I know we don't agree on this one, but I personally wouldn't view this as a win. That area is never going to be a thriving corridor with anything else. It's run down industrial, pawn shops and weed factories. Just a block further east reeks anytime you drive by. It's sandwiched between two major state roads. I hope I can eat my words some day, but it would have been much better for the region had this proceeded, and I'm not generally one to support data centers.
As I read more about this project I went back and forth on the idea depending on what I had just read. It seemed to me like the pro side was winning among people who had not already had an opinion on data centers. Like me the more people read and understood what the company wanted to build here more people liked it, that seems to be where the disconnect happened the data centers are "bad" for urban neighborhoods folks were louder than the "maybe this would be good idea" folks were. I was skeptical about the idea that this could be a new area for housing. It could happen and I would be happy if it did, however I'm thinking there are about 'fifty" better located vacant areas downtown to build housing and possibly after those spaces were filled E Kalamazoo could be an area for housing developments. I wonder if the BWL has considered another place to build this data center. I had not heard that they will need to build some sort of heating plant in tiny Wentworth Park beside the river because the data center in not happening! BWL needs to build another facility in a park! The pay back is a B---h with them if they don't get their way. Remember when they wanted Scott Park and told us they would "have to" install huge power poles down S. Washington Ave if they could not build on Scott Park, and now they just have to trim a whole lot of from Fenner trees on E Mt Hope. I guess "they got the power and can't be stopped"!
I'm trying not to be combative but I'm more than a bit dumbfounded in your guys' disbelief that this area is appropriate for housing or mixed use. I'll turn it into bullet points:
-Less than1/4 mile north is the original Stadium District Apartments and Block 600 (they contend with the same state highways)
-1/4 mile west is a new high-rise apartment building and the two new LHC buildings
-Single family neighborhoods are no more than a few blocks away to the southwest, east and south
- Less than 1/4 mile south of the Lansing Center, Jackson Field and the city's main entertainment district.
-River Trail access is mere hundreds of feet away.
-1/3 mile west is Washington Sq, and the new Ovation venue
-All the benefits that generally come with being centrally located, including easy freeway and mass transit access, proximity to MSU and major employers, etc...
This area was industrial 100 year ago but there is zero industrial near here now, the closest things to industrial are the Dye Water Plant, a few mechanics shops and a couple small builders supply warehouses.
Regarding the point about being between two state highways, I've said it before and I'll repeat... Why is that an insurmountable problem for this lot yet has not been a problem for The Stadium District, The Outfield, Newman Lofts, or Temple Lofts? Or Block 600 or Marketplace for that matter? Same exact roads, same speed limits, same lane counts.
If our city is so pitiful that a lot downtown with main street frontage on three sides, with all the aforementioned traits, cannot justify something better than a data center or a warehouse, then we're screwed. If the Kalamazoo St corridor "never" improves, then we're screwed. In no world can Lansing be a thriving city if a few blocks of uninspiring or underused buildings on a centrally located main corridor between downtown and MSU amounts to some impenetrable barrier. I may as well just give up now if that's the case.
If they build any such facilities in Wentworth Park then that will be on our illustrious mayor; there's room around Dye, near Cooley Gardens and in the state lots near the BWL chiller plant. It'd be reminiscent of the move he made when he didn't get his way with city hall. That doesn't mean I'm going to be bullied into supporting what he wants to push.
I could list as many downsides to that location as you listed positives. Anyone I've talked to does not find that site appealing for housing. Maybe young professional isn't the market they're trying to appeal to. If it's "work force" or affordable housing, it might make sense. I'm dumbfounded you can't see why this isn't an appealing area stuck in the median of a state highway. It's just far enough off the more "appealing" areas (and I use "appealing" losely). The further you are from a draw like the former market, the stadium, etc, it quickly drops off quickly. All the places you mentioned are immediately adjacent to some draw, some gimmick. This is too far from the stadium to pull on that, it might get the river trail, but that entrance is occupied by drug users and homeless in the nicer weather so I'm not sure thats a draw. The best it has is its proximity to a Wendy's.
I've heard your points on this, multiple times now, and as I've said, I think you're over hyping the location. If there was any reasonable data or desirability here, a developer would have proposed it by now. The only reason that terrible Wendy's is limping along is because it's one of the few left in the area. You seem to ignore all these dumpy buildings stuck between Cedar and Larch with "available" on a Gillespie sign.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, but I don't think this site is worth this amount of discussion or consideration. There are MUCH better potential sites downtown to focus on than this. Believe me, as someone who drives this corridor on a nearly daily basis, I'd love to see something better, but it just isn't logical. I can appreciate the passion, but maybe it can be focused to better locations. I really don't have more to say on this...I've more than voiced my opposing opinion. I think its good for this site to not be an echo chamber.
I like to run into genuine disagreement, I aspire to get to the bottom of it to fault. TBH often for my own selfish purpose of testing the veracity of my stance and self-discovering my own logic behind it. I try, and too often fail, to be diplomatic. I'll still post my rambling comment, but feel free to ignore it, the short of it is: my argument is foundationally about sticking to the new zoning strategy to achieve long term results. Importantly, this is a city property where the city can directly influence what happens in a way they can't elsewhere. In that light maybe you still disagree fundamentally, but understand why I felt (feel) the need to elaborate.
I see the state of the area. Perhaps we're talking past each other because I haven't been clear about what I mean: The kind of transformation of the area I'm talking about might very well be a few decades in the making after a first major development. My argument is really to not put a stick in the spokes of our new zoning code before we even catch our balance, the results intended by the zoning require many decades to fully achieve, that's the nature of the city planning game I think. That's why I not only stand by my opinion, but advocate my position.
Please allow me to paint a picture... Imagine a 5 over 1 no better than Newman Lofts but with ground floor commercial goes on that lot in the next 5 years (as far as I'm concerned the city can give away the lot if they can get legal guarantees for certain features of the development, I know many citizens would disagree). It's not hard to imagine how that changes the feel of the area, allows the land in between here and Stadium District to suddenly become low hanging fruit development-wise and all the sudden 10 or 15 years later those Gillespie lots along the west side of Larch are filled in, perhaps with another building on the Liskey's property. Maybe a few years later a new building goes up at the NE and/or SE corner of Larch & Kalamazoo, maybe the Wendy's gets redeveloped along with the houses behind it. Somewhere in between now and then most of the big unique houses in the Hosmer/Eighth neighborhood have seen significant renovations, the Michigan Ave corridor is humming. From here the picture admittedly gets a lot fuzzier but the direction clear I think.... I don't think that setup is at all unrealistic if the metro as a whole continues to do ok.
There's similar seeds that can be planted all around the city. Big change, positive or negative, takes a long time and with a lot of little decisions made. Agree or a disagree on this area or property specifically, this is the framework that I'm almost always thinking in.
Comments
-Less than1/4 mile north is the original Stadium District Apartments and Block 600 (they contend with the same state highways)
-1/4 mile west is a new high-rise apartment building and the two new LHC buildings
-Single family neighborhoods are no more than a few blocks away to the southwest, east and south
- Less than 1/4 mile south of the Lansing Center, Jackson Field and the city's main entertainment district.
-River Trail access is mere hundreds of feet away.
-1/3 mile west is Washington Sq, and the new Ovation venue
-All the benefits that generally come with being centrally located, including easy freeway and mass transit access, proximity to MSU and major employers, etc...
This area was industrial 100 year ago but there is zero industrial near here now, the closest things to industrial are the Dye Water Plant, a few mechanics shops and a couple small builders supply warehouses.
Regarding the point about being between two state highways, I've said it before and I'll repeat... Why is that an insurmountable problem for this lot yet has not been a problem for The Stadium District, The Outfield, Newman Lofts, or Temple Lofts? Or Block 600 or Marketplace for that matter? Same exact roads, same speed limits, same lane counts.
If our city is so pitiful that a lot downtown with main street frontage on three sides, with all the aforementioned traits, cannot justify something better than a data center or a warehouse, then we're screwed. If the Kalamazoo St corridor "never" improves, then we're screwed. In no world can Lansing be a thriving city if a few blocks of uninspiring or underused buildings on a centrally located main corridor between downtown and MSU amounts to some impenetrable barrier. I may as well just give up now if that's the case.
If they build any such facilities in Wentworth Park then that will be on our illustrious mayor; there's room around Dye, near Cooley Gardens and in the state lots near the BWL chiller plant. It'd be reminiscent of the move he made when he didn't get his way with city hall. That doesn't mean I'm going to be bullied into supporting what he wants to push.
I've heard your points on this, multiple times now, and as I've said, I think you're over hyping the location. If there was any reasonable data or desirability here, a developer would have proposed it by now. The only reason that terrible Wendy's is limping along is because it's one of the few left in the area. You seem to ignore all these dumpy buildings stuck between Cedar and Larch with "available" on a Gillespie sign.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, but I don't think this site is worth this amount of discussion or consideration. There are MUCH better potential sites downtown to focus on than this. Believe me, as someone who drives this corridor on a nearly daily basis, I'd love to see something better, but it just isn't logical. I can appreciate the passion, but maybe it can be focused to better locations. I really don't have more to say on this...I've more than voiced my opposing opinion. I think its good for this site to not be an echo chamber.
I see the state of the area. Perhaps we're talking past each other because I haven't been clear about what I mean: The kind of transformation of the area I'm talking about might very well be a few decades in the making after a first major development. My argument is really to not put a stick in the spokes of our new zoning code before we even catch our balance, the results intended by the zoning require many decades to fully achieve, that's the nature of the city planning game I think. That's why I not only stand by my opinion, but advocate my position.
Please allow me to paint a picture... Imagine a 5 over 1 no better than Newman Lofts but with ground floor commercial goes on that lot in the next 5 years (as far as I'm concerned the city can give away the lot if they can get legal guarantees for certain features of the development, I know many citizens would disagree). It's not hard to imagine how that changes the feel of the area, allows the land in between here and Stadium District to suddenly become low hanging fruit development-wise and all the sudden 10 or 15 years later those Gillespie lots along the west side of Larch are filled in, perhaps with another building on the Liskey's property. Maybe a few years later a new building goes up at the NE and/or SE corner of Larch & Kalamazoo, maybe the Wendy's gets redeveloped along with the houses behind it. Somewhere in between now and then most of the big unique houses in the Hosmer/Eighth neighborhood have seen significant renovations, the Michigan Ave corridor is humming. From here the picture admittedly gets a lot fuzzier but the direction clear I think.... I don't think that setup is at all unrealistic if the metro as a whole continues to do ok.
There's similar seeds that can be planted all around the city. Big change, positive or negative, takes a long time and with a lot of little decisions made. Agree or a disagree on this area or property specifically, this is the framework that I'm almost always thinking in.