discussion on this. I don't expect to change minds, I just like to share thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. Like I said, I've gone back and forth on this.
I would be curious about the GM lots, but I'm sure they won't give them up. I too wish for something better for the Olds admin building. In the summer, I ride my bike by there to get to the river trail (or used to anyways, not so much since I moved) and it killed me to see the marble clad, good example of international style architecture neglected and decaying. I've always thought it would be cool to relocate the REOlds museum here but I don't think that will ever happen, and I would hate to see them leave downtown. The location and building would make sense for them though.
I'm glad we can all agree on that substation debacle. That was such a crucial intersection and gateway that resulted in such a fail.
I also wish GM would consider letting go of some of their lots, but I can't imagine that actually happening. A heat generating data center would be perfect there. I just hope anything other than demolition lies in the Olds HQ's future.
@gbdinlansing Regarding my logic as to why a data center is bad for that neighborhood, it's multifaceted... But it basically boils down to the same reason why plopping a security fence-surrounded blank-walled building with no street level interaction, no potential for customers and relatively few employees would be bad for Washington Sq or Old Town or REO Town or Grand River across from MSU's campus. The difference is whether we want this area to be more like one of those places or more like an industrial park.
Being a city owned property, there's an opportunity to do a proper RFP, offer the lot as cheap as is necessary to get a gateway-worthy development, even a run-of-the-mill four floor 5 over 1 would fundamentally change the fate of the neighborhood. I get Cedar/Larch are busy but I think it's worth reiterating how prominent of a location this is, on a block bounded by the largest north/south thoroughfare in the metro along with one of the main ways in and out of downtown. Kitty corner from River Trail access, a short walk to the ballpark or Washington Sq, 15 min or less drive to about anywhere in the metro. Politicians should be shopping stuff like this around and earning their keep.
My big concern with another five/four over one is that Lansing really struggles to get the ground floor commercial filled in. I think they'd have that issue here as well. They'd be better off just doing an apartment building here and call it a day, if they were to go that direction. I'm just not sure who would want to live at that location either. It would be very loud with the way people use Larch/Cedar. Not saying it's not a nicer idea, I just think it wouldn't be very appealing to a developer or a tenant, which will ultimately affect revenue.
I get the concern about living near Cedar/Larch, it's totally logical. But the original Stadium District building and the Outfield Lofts sit in between Cedar/Larch with the same lane count and speed limit, and they're apparently quite successful. Marketplace, Block 600 and Temple Lofts are adjacent to one or the other.
Regarding retail, I don't see that much of a vacancy issue. What we do see sit empty or take forever to lease seems to me be due to developers wanting too much money for it. They expect it to be a significant revenue driver rather than a breakeven amenity to their residents or a general value booster for the area and in turn their own property. That's why in a world where we accept the existence of zoning codes as a given, I don't mind using tools to require ground floor commercial space in areas the city is trying to push in a particular direction, particularly if tax incentives are involved. It's the developers problem if they'd rather the space sit empty instead of ask more reasonable rates and/or divide into smaller suites. It's up to the city to ensure that their requirements are reasonable and don't hinder the city's future.
...On another note, in Monday's council meeting packet there's an brownfield plan being introduced for "Capitol Walk Apartments" for the parking lot at the southeast corner of Chestnut & Lenawee. No other details yet as the brownfield plan is not included in this packet, the agenda packet for the next Development & Planning meeting should tell more.
One less parking lot one more housing development, when I look at the googlemap there are a lot more parking lots in the area that could be for people parking [homes] rather than for cars. It is good to hear that the downtown area is continuing to grow and become a neighborhood with residents not commuters.
Comments
I would be curious about the GM lots, but I'm sure they won't give them up. I too wish for something better for the Olds admin building. In the summer, I ride my bike by there to get to the river trail (or used to anyways, not so much since I moved) and it killed me to see the marble clad, good example of international style architecture neglected and decaying. I've always thought it would be cool to relocate the REOlds museum here but I don't think that will ever happen, and I would hate to see them leave downtown. The location and building would make sense for them though.
I'm glad we can all agree on that substation debacle. That was such a crucial intersection and gateway that resulted in such a fail.
@gbdinlansing Regarding my logic as to why a data center is bad for that neighborhood, it's multifaceted... But it basically boils down to the same reason why plopping a security fence-surrounded blank-walled building with no street level interaction, no potential for customers and relatively few employees would be bad for Washington Sq or Old Town or REO Town or Grand River across from MSU's campus. The difference is whether we want this area to be more like one of those places or more like an industrial park.
Being a city owned property, there's an opportunity to do a proper RFP, offer the lot as cheap as is necessary to get a gateway-worthy development, even a run-of-the-mill four floor 5 over 1 would fundamentally change the fate of the neighborhood. I get Cedar/Larch are busy but I think it's worth reiterating how prominent of a location this is, on a block bounded by the largest north/south thoroughfare in the metro along with one of the main ways in and out of downtown. Kitty corner from River Trail access, a short walk to the ballpark or Washington Sq, 15 min or less drive to about anywhere in the metro. Politicians should be shopping stuff like this around and earning their keep.
Regarding retail, I don't see that much of a vacancy issue. What we do see sit empty or take forever to lease seems to me be due to developers wanting too much money for it. They expect it to be a significant revenue driver rather than a breakeven amenity to their residents or a general value booster for the area and in turn their own property. That's why in a world where we accept the existence of zoning codes as a given, I don't mind using tools to require ground floor commercial space in areas the city is trying to push in a particular direction, particularly if tax incentives are involved. It's the developers problem if they'd rather the space sit empty instead of ask more reasonable rates and/or divide into smaller suites. It's up to the city to ensure that their requirements are reasonable and don't hinder the city's future.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QCaQdgtf8xd4FG82A