PLAs are only a problem if one has a problem with paying a guy or gal just eking out a decent living a half-way decent wage. PLAs and local requirements for construction have been used for just about every project ever built in this city by a local or the state government. Obviously, that's not the problem, unless one wants to make elitist or teabag conservative arguments against workers.
The choice between a brick-and-stone market and a PLA is as false a one as I've heard in awhile. No, in this case, the problems stem from trying to build a quality facility on prime riverfront land on a shoestring budget, instead of the administration taking the time to try and scrounge up the pleothora of grants out there that could have easily netted us another million to do this thing right. The problem is -- and this is one of the very few places Carol & Co. is right -- the mayor not negotiating more toughly with local developers to get the best deal for the assets we're selling off. Of course, it's understandable that he's not trying to get more because he's bankrolled by many of the very same developers who are doing these projects. I love how Trezise is only now concerned with this project about pinching pennies and being good stewards of public funds. The truth is, they didn't want to minorly inconvenience Gillespie by asking for a better price on the old city market.
Don't tell me we couldn't have found an extra million for this by doing those two things (i.e. finding more grants and getting better prices for land and property). Don't tell me that its the fault of the little guy that the market doesn't have brick. God forbid one of these developers has to postpone one of their half-dozen trips to the Bora Bora, this year, so that they can compete with the rest in Mid-Michigan.
That's just bunk, MichMatters. There are a lot of nonunion companies that pay their workers a "half-way decent wage" - and many who pay very good wages and benefits. The difference is these companies don't have the entrenched political power that the unions have - hence most government projects are PLA, while many nongovernment projects use a combination of union and nonunion labor, based on competitive bids. If the goal was to have a higher minimum wage for the construction industry, then why not just do that? Most PLA agreements are written to favor unions - regardless of how much anybody pays their workers.
That's not any more fair than sweetheart deals for developers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
But this isn't a forum on the shortcomings of our political system.
Regardless, I like the concept of the new market much better than the current market. The combo of outdoor space for seasonal vendors and indoor, open space is a better design. I think as the riverfront continues to develop we'll have opportunities to further improve the market. Unfortunately, we can't always get exactly what we want. What's important is we're moving in the right direction.
@MichMatters: I don't know how to embed youtube videos here. I'll see if I can add that ability.
I like how the market will not be separated in to two parts with the new design. It will be nice when it is open to go and see for myself. Until then, I'm trying not to make too much of a judgment.
Wow this will be a really nice look for the City Market. I expect that they will be located on the roof of the market. Is there any word on how much power is expected to be generated?
One of the very first components discussed when it was decided to build a new city market was that they were requiring it to at least attempt some kind of "green" option(s) with help of the BWL. They studied a plethora of options from solar panels, to wind turbines, and geothermal heating. They really wanted to go with the last option, but found it not to be cost-effective enough in the short term (i.e. they are working on a small and/or tight budget and the payback would be over 15 years).
a. Update regarding engaging in discussion with BWL re: options for
“green energy” are continuing. There will be continued review of
options with Honeywell re: geothermal and the potential costs,
payment options, and payback; it appears that the geothermal has
an estimated payback of 15-18 years. Other options discussed are:
(1) wind turbine- a non metered unit in a class II windzone, which is
considered ‘non-favorable’ would have an estimated payback of
close to 60 years, (2) Solar panels- photovoltaic solar panel
cells on the market roofs could be metered back to BWL and the
market would receive credits on the utility bill (further
conversation re: funding and installation by BWL is necessary and
would not be included in the bid documents).
So, I guess they settled on solar. This info is in the monthly development summaries on the City Market website. I also noticed in the last development summary that they were looking to create a wish list of things if they ever found more funds. I'd be interested in seeing that wish list.
I have driven by. I have read the City Pulse article. I have read your comments....and...I like the new market. I like the idea of the pole barn. To me it is saying "yes, you can have rural in the city. You can get fresh fruit and vegetables even though you are right Downtown" Now, I am not saying it wouldn't have looked better without some brickwork but overall I love that it stands out and makes people notice it.
A poignant letter to the editor from this weeks City Pulse:
The last statement in Lawrence Cosentino´s story about the new Lansing City Market building is the phrase "history repeats itself." No need to time travel back to 1938 for that. One needs only look to the 1980s and the building of the Lansing Center on Michigan Avenue.
I was a reporter for the Lansing State Journal when the Lansing Center was built. Council members took the cheap way, saying they would spend the public´s money as if it were their own. Because the Council was afraid of big numbers, the Lansing Center was constructed without a kitchen. And, its skywalk was constructed without air conditioning. Later, both features were added at an expense greater than it would have cost if included in the original plans. That was not responsible. Spending public money for public good means thinking big because the public good is big.
As for the aesthetics: the new city market is a traditional shape. It looks similar to the central market buildings at Detroit´s Eastern Market, except theirs are brick. I´m not for holding a bake sale to add brick fascia. Let´s budget for it.
— Dedria A. Humphries Barker, Lansing
Seems this is more prevelant an opinion on this new project than I thought, and by people who've seen this all before, at that.
Another:
We should be congratulating ourselves as having the most stylish grain elevator in mid-Michigan!
This whole project was sold based on some very indistinct drawings that led us all to believe that the final market would have wispy turn-of-the-century ironwork, lots of glass and generally pleasant architecture. I opposed it at the time because it was too small and the parking plan made no sense at all. This thing looks at home in Shipshewana, Ind., as a flea market, and I feel duped. Look nearby at the Oldsmobile Stadium: not groundbreaking style, but livable, and not particularly expensive. Why could it not have been designed as harmlessly as that?
—Don From www.LansingCityPulse.com
The last two sentences of this one kind of sum it up. No one criticizing the architecture ever called for some architectural masterpiece, rather calling for something more solid and something that looked like the architect and city put at least ten minutes of thought into the facade. The old city market is hardly stunning architecture, but the facade required skilled tradesmen to build it, including masions/brick layers and stone cutters. It shows that they tried. Let's be clear, if a good, swift wind blows through, one day, it's going to rip the aluminium sheet metal from the steel frame. lol This doesn't just show a small budget, it shows general thoughtlessness and a smack in the face to the old market, which, again, was by no means stunning architecture.
I don't mind someone who believes the market will be a plus because it will function at least as well as, if not better than, the current one. But to pretend that it's architectural superior, or even matches the thoughtfulness put into the old market, is either being ignorant or self-deceiving. The idea that it somehow shows that we can do "rural in the city" is really kind of a silly point, too. A city/farmer's market, by its very existence, proves that we can do "rural in the city". Bad architecture doesn't add to that proof. If anything, it takes away from it.
Comments
The choice between a brick-and-stone market and a PLA is as false a one as I've heard in awhile. No, in this case, the problems stem from trying to build a quality facility on prime riverfront land on a shoestring budget, instead of the administration taking the time to try and scrounge up the pleothora of grants out there that could have easily netted us another million to do this thing right. The problem is -- and this is one of the very few places Carol & Co. is right -- the mayor not negotiating more toughly with local developers to get the best deal for the assets we're selling off. Of course, it's understandable that he's not trying to get more because he's bankrolled by many of the very same developers who are doing these projects. I love how Trezise is only now concerned with this project about pinching pennies and being good stewards of public funds. The truth is, they didn't want to minorly inconvenience Gillespie by asking for a better price on the old city market.
Don't tell me we couldn't have found an extra million for this by doing those two things (i.e. finding more grants and getting better prices for land and property). Don't tell me that its the fault of the little guy that the market doesn't have brick. God forbid one of these developers has to postpone one of their half-dozen trips to the Bora Bora, this year, so that they can compete with the rest in Mid-Michigan.
Anyway, here's a recent tour (November 1) of the inside of the market.
Jared, how does one embed youtube videos, here?
That's not any more fair than sweetheart deals for developers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
But this isn't a forum on the shortcomings of our political system.
Regardless, I like the concept of the new market much better than the current market. The combo of outdoor space for seasonal vendors and indoor, open space is a better design. I think as the riverfront continues to develop we'll have opportunities to further improve the market. Unfortunately, we can't always get exactly what we want. What's important is we're moving in the right direction.
I like how the market will not be separated in to two parts with the new design. It will be nice when it is open to go and see for myself. Until then, I'm trying not to make too much of a judgment.
The city is getting a $1.2 million grant from the U.S. DOE to, among other things, add solar panels to the City Market and City Hall.
So, I guess they settled on solar. This info is in the monthly development summaries on the City Market website. I also noticed in the last development summary that they were looking to create a wish list of things if they ever found more funds. I'd be interested in seeing that wish list.
A poignant letter to the editor from this weeks City Pulse:
Seems this is more prevelant an opinion on this new project than I thought, and by people who've seen this all before, at that.
Another:
The last two sentences of this one kind of sum it up. No one criticizing the architecture ever called for some architectural masterpiece, rather calling for something more solid and something that looked like the architect and city put at least ten minutes of thought into the facade. The old city market is hardly stunning architecture, but the facade required skilled tradesmen to build it, including masions/brick layers and stone cutters. It shows that they tried. Let's be clear, if a good, swift wind blows through, one day, it's going to rip the aluminium sheet metal from the steel frame. lol This doesn't just show a small budget, it shows general thoughtlessness and a smack in the face to the old market, which, again, was by no means stunning architecture.
I don't mind someone who believes the market will be a plus because it will function at least as well as, if not better than, the current one. But to pretend that it's architectural superior, or even matches the thoughtfulness put into the old market, is either being ignorant or self-deceiving. The idea that it somehow shows that we can do "rural in the city" is really kind of a silly point, too. A city/farmer's market, by its very existence, proves that we can do "rural in the city". Bad architecture doesn't add to that proof. If anything, it takes away from it.