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.
Mondays Development and Planning meeting does indeed have the Brownfield Plan for Capitol Walk Apartments...
It'll be five floors with 124 workforce units on the top four four floors with ground floor parking and amenities, it will even have a rooftop deck. The project is slated to cost just under $40 million and they want to break ground in October of this year with completion in October 2028.
My opinion... It's obviously a very 'meh' building design-wise (I can't bring myself to say 'architecturally' anymore with these sorts of places), but it's hard to argue with the added density and I don't think I'd spend any of my 'fight for prettier buildings' energy on projects over on this side of downtown. Solid infill project all-around imo, if they actually break ground this year I'll be impressed.
My initial thought was that it's a good infill project and generally I'll support something that brings more non-low income residents downtown. I'm not trying to get into an affordable housing debate, but I think we need more housing type across the board downtown, not just affordable or low income.
As far as the design, yeah...pretty bland like these tend to be, but again, for the location, it doesn't kill it for me. Though to your Architectural comment, I should to remind you, as someone in the architectural profession, that that project does still take an architect, engineers and believe it or not, often a designer lol. We've got similar housing projects like this going through our office regularly (not here), but still. Any notes of who the architect is?
I thought the design is maybe a half a step more interesting than most. It will be great to see people living there instead of a surface parking lot. I have noticed this sort of mediocre style of apartment buildings in a lot of cities on the web-cam tours I put on for background, of course money dictates these designs. Over at MSU you can tell which building were built in the 1920's during "good economic times" with all the flourishes stonework, nice doors and windows etc. while buildings built later were simpler less ornate. Or for instance the dorms in the central campus vs. the housing built in this century off Kalamazoo in EL. In Lansing our public buildings were often very ornate and fancy even! It would be nice to see a little more money put into the designs of our time. Pride of place and community are often overlooked.
@Lymon89 Yeah, I know architects are required on just about anything commercial, but I meant 'architectural' in more of a colloquial sense, no offense to architects making a living designing less grand stuff. I know bean counters ultimately run everything nowadays. I couldn't find any references to an architect in the Brownfield document, no logos or anything on the rendering/plans. Developer is Advanced Redevelopment Solutions out of Eagle for whatever that's worth.
I think half-step more interesting than most is fair (within the realm of 5-over-1's). As-rendered it'd be better than Metro Place across the street, but not as nice as Block 600, for instance. The roof top deck is a genuinely nice touch. To see that it's five floors instead of four is also a plus in my book. Slowly but surely this is starting to feel a little more like a growth trend than an anomaly (*knocks on wood*).
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
It'll be five floors with 124 workforce units on the top four four floors with ground floor parking and amenities, it will even have a rooftop deck. The project is slated to cost just under $40 million and they want to break ground in October of this year with completion in October 2028.
My opinion... It's obviously a very 'meh' building design-wise (I can't bring myself to say 'architecturally' anymore with these sorts of places), but it's hard to argue with the added density and I don't think I'd spend any of my 'fight for prettier buildings' energy on projects over on this side of downtown. Solid infill project all-around imo, if they actually break ground this year I'll be impressed.
As far as the design, yeah...pretty bland like these tend to be, but again, for the location, it doesn't kill it for me. Though to your Architectural comment, I should to remind you, as someone in the architectural profession, that that project does still take an architect, engineers and believe it or not, often a designer lol. We've got similar housing projects like this going through our office regularly (not here), but still. Any notes of who the architect is?
I think half-step more interesting than most is fair (within the realm of 5-over-1's). As-rendered it'd be better than Metro Place across the street, but not as nice as Block 600, for instance. The roof top deck is a genuinely nice touch. To see that it's five floors instead of four is also a plus in my book. Slowly but surely this is starting to feel a little more like a growth trend than an anomaly (*knocks on wood*).