Incidentally, we got a letter from LEAP about the Under-the-Bridge project, which is now moving forward. Struck me, though, that apparently part of the issue was that it will be in Lansing Township, and apparently the Township was unwilling to maintain it - so the city of Lansing has agreed to despite it not being within their borders. Perhaps they could request that part of the township just be absorbed into the city then...
It is a very good idea. The township seem to not like having this neighborhood as they simply ignore it. I think the city maintains the grass median to the east and west already. I could be wrong about that, but if so I guess they could take care of a bit more no problem. I would like if someone [state city township] would also repave the street there and the Kalamazoo Street underpass at 127. You can hardly call it pavement anymore.
Do the residents of that section just need to vote to annex into Lansing or East Lansing? How do they propose a ballot proposal like that? Do they approach the township, city of Lansing, or state?
The tide is really flowing in the right direction. It will be sad if it changes in the weeks ahead. I think Lansing at least has shaken off the name Rust Belt. People still think the whole state looks like the pictures of Detroit in 2007.
There is an a news story about the end of the downtown hotel building restrictions agreement with Raddison in the LSJ. I think it is interesting that they could have built a new hotel all along had someone wanted to build one without tax incentives. It seems like offering tax incentives is the only way to get things built here.
I think it is not as simple as that. If a hotel developer wants to build their hotel without incentives, it might cost them $5 million for example. But if the hotel developer knew that they could wait two years and it would only cost them $1 million, their return on investment would be much greater. That seems like a no-brainer to the investor.
I think the activity and demand is increasing enough in Detroit that we are getting close to the point that incentives aren't necessary for some of the smaller projects. Many of the young people in this generation that are graduating college are wanting to live in urban areas. If the trend continues, we should see enough increased demand in Lansing that incentives aren't worth the hassle for smaller projects.
Other cities have their fair share of incentives, it's one of the tools that governments are using to fight against sprawl and level the playing field. It's more expensive to build in an urban environment where the site might need cleanup, parking lots may need to be rented and reserved for construction vehicles etc. However, I think all of us on this board can agree that exclusive non-compete incentives like the one that the Radisson got are terrible for cities.
I noticed what seems to be demolition work starting at The Lansing State Journal building downtown. I was beginning to wonder if this project was really going to happen, it is really great to see it get started.
I took a walk on the River Trail toward Potter Park, I wanted to get a look at the rehab. of the old Knapps warehouse. While the building looks very nice, they have cut down at least 100 trees on the southern bank of the Red Cedar River. It looks really awful. Are they planning to build a river walk or re-landscape the river bank? I am hoping that there is some good reason to cut down 100 or more trees most of which were at least fifty years old. Do they own the river bank? I guess it is a preview of what Scott Park will look like in a few months. What's the deal with cutting down trees in Lansing there seems to be no effort at conservation, is the river bank going to the site of their parking lot?
Comments
I think the activity and demand is increasing enough in Detroit that we are getting close to the point that incentives aren't necessary for some of the smaller projects. Many of the young people in this generation that are graduating college are wanting to live in urban areas. If the trend continues, we should see enough increased demand in Lansing that incentives aren't worth the hassle for smaller projects.
Other cities have their fair share of incentives, it's one of the tools that governments are using to fight against sprawl and level the playing field. It's more expensive to build in an urban environment where the site might need cleanup, parking lots may need to be rented and reserved for construction vehicles etc. However, I think all of us on this board can agree that exclusive non-compete incentives like the one that the Radisson got are terrible for cities.
I noticed what seems to be demolition work starting at The Lansing State Journal building downtown. I was beginning to wonder if this project was really going to happen, it is really great to see it get started.
I took a walk on the River Trail toward Potter Park, I wanted to get a look at the rehab. of the old Knapps warehouse. While the building looks very nice, they have cut down at least 100 trees on the southern bank of the Red Cedar River. It looks really awful. Are they planning to build a river walk or re-landscape the river bank? I am hoping that there is some good reason to cut down 100 or more trees most of which were at least fifty years old. Do they own the river bank? I guess it is a preview of what Scott Park will look like in a few months. What's the deal with cutting down trees in Lansing there seems to be no effort at conservation, is the river bank going to the site of their parking lot?
I had forgotten what the LSJ building redevelopment plans were. I suppose we should start a thread specific to that now that work is getting started. Are there any specs or designs published? This article was all that I could find: http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/11/24/lansing-state-journal-moving/76305326/.
I had to go look at this on Google Street View to see what you were talking about. Jeepers, that's terrible.