It's hard to know if there is any politicking holding the grant up but I haven't heard any quiet rumblings. I agree it all is puzzling since their press releases made it sound as if they were essentially shovel ready.
The sign ordinance isn't super interesting, mostly just makes things simpler and accounts for the fact that over time the form-based zoning code is going to make buildings much closer to the street. Murals are going to be a gigantic headache. Municipalities basically cannot touch content anymore due to case law so it is all about governing size, place, and time. I think most people would love new, cool artwork, but not so much what amounts to a painted billboard covering the entire side of a building. We can't make that distinction without evaluating content.
Sparrow is taking down the old service station and three houses along Michigan Ave. and Holmes St. As a very close neighbor I am dead-set against yet another dead block for their parking. My reading of the ordinance wouldn't permit permanent parking without an SLU or variance, but they are advocating a different interpretation. I'm hoping they get their act together and unload it after they get their tower and central utility plant built, but who knows.
RAP - MEDC has a lot of details about the grant program, but more details on Lansing's award can be read here. Money went to Child and Family Charities rehabbing some old McLaren buildings, 3700 S Waverly, ROECO/old Sears, Prudden Wheel Lofts, and the 900 block of W Saginaw St.
City purchases - Since Council has to approve the purchase and grant anything could happen if they aren't satisfied with where things stand. They do broadcast Committee of the Whole on youtube so I recommend tuning in. I do not see any reason why both parts could not move separately and I'm sure that is likely baked into negotiations. I will say purchase of real property does not require a public hearing. Only the sale of real property in excess of $50,000 requires a public hearing. Say what you will about that.
@MichMatters Council clarified your question on process quite well at the end of the meeting. The approval of the grant was not on the agenda which they didn't understand. The City has postponed the State's deadline already so both are anxious to accept the money. It sounded like the City wanted the approval of the purchase agreement first so that is why it was on the agenda, and not surprisingly was tabled.
Looking at the language in the City Council's acceptance of the housing grant money I'm confused. It makes it sounds like the city has a ton of leeway in how they could spend the money, from saying it could be used in emergencies to saying it can be used for corridor improvement and finally stating that they will make a plan and appropriate the money. It also states that they "accept
the Housing Development Fund Grant, subject to the terms of the grant agreement" which could mean that if the grant specifies where the money goes then the city will adhere to that?
All things considered I think I'd rather see Gentilozzi's projects happen than anything that's likely be pushed by the city otherwise. I could easily see them taking the $40 million and putting into a couple of non-descript Housing Commission projects. I'm nervous that something stupid might be on the horizon.
WHEREAS, at any time during the fiscal year, the City Council may consider
appropriations which modify the previously adopted annual appropriation to transfer an
unencumbered balance in whole or in part from any account; provide for the expenditure
of revenues in excess of those in the budget; or meet a public emergency affecting life,
health, property, or the public peace; and
WHEREAS, the State of Michigan has appropriated funds within its FY 2023/2024 budget
for which the City of Lansing is an eligible recipient; and
WHEREAS, funding for transformational housing projects was appropriated for
redevelopment projects to include the direct eligible costs of creating affordable housing
units or completing other corridor improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lansing City Council hereby accepts
the Housing Development Fund Grant, subject to the terms of the grant agreement.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Administration will develop a plan for the use of
the grant funds and submit the plan to Lansing City Council for their review before the
funds are appropriated by the Council.
Oh wow, a lot better. I'm going to get some of those renderings uploaded to the Development Rundown thread.
The Tower on the Grand is vastly improved. I could almost get over what's shown as far as the ramp goes. The look of everything is nice in the renderings but I'm worried that if the city gives up rights to build over Grand Ave without the proper protections we could end up with something much different than what's proposed. I still don't like closing in the street but at a certain point you have to pick your battles, that deck is relatively slender and quite high up. To me, allowing Gentilozzi to do a deck over Grand Ave as pictured could sort of be looked at as a deal in exchange for him living up to expectations of height and high-quality materials/architecture.
The Capitol Tower is very nice as well, losing the height sucks but it fills the corner so much better. It's also worth noting that this iteration of the plan includes three floor townhouses filling the rest of the block along Ottawa. The underground parking is also a nice touch.
Four issues I have:
-First and most important: The "Riverfront seating and observation area" at Tower on the Grand has to be built to county trail standards (a 12' wide clear path) and connect it to the existing path to the south and the S Grand Ramp promenade. To me that should be a non-negotiable. Renderings imply that's not the current plan. It'd be nice to see them utilize the riverfront at ground level with commercial space, at least a single restaurant space, or perhaps build the structure to allow for that in the future if they don't think it's viable now.
-Why no retail on the ramp behind the Atrium building facing Grand??? (I know: it'd take away from parking) This should be one of the things required by the city for giving up air rights. If Grand stays a relative retail/restaurant desert then downtown proper will NEVER be successful. This seems lost on Gentilozzi given his efforts to funnel people to Washington.
-The parking ramp on Washington is ugly and horribly out of place there, if they're going to encroach on the sidewalk like that then they have to do something much better aesthetically. I can't tell if it's parking or some other use that they're extending over the sidewalk?
-I wish they'd change the ground floor of the Washington Sq / Prudden Building in favor of something either historical or much more modern, the current bricked up look does the building no favors. Maybe that's in the cards and just not rendered.
This was a horrible decision as far as I can tell. Councilmember spoke about wanting it to be smaller and lower quality, with less "trinkets". That's the thinking that has led this city to being the brunt of jokes. The proposed performing arts center isn't too large and extravagant, it's too modest to even house the symphony. The only silver lining may be that it will hopefully be replaced sooner.
Another thing worth pointing out was the going on about subsidies to these city facilities as if that's an inherently bad thing. The Lansing Center, the ballpark and even Groespeck Golf Course are all assets that I'm sure the city sees a net positive from all things considered. I guess we can forget about any major capital improvements for the city's parks or facilities under this council.
I noticed that building at Shiawassee and Larch the other say, the first thing I wondered was whether Eyde owned it. Do you remember how far through approvals that project got before?
Yeah, the old Shiawassee proposal is very similar to Stadium North: a workforce building and a senior building, each 70ish units and 4 floors. Back when Stadium North was announced I assumed that the same developer was involved.
I thought it was Hobbs+Black for the public safety complex...can't remember where I saw that, but it wouldn't surprise me. Definitely a project type they're familiar with.
Comments
The sign ordinance isn't super interesting, mostly just makes things simpler and accounts for the fact that over time the form-based zoning code is going to make buildings much closer to the street. Murals are going to be a gigantic headache. Municipalities basically cannot touch content anymore due to case law so it is all about governing size, place, and time. I think most people would love new, cool artwork, but not so much what amounts to a painted billboard covering the entire side of a building. We can't make that distinction without evaluating content.
Sparrow is taking down the old service station and three houses along Michigan Ave. and Holmes St. As a very close neighbor I am dead-set against yet another dead block for their parking. My reading of the ordinance wouldn't permit permanent parking without an SLU or variance, but they are advocating a different interpretation. I'm hoping they get their act together and unload it after they get their tower and central utility plant built, but who knows.
City purchases - Since Council has to approve the purchase and grant anything could happen if they aren't satisfied with where things stand. They do broadcast Committee of the Whole on youtube so I recommend tuning in. I do not see any reason why both parts could not move separately and I'm sure that is likely baked into negotiations. I will say purchase of real property does not require a public hearing. Only the sale of real property in excess of $50,000 requires a public hearing. Say what you will about that.
the Housing Development Fund Grant, subject to the terms of the grant agreement" which could mean that if the grant specifies where the money goes then the city will adhere to that?
All things considered I think I'd rather see Gentilozzi's projects happen than anything that's likely be pushed by the city otherwise. I could easily see them taking the $40 million and putting into a couple of non-descript Housing Commission projects. I'm nervous that something stupid might be on the horizon.
The Tower on the Grand is vastly improved. I could almost get over what's shown as far as the ramp goes. The look of everything is nice in the renderings but I'm worried that if the city gives up rights to build over Grand Ave without the proper protections we could end up with something much different than what's proposed. I still don't like closing in the street but at a certain point you have to pick your battles, that deck is relatively slender and quite high up. To me, allowing Gentilozzi to do a deck over Grand Ave as pictured could sort of be looked at as a deal in exchange for him living up to expectations of height and high-quality materials/architecture.
The Capitol Tower is very nice as well, losing the height sucks but it fills the corner so much better. It's also worth noting that this iteration of the plan includes three floor townhouses filling the rest of the block along Ottawa. The underground parking is also a nice touch.
Four issues I have:
-First and most important: The "Riverfront seating and observation area" at Tower on the Grand has to be built to county trail standards (a 12' wide clear path) and connect it to the existing path to the south and the S Grand Ramp promenade. To me that should be a non-negotiable. Renderings imply that's not the current plan. It'd be nice to see them utilize the riverfront at ground level with commercial space, at least a single restaurant space, or perhaps build the structure to allow for that in the future if they don't think it's viable now.
-Why no retail on the ramp behind the Atrium building facing Grand??? (I know: it'd take away from parking) This should be one of the things required by the city for giving up air rights. If Grand stays a relative retail/restaurant desert then downtown proper will NEVER be successful. This seems lost on Gentilozzi given his efforts to funnel people to Washington.
-The parking ramp on Washington is ugly and horribly out of place there, if they're going to encroach on the sidewalk like that then they have to do something much better aesthetically. I can't tell if it's parking or some other use that they're extending over the sidewalk?
-I wish they'd change the ground floor of the Washington Sq / Prudden Building in favor of something either historical or much more modern, the current bricked up look does the building no favors. Maybe that's in the cards and just not rendered.
Found the old thread from the project and it looks like they were only going for a zoning variance at the time as far as I can tell
https://develop.metrolansing.com/discussions/discussion/175/the-crossing-shiwassee-senior-lofts#latest