Downtown Raddison in trouble?
#1
Posted 14 September 2005 - 11:38 AM
What does everyone else think about this announcment.
#2
Posted 14 September 2005 - 12:35 PM
I also think the Radisson will never pay back the million dollars that the article talked about. They haven't made a single payment on the 3 million dollars, which in turn ballooned to 17 million by interest. They have other debtors that will collect before the city ever gets a chance to see the money.
This is a good case why downtown development is not always the smartest way to use the city budget.
#3
Posted 14 September 2005 - 01:41 PM
#4
Posted 14 September 2005 - 01:55 PM
The city got dubbed years ago, and now we are paying for it in the future. The leaders that signed a "deal with the devil" with the Radisson were not thinking ahead AT ALL. Now, we must pay for it.
Do not fear, their is NO WAY the current city government is going to seek the full payback in no uncertain terms closing the hotel. We were taken for a ride years ago, and now we must pay for it.
It is a sad deal, but a necessary one.
Man, I can't believe how incredibly short-sighted the council was in 1985, and how they even agreed not to help other hotels start up. That handicapped the city for years. The silver lining here, though, is that we will no longer be bound by this.
This set up why there is only one downtown hotel in a city this size. It's embarrassing.
#5
Posted 14 September 2005 - 02:39 PM
#6
Posted 14 September 2005 - 02:58 PM
It is terrible and embarrassing what Radisson did to Lansing. ALL of Lansing's hotels are either in the suburbs, or at the very edges of the city with the exception of the dinky former Motel 6 down on Washington, which doesn't even count, IMO. For a capital city, that is embarrassing.
To me, the Radisson Hotel isn't all that bad, and is decently maintained for being the cities only downtown hotel. What makes it bad is what it did in the past, and that it's really only a mediocre hotel.
Edited by Lmichigan, 14 September 2005 - 03:00 PM.
#7
Posted 14 September 2005 - 05:07 PM
In the midst of this Raddison discussion, which hotel do you think would make a nice addition to downtown, also how large, tall and where do you think it should be (this is assuming the 250,000 sq. ft. Lansing Center addition is completed.) I think a Mariott or Omni would be appropriate, 400+ rooms would be good, and about 25-30 floors. As for location I would go with Grand & Michigan, regardless of the Raddison's objections. Either on the location of the surface lot and the adjacent abandoned building or on the location of the Grand View Building and the North Grand Ramp. I prefer the latter of the two sites but the Grand View building would be very expensive, and the other location would be cheap, just a dilapidated surface lot and abandoned building.
#8
Posted 17 September 2005 - 11:47 AM
hood, on Sep 14 2005, 07:07 PM, said:
I don't think anybody is thinking of building more than 15 floors in downtown right now. There is simply too much open space to build up. Building up is more expensive than building out, and it is too easy for a hotel to simply buy up a couple surface lots and work it that way.
#9
Posted 17 September 2005 - 12:54 PM
I don't think we will see anything over 15 stories, anyway, but it will be because of demand, not because the sites downtown are too large.
#10
Posted 17 September 2005 - 04:03 PM
#11
Posted 17 September 2005 - 05:50 PM
#12
Posted 17 September 2005 - 06:22 PM
#13
Posted 17 September 2005 - 08:28 PM
jaredw, on Sep 17 2005, 07:50 PM, said:
I can almost guaruntee all of that will happen in 15 years. Both the museums have to move, they are talking like they are ready to move now and they are currently exploring their options. A performing arts center was supposed to be built by now, they had designs and even renderings prepared for a $40 million performing arts center in 2001, i don't know what happened but I'm guessing the $15 million from the state fell through, to the best of my knowledge the city is still pursuing it. As for the Lansing Center being expanded and a hotel built, it's just a matter of time, and the hotel will have to be at least 400 rooms to support that kind of expansion, thats over 100 rooms larger than the under construction Mariott in GR, thats like 23 floors I think. As for comparing GR to Lansing, you can't really, Lansing's downtown has a larger market to appeal to and a greater chance of success in the long run, but no Van Andel, DeVos or Meijers to jumpstart massive development. One of the keys for a successful downtown is a Liberal population, Gr does not have this and in spite of that has had a greatly successful downtown, there is no reason why Lansing's downtown can't be at least as successful as GR's, I could go on forever on that subject.
#14
Posted 17 September 2005 - 08:44 PM
A little off the subject, but I still have the small and old newspaper clipping/rendering of the proposed expansion. It's not very clear, at all, but I'll try to scan it. The expansion actually looks really nice, and matches the rest of the center.
As for the Performing Arts Center, what happened was simply that Hollister took the job with the state. The proposal was essentially put on hold because Benavides has nowhere near the interest in the performing arts center as Hollister had. Hollister single-handedly kept the proposal afloat, and just didn't have enough time to implement it. If he wouldn't have taken the job, I would put money that the center would either be under construction at this time, or what at least be in the end of the planning phase.
I remember specifically the LSJ asking Benavides about this when he first came into office, and he simply brushed it off as a frill, an extra, that the city couldn't afford to pursue.
#15
Posted 17 September 2005 - 09:09 PM
#16
Posted 18 September 2005 - 11:54 AM
hood, on Sep 17 2005, 11:09 PM, said:
Yeah but Detroit has a lot for the attendees to do while they are there, such as attend a baseball game at Comerica Park, a football game at Ford Field, a hockey game at Joe Louis, a theater show at the Fox, plus much more. Grand Rapids is much larger than Lansing, and has a much larger airport to prove that. Attendees for large conferences can fly in to Detroit and Grand Rapids much easier than they can to Lansing.
#17
Posted 18 September 2005 - 01:36 PM
#18
Posted 18 September 2005 - 03:57 PM
#19
Posted 20 September 2005 - 11:01 PM
Anway, I wouldn't put too much into attracting conventions. I've read too much about cities heavily investing in expansions with little more in terms of attendance to show for it.
Also, it might not be the case for travelers on regular business trips, but a city's anemities and attractions definitely get used for conference attendees. Take a look at Microsoft's recent PDC 2005 conference. Just the other day I was reading about the procedures for attendees to visit Universal Studios in Cali. for free with free shuttles to the studio/amusement park every 15 minutes, for example. Nobody's going to spend their entire days sitting in auditoriums. And if they do, there's still no reason to do it in a medium-small city when there's good chance it'll be a lot more convenient in an established convention city.
That being said, there's no telling what will be possible in 15 years. While the city still has a ways to go and even though many people still complain, I don't think there were very many people back in the earily 90s thinking there would even remotely be a renewed general interest in downtown Detroit. Even Flint has received about $200 million of investment in the last 3-4 years not including some projects that are still on the way in the greater downtown area, and I'm pretty sure nobody called that one way back in 1990.
#20
Posted 21 September 2005 - 05:30 PM













