Lansing Off Topic

[hood]

So what? They propose putting the dumpsters on the street to make the alley look better? It's just an alley, its meant to service the buildings that line it, not for people to walk through or to look nice. WHo's idea is that anyways?

[LanCity]

Well, its a visual nightmare for the immediate area, it stinks, and its completely unnecessary. You'll see a more productive community trash disposal method replace the ugly dumpsters in the future.

And why not make downtown more aesthetically pleasing? Even our alleys can and should look presentable.

Trust me, everyone on allegan, washington, washtenaw, etc. that came in contact had an issue with that alley. "Dumpster Alley" wasn't a positive name.

Edited June 14, 2006 by LanCity

[hood]

What are they supposed to do with there trash then if having dumpsters is so horrible?

[RustTown]

LanCity,

I too am confused. There are MANY and BETTER ways to make the downtown more attractive. That particular alley was hardly and eyesore, and serves its purpose.

Are you just guessing this is what they are doing? I've heard nothing of this, and it makes no sense whatsoever to me. The only time trash collection is ever moved outside of an alley is when allies are used as retail malls, otherwise, it just doesn't make sense as trash has to be collected from somewhere other than the street. Again, you have me thoroughly confused, LanCity, and I'm not sure you know what you're talking about on this one. It's not a matter of disagreeing with you rather moving dumpsters onto city parking spaces doesn't make sense, and doesn't even sound legal.

Edited June 14, 2006 by Lmichigan

[downtownlansing77]

The alley has to be worked on because of the CSO construction and for steamline renovation. So during the period when there are 20 foot trenches in the alley, the dumpsters have to be placed on the street. The BWL is also working on the steamlines and burying all the power lines currently hanging all over the place in the alley (allowing building owners to potentially fix up their rear facades).

After the construction, they are limiting the number of dumpsters to make the alley more attractive. If you've ever walked by the Allegan Beaners in July, you will understand why this is VERY necessary. The odor is awful.

As for whether or not this is legal - the alley is public right of way. Lansing could pass an ordinance restricting any and all dumpsters. That the city is paying to cap meters during a required construction period seems pretty nice. Not to sound defensive, but many cities would say, "Your trash is your problem."

Did anyone see the news about Hollister Building today? Basically they said Boji is going to do something with the building and details will come. Nothing new.

[RustTown]

The Hollister Building has it's own thread, and has been posted in quite a few times in the over yesterday.

Now, I finally understand exactly what you were saying about the Allegan/Washtenaw alley, and you made it make sense, finally.

[hood]

Awhile ago, there was a discussion about the Turner and North St. corridors, the abandoned buildings and such. I mentioned a couple of houses that appeared in decent shape but were tightly boarded up for no apparent reason. I got a picture of them today, still looking sort of odd, not on a street or anything, not even a driveway or path leading to them.

[RustTown]

That is so creepy every time I drive by. lol I never got the history behind why there are like that. They are directly northwest of the Turner Dodge property hidden behind a tiny group of occupied houses. It's just so odd.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Lmichigan

[jaredw]

They were moved there and relocated when the city started condemning property. I think they are owned by the city now. They did this about 15 years ago.

[RustTown]

lol, it may have been better just to tear them down. I swear, you could shoot a horror movie in this lot. Maybe, I'll look on the assessor website to see their ownership.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Lmichigan

[hood]

They are under the same parcel as Turner Dodge and the park that sits next to them. So yes they are owned by the city, but I would still like to know why they are just sitting there like that and why the city would own them.

[statedude3]

Good to see the birdhouse is not boarded up.

Edit: Dang, I really need to get more sleep.

Edited June 19, 2006 by statedude3

[hood]

Just to see how it would look I put the Stadium District and Abrams Landing side-by-side. I scaled them to where it should be pretty accurate, based of the height of the fourth floor. It really shows the width of the Stadium District and just how large it is, but it is a little deceptive since Abrams Landing is much deeper than the Stadium District.

[RustTown]

Great comparison.

[hood]

The thing I like when looking at these side by side is that they are so different in scale and architecture, it makes future developers in the area less likely to conform to a certain style. differences such as the awnings on the SD vs the large front windows on AL, and the SD more traditional postmodern arcjitecture, which works good for something so wide and AL's more modern, attention grabbing architecture that make up for its lack of street frontage. The more I look at these projects and the closer they come to being built the more I can't wait to see how the rest of this area gets developed.

[jaredw]

Are the floors going to be taller on the SD than the AL?

[RustTown]

In the thread for Abrams Landing, I think it is explained that the ground floor is disguised to look like two separate floors. They are both 4-story structures.

[fisher191]

That's pretty cool. side by side. I'm not that computer savy to have connected them like that.

There was another sketch that used similiar colors as the SD, that was presented, but I really liked the bolder colors.

[hood]

It's just a matter of having the right program, in this case Adobe InDesign.

I also like the bolder colors, deep blue is probably my favorite color of all. Your building is actually cobalt blue, isn't it?

[fisher191]

high gloss cobalt tiles.

[RustTown]

Well, 2005 census estimates have just been released, and, again it shows the continuing trend of shrinking urban cities and the continued growth of the sunbelt sprawlers. This trend looks to be sticking true for Lansing, which has posted another loss over last year of roughly 1,000 more residents coming to 115,518. Here is the change since 2000 to 2005:

119,128

118,700 (-428, -.35%)

118,271 (-429, -.36%)

117,469 (-802, -.67%)

116,862 (-607, -.51%)

115,518 (-1,344, -1.1%)

Overall loss since 2000:

3,160 (-3.0%)

Good sign is that is appears that if trends continue it will be a much smaller loss than the loss from 1990 to 2000. Heck, even Flint is posting a much smaller loss of only about 5% since 2000, and is slowing. So, something is going on.

Other estimates for key cities from 2000 to 2005:

Grand Rapids: -2.0%

Detroit: -6.8%

Livonia: (no number as it's dropped out of the 100,000 dividing mark)

Warren: -2.1%

Sterling Heights: +2.8%

Ann Arbor: -.7%

Hopefully, they release cities under 100,000 soon.

Edited June 21, 2006 by Lmichigan

[statedude3]

Where do we see this loss in residents? Very few areas of town have abandoned homes (at least boarded up ones). My neighborhood, and those that I frequent seem jam packed. I'm kinda confused because we hear about population loss, but it is not really that easy to see first hand, IMO.

[fisher191]

IMO, I think the urban revitilization is just getting off the ground. To take back/prevent people fleeing the cities we need the new and cool properties. There are definetly pockets of success, but the whole movement is just getting going. Even locally, how many units, both rental and sale, have come online. Arbaugh--48, Prudden Place-- ~50/60, East Village, Condos on the Grand. If someone decides they want a new property, there still is not that many options....yet. Whereas there are tons of choices of subdivisions in the satellite cities.

Motor Wheel is not online yet, Printers Row is not fully up yet. Stadium District has not broke ground. Abrams Landing has not broke ground, 21 units at the Hollister building is coming.

I am opptimistic on the resurgence of the cities. Many baby boomers still like the suburbs, some are starting to move back, but not quite the numbers necessary to turn the tide. The suburbs are getting so expensive that it is also going to help keep younger families in the city. To keep them though, there needs to be more renovated/constructed city units.

[jaredw]

What do you guys think about narrowing major roads to deter population loss?

I have been thinking of this lately, and I think that having congested traffic is good for the city. With Okemos widening Okemos Rd, they just made the commute take less time for people working in Okemos and living outside of Okemos, and vice versa. If Michigan Ave was widened in Lansing, it would take less time to get to downtown if you were coming from the suburbs, thus making it more affordable to not live in the city. Congestion also increases the use of public transportation, an obvious good environmental plus. The negative is that retail could be hurt and businesses may favor locating in a place where their staff and clients could get to faster. With a regional effort to at least not widen any roads, I think it could work. Even for people living out in the suburbs who have to drive to get to the store, narrowing the roads would eventually bring more neighborhood businesses to their community, which is more pedestrian friendly.

Edited June 21, 2006 by jaredw

[hood]

What do you guys think about narrowing major roads to deter population loss?

I think it's one of those ideas that may sound good in concept, but in reality just wouldn't work. We live in a car-oriented society and narrowing major roads would simply be looked at as the government trying to force people to live a certain way, people don't take to that very well.