a FEASIBILITY STUDY for

BLENDING HOUSING and URBAN

AGRICULTURE
in LANSING, MI
PRACTICUM REPORT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
2010

PA U L B E S T, M AT T H E W E A R L S , B R A N D O N
H A D D O C K , S A R A H N A S S I R I , PA I G E S E A B R O O K ,
N ATA L I E Y O U A K I M
 AGENDA

o Site and neighborhood

g description
p
o Housing market analysis
o Potential occupants,
p , design
g options,
p , and
construction methods
o Agriculture and green space analysis
o Development options
o Development recommendations
o Conclusion
 INTRODUCTION

o Our client,, the Cohousing

g Development
p Co. is
partnering with the Greater Lansing Food Bank
to develop a parcel of land that will incorporate
h
housing
i and d agriculture
i lt
o The goal of this project is to provide our client
and its partner with use alternatives that include
housing type and agricultural/open space
possibilities for their Lansing
p g property
p p y
 PREVIOUS CLIENT DEVELOPMENTS

o Cohousing
g Development
p Company
p y (CDC)
( )
developed three adjacent cohousing
communities in Scio Township near Ann Arbor,
Mi hi
Michigan
o Sunward Cohousing
o Great Oak Cohousing
o Touchstone Cohousing
SITE and NEIGHBORHOOD
DESCRIPTION
Area is mostly 3721 Aurelius Rd
Rd.
single family
residential
Near many
natural
recreational
areas
Near MSU
N MSU, LCC
and Cooley Law
School
Near Jolly and
Mt. Hope
On CATA bus
route #7
 site basics
o 22.84 acres
o Used to be a farm but has been fallow for 30
years
o Zoning: A-residential, single
o Previously approved for an 86 unit condominium
development
 neighborhood description

o City
y of Lansing
gppopulation
p is declining
g and
aging
o Population with largest growth is 55 to 64 years of
age
o Population within one mile of site is
relatively stable
o LEAP is encouraging employment growth in
Mid-Michigan
o Financial services, health care, life sciences,
information technolog
technology
 characteristics
o Forest View Neighborhood
g
o Diverse housing stock

o 70% constructed1970-1989
HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS
trends: new single-family home construction
permits
p 2004-2008
2000
1800 Lansing
g
1600
1400
East Lansing
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
trends:
foreclosed
and
distressed
housing

Large increase in
home foreclosures
in recent years
Foreclosures drive
down home sale
prices
 trends: occupancy and tenure
o % renter occupied (2000):
o One mile:
mile 57
57.5%
5% Year 2000 vacancy (1
Y (1-3
3
o Three mile: 43.9% mile)
o % change renter
occupied (2000-2013):
o One mile: +.1%
o Three mile: -1
1.2%
2%
o % change vacancy
(2000-2013):
o One mile:
O il +1.6%
1 6%
o Three mile: + 3.9%
 market rate housing analysis

Lansing SE Lansing

2008 2009 Diff

Diff. 2008 2009 Diff.
Avg. $57,978 $46,678 -19% Avg. $57,591 $50,843 -12%
List $ List $
# of 349 419 20% # of 1 549
1,549 1 730
1,730 12%
sales sales
Avg. $54,336 $43,104 -21% Avg. $53,738 $47,275 -12%
sale $ sale $
Avg. 77 71 Less 6 Avg. 75 71 Less 4
Market Days Market Days
Time Time
 feasibility: low income

o Lansing
g Stats
o 11.7% - unemployed
o 4.2% - receive cash assistance
o 17.4% - received food stamps in last 12 months
o Below the poverty line
o 24% - all people
o 18.3% - families
o 33.7% - unrelated individuals 15+
 feasibility: low income
o The National Low Income Housing
g Coalition
(NLIHC) reports that Lansing residents must
make $2,500 a month or $30,000 a year to access
affordable
ff d bl housing
h i (no
( more than
th 30% off annuall
income)
o Percent change 2000-2008
2000 2008
o One mile: -12.4%
Household income near site, 2000-2008
o Three mile: -11.6%
1 mile
il radius
di 3 mile radius

2000 2008 2000 2008

HH earn < $35,000
$35 000 year 50 3%
50.3% 37 9%
37.9% 53% 41 4%
41.4%
Source: US Census and ESRI Forecasts
 feasibility: senior and student

Senior Student

Between 2000 and 2008, 55+ grew Enrolled in college/grad school

In Lansing: 2.8% One mile: 20.8%
Within one mile of p
project
j site: 1.7% Three mile: 20.5%
Within three miles of project site:
1.8%
OCCUPANTS/ DESIGN/ CONSTRUCTION
 potential occupants
o Analysis shows that these populations should be
targeted due to stable or growing population:
o Seniors and/or Disabled Persons
o May require similar housing design (universal design)
o Low to Moderate Income Families and/or students
o May
y require
q similar ownership
p type
yp (rental)
( )
 design strategies and
construction methods
o Cottage Communities
o Small, dense single-family

o Cohousing
o Emphasizes
p community y interaction
o Universal Design
o Non-exclusive, accommodates virtually everyone

oP
Prefabrication
f b i ti
o Parts of a building are made off-site and then assembled
on-site,
on site, saves money
o Green Building
o Energy efficient, utilize natural energy, minimize footprint
URBAN AGRICULTURE and OTHER GREEN
SPACE
 agriculture feasibility
o Soil is viable for agricultural
g activities
o Soil analysis is necessary to determine which crops will
grow best

H
Up
n MaB
A
Utb H
n
 types of urban green spaces
o Urban Farming
g
o Production agriculture scaled down to fit the urban
form
o Community Supported Agriculture
o “the cohousing of agriculture”
o Open
O Space
S
o A green third space where community members can
interact
o Urban Gardening
o Individual; may be private or public
 case studies
o Project
j Grow: Ann Arbor,, Michigan
g
o Urban gardening, rental plots

o Troy Gardens: Madison, Wisconsin

o CSA, production agriculture

o Growing Power: Milwaukee, Wisconsin

o Intensive
I i production
d i agriculture
i l
o Lessons Learned:
o Fosters community interaction

o Increases education about food production

o Increases food security

y – locally
yggrown produce
 troy gardens: madison, wi

o Residential uses
o 30 units of mixed-income
cohousing

o Agricultural uses
o Five acres: CSA
o 330 family garden plots
ANALYSIS of OPTIONS

S W
O T
 Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Cohousing + Increases Niche market may Bring Does not fit with
strength of be hard to sell surrounding character of
CS
CSA residential community to the surrounding
community site neighborhoods
Cottages + Agriculture can Ag is not as Potentially low None foreseen
as an interim
i t i use, profitable
fit bl as costt housing
h i for
f
Production cottages are housing Ag workers
Ag dense
Cottages
g + Allows for private
Lower density Third space Does not fit with
space without may be less supplements character of
Open Space compromising a profitable, private property surrounding
strong sense of maintaining open neighborhoods
community,y, has space
p mayy be
wide appeal costly
Attached Gardens can Rental plots may Allows residents Increased foot
easily be be less appealing an opportunity to traffic may make
Housingg+ configured and practical for grow their own the site less
Rental Plots around housing short term food by leasing secure
leasers outdoor space
Attached Open Space can There is already Open space acts If too large, a park
b an interim
be i t i use, parkk space iin th
the as a backyard
b k d may attract
tt t
Housing + attached housing area unwanted visitors
Open Space is dense
 DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATION
y U R B A N A G R I C U LT U R E y COMMON HOUSE
y TOWNHOMES y PA R K I N G AT T H E
y C O T TA G E S P E R I P H E RY
y M U LT I S T O R Y U N I T y P E D E S T R I A N PAT H S
y COMMUNITY GREEN
S PA C E
y PONDS IN LOW AREAS
 PHASE ONE
y PERMANENT
A G R I C U LT U R E ( E A S T )
y T E M P O R A RY
A G R I C U LT U R E ( W E S T )
y R O A D S AT P E R I P H E R Y
y SOME LANDSCAPING
y FIRST POND (EAST)
 PHASE TWO
y P E R M A N E N T A G R I C U LT U R E y COMMON HOUSE
y T E M P O R A R Y A G R I C U LT U R E y M U LT I FA M I LY
SCALED BACK FOR
HOUSING y P E D E S T R I A N PAT H S
y C O T TA G E S
y TOWNHOMES
 PHASE THREE
y PERMANENT
A G R I C U LT U R E
y ADDITIONAL TOWNHOMES
A N D C O T TA G E S
y E X PA N D P E D E S T R I A N
PAT H S
y P O S S I B L E E X PA N S I O N O F
R E N TA L P L O T S
y P R E FA B R I C AT I O N
y G R E E N R O O F S ( M U LT I +
COMMON HOUSE)
y S O L A R PA N E L I N G
(HOUSING)
y UNIVERSAL DESIGN (ALL)
THANK YOU!

QUESTIONS?