Living Car Free - What should we do with all this land?

GM is tearing down 4 auto plants here in Lansing, if I haven't lost count. This is putting huge chunks of land, right in the city, back into circulation.

What should we do with this land, that would be conducive to a carfree or carlite way of life in this old car-building town?

This situation has come up so suddenly that there literally are NO current plans for using this land. So there really might be a chance to do something useul, if the right ideas come along.

A park with paths would be one approach.

Just thinking out loud here.

Come up with four catchy names for some new neighborhoods to be laid out in the old urbanist style. Things like Old Town, Brick Town, Settlement Town, River Town, etc.

Pre-plat, pre-zone, pre-approve as much as possible for mixed use in a car free friendly way. We all know what that means. Spread out the retail, put places for business and employment within walking distance of the residential, etc. Aim to create entire liveable, small scale communities.

What you want to keep from happening is selling the big parcels to real estate developers who will create giant single-use, car dependent zones. You don't want a square mile of condos here in one place and another square mile of big box stores there on the other side of town.

Hopefully if it's homes and shops it will follow Stapleton's example in Denver. The former airport now has human scale homes with garages in the rear, local shops, wide bikeable streets and connecting trails. It's not perfect, but an excellent example of well thought out urban infill

link (http://www.stapletondenver.com/community/greenbook/earlyplanning.asp)

I think you may have an opportunity to attract visionary, environmental architects and urban-planners who might very well be interested in building a condensed model car-free city. The fact that it is on land formerly used to build cars is the kind of irony most would find irrisistible. Perhaps this model-city could be a showcase for innovative environmental technologies, but be functional as well with homes, shops, restaurants and offices operating on alternative heat/lighting/cooling systems, rooftop gardens, pedestrian/cycling-only access (except for deliveries that would enter and use a separate roadway), etc. City Council in Flint should be embracing an idea like this and actively pursue urban planners, architects that are looking for large parcels of urban land to test and display theories and technologies. It might very well revitaize the city.

Always a need for running/biking trails.

What about bringing in DPZ? They don't show a project in Michigan and they are probably up for anything with a tinge of irony.



Since its founding in 1980, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company has completed designs for over 250 new and existing communities. This work has exerted a major influence on the practice and direction of urban planning in the United States.

DPZ’s projects have received numerous awards, including two National AIA Awards and two Governor’s Urban Design Awards for Excellence. The firm’s early project of Seaside, Florida, was the first authentic new town to be built successfully in the United States in over fifty years. In 1989, Time Magazine selected Seaside as one of the 10 “Best of the Decade” achievements in the field of design. The firm has been featured in other national media such as NBC News and ABC News, as well as Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New Yorker.

http://www.dpz.com/projects.aspx

She's beautiful, she's rich, she's got huuuuge....tracts of land!

Some other thoughts.

Were those old GM plants served by rail? If there are abandoned rail right of ways maybe they could be recycled as other kinds of transit corridors.

Some electric utilities provide rebates for energy conservation because that reduces the need to build new infrastructure. Maybe the city could consider giving property tax abatements for car light real estate development that reduces the need to build and maintain road infrastructure.

To minimize car dependency, a mixed use property development should make sure that the people who work in the businesses can also afford to live in the nearby residences. So you wouldn't want to build a bunch of expensive mini mansions next to boutique retail businesses that employ mostly lower paid workers.

Smaller, practical, affordable urban houses. Get some ideas from organizations like Habitat for Humanity and see what they come up with. Groups like that with a little funding might be able to take down abandoned buildings in other cities and recycle the materials for new construction.

What you want to keep from happening is selling the big parcels to real estate developers who will create giant single-use, car dependent zones. You don't want a square mile of condos here in one place and another square mile of big box stores there on the other side of town.

Why does anybody EVER think that's a good idea? And the weird thing is they will fight and fight development...but they wont EVER ask for higher density which would prevent the waste of their land.

those dpz communities are absolutely stunning. If you check Maryland you'll see their tearing down Springhill Lake if you check in greenbelt. Greenbelt is a relatively spaced out area but Springhill lake has to be the LARGEST apartment complex I have seen...its huge...it kinda seems ghetto but its in greenbelt its actually prolly quite nice. They shut down 32 buildings in it this week due to electrical fires.

I think you may have an opportunity to attract visionary, environmental architects and urban-planners who might very well be interested in building a condensed model car-free city.

Good idea.

The city that created the motorcar culture should return to a car free town once again.

However, if I were a betting man, I'd say the city will become a slum. Get ready.

And it IS alot of land too.
Maybe they should turn it into affordable housing for the poor souls that are losing their jobs/homes/families/lives to GM going down the crapper... just a thought.

She's beautiful, she's rich, she's got huuuuge....tracts of land!

Damn you, I just laughed and milk shot out my nose!!! :roflmao:

goto
www.dpz.com

Grow corn for Ethanol ;o)

GM is tearing down 4 auto plants here in Lansing, if I haven't lost count. This is putting huge chunks of land, right in the city, back into circulation.

What should we do with this land, that would be conducive to a carfree or carlite way of life in this old car-building town?

This situation has come up so suddenly that there literally are NO current plans for using this land. So there really might be a chance to do something useul, if the right ideas come along.


It seems to me the best thing to do is to cram a complete lifestyle for a large number of people into that space...townhouses, lowrise apartments, office buildings and shops. No malls.

Grow corn for Ethanol ;o)

I'll put my money on that one out of all the choices thus offered; the city would stand to get a few million out of the feds just by saying they were doing "corn ethanol research." :(

I'll put my money on that one out of all the choices thus offered; the city would stand to get a few million out of the feds just by saying they were doing "corn ethanol research." :(


Not only that, they could add some corn mazes as a tourist attraction.

And it IS alot of land too.
Maybe they should turn it into affordable housing for the poor souls that are losing their jobs/homes/families/lives to GM going down the crapper... just a thought.
Yeah. High density Housing for the poor. It's been done before. Close to public transportation and easy to be car free with lots of car free comrades close by.

I found a few aerial pictures that show the huge size of the plots and their prime location near the downtown Lansing area, state Capitol, etc. My house is just off the edge of one picture, and I often bike through the largest plants (the ones still standing) on my way to work.

http://static.flickr.com/71/181186343_c2f40b5821_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/54/121026563_c590ebe331_o.jpg

This picture shows the demolition in progress on the oldest continually operating car plant in th world. Michigan's state Capitol is just above the yellow bulldozer thingy.

http://static.flickr.com/99/289050669_8b0cb3be59_b.jpg

Just thinking out loud here.

Come up with four catchy names for some new neighborhoods to be laid out in the old urbanist style. Things like Old Town, Brick Town, Settlement Town, River Town, etc. Pre-plat, pre-zone, pre-approve as much as possible for mixed use in a car free friendly way. We all know what that means. Spread out the retail, put places for business and employment within walking distance of the residential, etc. Aim to create entire liveable, small scale communities. . . . .

That's uncanny! Until recently I lived in "REOtown" named for the old Diamond Reo plant auto plant that was torn down about 20 years ago. So you see, we've been there beore.... the REO plant site itself is now an industrial zone with several light industrial plants. The commercial area nearby is being spruced up and is zoned for mixed use commercial/residential in the old brick buildings. Not exactly charming (yet) but practical and a big improvement over "HO-town" that used to be there. This area is only a couple blocks from the GM plant that's almost demolished. In fact, it can be seen in the first of the pictures I linked to, in the lower right hand edge of the picture. Downtown lansing is just to the upper edge of that picture.

Yeah. High density Housing for the poor. It's been done before. Close to public transportation and easy to be car free with lots of car free comrades close by.
I think pj7 was talking about "affordable" private housing as opposed to the old style public housing projects, which are extinct here in Lansing. There is a need for convenient working-class housing here. All of the recent "carfree" housing is VERY pricey lofts, townhouses and condos. Most of the people in these places probably own cars, but mostly use them on the weekends. The selling point is walking distance to jobs and shopping. This trend is widespread in cities outside of Iowa here in the newfangled 21st century.

You really are living in the past, ILTB, I hate to tell you. I'm surprised you even have a computer. ;)

There is a need for convenient working-class housing here. All of the recent "carfree" housing is VERY pricey lofts, townhouses and condos.

Location, location, location. In many cities, unless the downtown is really badly decayed, urban housing is a lot more expensive than suburban housing, so the notion that you can build "affordable" market value housing in the middle of the old city is dicey.

Tear everything down. Plant trees.

Location, location, location. In many cities, unless the downtown is really badly decayed, urban housing is a lot more expensive than suburban housing, so the notion that you can build "affordable" market value housing in the middle of the old city is dicey.
Maybe less dicey if the real estate market is suddenly flooded with cleared land, as is happening here with the abandoned auto plants.

Maybe less dicey if the real estate market is suddenly flooded with cleared land, as is happening here with the abandoned auto plants.

I agree that will bring the prices down somewhat, but that impact will be quickly displaced onto other, less desireable locations, as those people try to "trade up" into the new development.

Mind, you it's still a good idea to build medium to high density, non-upscale housing here. Better municipal tax base, lower service costs, better quality of life, revitalized city core, blah, blah, blah.

All of the recent "carfree" housing is VERY pricey lofts, townhouses and condos. Most of the people in these places probably own cars, but mostly use them on the weekends. The selling point is walking distance to jobs and shopping. This trend is widespread in cities outside of Iowa here in the 2newfangled 1st century.

You really are living in the past, ILTB, I hate to tell you. I'm surprised you even have a computer. ;)
There's nothing new about such gentrification. Society Hill in Philadelphia, near Independence Hall was redeveloped in the 50's and early 60's. Walking distance or easy public transit to Center City, shops, theater, etc. Lots of moneyed empty nest folk bought in, even some young professionals, who usually headed for the suburbs as soon as their kids were old enough to enter the local public schools or associate with the local gentry. Or had their first dozen bikes or hot wheels stolen from in front of their house. Families with children of school age and the money to make choices were scarce as hen's teeth and I assume still are for the same reasons.

There's nothing new about such gentrification. Society Hill in Philadelphia, near Independence Hall was redeveloped in the 50's and early 60's. Walking distance or easy public transit to Center City, shops, theater, etc. Lots of moneyed empty nest folk bought in, even some young professionals, who usually headed for the suburbs as soon as their kids were old enough to enter the local public schools or associate with the local gentry. Or had their first dozen bikes or hot wheels stolen from in front of their house. Families with children of school age and the money to make choices were scarce as hen's teeth and I assume still are for the same reasons.
I suspect that the main reason rich folk with kids don't want to live in Lansing has more to do with the lousy schools than with the crime rates.

The land in picture number one is in a nice location on the banks of the Grand River. However, it's right next to a large power plant and adjacent to the auto plant that's still operational. So I don't know how desirable this area will be for housing, low- or high-income. I think it's anybody's guess.

Some other thoughts.

Were those old GM plants served by rail? If there are abandoned rail right of ways maybe they could be recycled as other kinds of transit corridors.

Some electric utilities provide rebates for energy conservation because that reduces the need to build new infrastructure. Maybe the city could consider giving property tax abatements for car light real estate development that reduces the need to build and maintain road infrastructure.

To minimize car dependency, a mixed use property development should make sure that the people who work in the businesses can also afford to live in the nearby residences. So you wouldn't want to build a bunch of expensive mini mansions next to boutique retail businesses that employ mostly lower paid workers.

Smaller, practical, affordable urban houses. Get some ideas from organizations like Habitat for Humanity and see what they come up with. Groups like that with a little funding might be able to take down abandoned buildings in other cities and recycle the materials for new construction.
Great rail access. Most cars are shipped by rail, ironically.

I suspect that the main reason rich folk with kids don't want to live in Lansing has more to do with the lousy schools than with the crime rates.
You don't think "lousy schools" and crime rates are correlated? And I don't define rich folk as having sufficient income or future prospects to afford decent housing in the suburbs in most areas. Though it may take that to afford recent ownership of housing in gentrified areas. Ideal for well-off empty nesters.

..."REOtown"...

A singularly unfortunate name for a real estate project! REO is a common banking acronym for "Real Estate Owned" which is foreclosed properties that have reverted to a bank and must be gotten off the books as quickly as possible.

Location, location, location. In many cities, unless the downtown is really badly decayed, urban housing is a lot more expensive than suburban housing, so the notion that you can build "affordable" market value housing in the middle of the old city is dicey.
Tell me about it! I looked at a loft apartment in Greenville, SC about 5 years ago, it has almost tripled in value in those 5 years. They have 2 downtown mixed use buildings in the planning stages and they are almost sold out.

Aaron:)

GM is tearing down 4 auto plants here in Lansing, if I haven't lost count. This is putting huge chunks of land, right in the city, back into circulation.

What should we do with this land, that would be conducive to a carfree or carlite way of life in this old car-building town?

This situation has come up so suddenly that there literally are NO current plans for using this land. So there really might be a chance to do something useul, if the right ideas come along.

Isn't the appropriate question, "What should GM do?" I mean...since its their land and all.

Just sayin...unless GM has already sold the land to the city of Lansing; then it IS more of a matter of "we" in a civil sense.

Possesion is 4/5 of the law. :D

Isn't the appropriate question, "What should GM do?" I mean...since its their land and all.

Just sayin...unless GM has already sold the land to the city of Lansing; then it IS more of a matter of "we" in a civil sense.

Possesion is 4/5 of the law. :D
What you say is true, but there is still a civic and public policy dimension to large scale real estate development.

What you say is true, but there is still a civic and public policy dimension to large scale real estate development.
If GM wants to sell the property, it's likely the next owner will be coming to the city with some zoning request, so the city has to decide what uses to permit.

Damn you, I just laughed and milk shot out my nose!!! :roflmao:

Sorry about your nose and the spilt milk becnal! I saw Roody's thread title and just couldn't resist the Python reference. :)

Isn't the appropriate question, "What should GM do?" I mean...since its their land and all.

Just sayin...unless GM has already sold the land to the city of Lansing; then it IS more of a matter of "we" in a civil sense.

Possesion is 4/5 of the law. :D

Possession is actually 9/10 of the law, but land is a little different. The land is probably zoned heavy industrial, right now. There is probably a fair bit of petroleum and heavy metals contamination of the soil there. You could probably rezone it for light industrial, warehousing, possibly even some commercial use, but residential would require a site cleanup, which can be a long and expensive process.


There are three things GM can do

1) Leave the land empty, with the idea that if they need more plant capacity, in the future they can build new plants there, in the mean time, taxes on an empty lot are considerably less, then on occupied land.

2) Cleanup the land and then sell it off, would make the most cash, and give the new owner(s) the most zoning flexability.

3) Sell the land, and leave cleanup to the new owner(s).

In the cases of selling the land, it could go to a single owner, or several smaller ones. While you could provide a car free village there as part of the city, in a very nice and affordable little area, with it's own residences, commercial and light industrial applications, I expect this ideal will go out the window almost immediately. Not when they can build a huge Home Despot, an even bigger Walwart and lots of plaza style outlet stores where a $5 item costs $45, nothing will be accessable from the street and 90% of the property will be parking lot.

Isn't the appropriate question, "What should GM do?" I mean...since its their land and all.

Just sayin...unless GM has already sold the land to the city of Lansing; then it IS more of a matter of "we" in a civil sense.

Possesion is 4/5 of the law. :D

Obviously you haven't been watching the laws lately. Eminent Domain laws could snatch that land up in a heartbeat.

What you might try is for a "Central Park" Big public parkland bordered by high-rise plush condos. Thats a plan that should get the city drooling.

Or, maybe you can put in some new factories and create jobs. Maybe Toyota or Hyundai might be interested.

Eminent domain is the bain of any society that values individual rights.
I would hate to see a city step in and take over this land to build a park for the public at the expense of others like that. If that can be done to GM, then it can be done to your house, or apartment, or whatever. Its basically one step away from mob rule.

What you might try is for a "Central Park" Big public parkland bordered by high-rise plush condos. Thats a plan that should get the city drooling.
Well, let's face it, there's zero real chance of any car light development in that place, at this time. However, every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. This thread is one step. We have a half dozen people talking in public about car light development. One step down, 999.9996 miles to go.

Well, let's face it, there's zero real chance of any car light development in that place, at this time. However, every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. This thread is one step. We have a half dozen people talking in public about car light development. One step down, 999.9996 miles to go.
I think it's already gone a little farther than you think. Many city planners are talking about "cool cities" and livable cities" and "sustainable development." This is not exactly carfree or car light, but the next best thing.

City planners sound like they just read "the Life and Death of American Cities" by Jane Adams, even though it was published 45 years ago and has never been out of print.

I lived over a bakery in REOtown. My landlord said he couldn't get his other 4 apartments licensed because the zoning laws didn't allow mixed res/commercial development. That law was changed when REOtown started, and now there are apartments and "lofts" above the stores all up and down S. Washington Ave. This is exactly what Adams was talking about in her book so many years ago, and it's a great location for carfree living..

If GM wants to sell the property, it's likely the next owner will be coming to the city with some zoning request, so the city has to decide what uses to permit.
You hit the nail on the head. At some point it will be a public decision.

One confusing thing is GM's actions so far. In the past, they've left abandoned plants standing for years. Here in Lansing, they've started deconstructing them within months of closure. WHY?

You hit the nail on the head. At some point it will be a public decision.

One confusing thing is GM's actions so far. In the past, they've left abandoned plants standing for years. Here in Lansing, they've started deconstructing them within months of closure. WHY?

Public liability? Or to get them off the tax rolls? Just a couple of guesses.

Aaron:)