HOLDING ACTEGR 0N LAPJD USE

Thai: éar five Deans of M U. P.
MIG-E 16AM WATE UHEVERSETY

iosaph Anfhony Kowaiski
.1965

LIBRARY

Michigan Stan:
University

 

. ___.___._ —.

_¥‘_‘ _g_h‘

ABSTRACT
HOLDING ACTION ON LAND USE
by Joseph Anthony Kowalski

The subject of this thesis is the evaluation of the

Capitol Development Area in Lansing, Michigan, where the
State oerichigan is developing office facilities. This
study is an attempt to evaluate the changes that have
occurred in the area and to determine causes of these

The study begins with a historical review of

changes.
Actions that

the Area's develOpment from 1920 to 1963.

have influenced changes are reviewed and the recorded

data related to its develOpment are examined.

The develOpment schemes prepared for the Capitol

DevelOpment Area are reviewed and evaluated. An exam--

ination is made of assessed valuation, building permits,
rezoning petitions, newspaper articles, and public action

and how these parameters have influenced the pattern of
the area. The more recognized methods of controlling
An attempt is made to determine

land use are reviewed.
could have

whether these holding actions, if utilized,
caused a change in the Capitol Development Area.

The significant result of the review of this subject

Joseph anthony Kowalski

is that many of the factors examined had no appreciable

influence on the development of the area. Conversely,

implication, lack of funds, and the original layout of

the Capitol Area are the factors that had the greatest

control of development.

HOLDING ACTION ON LAND USE

by
Joseph Anthony Kowalski

A THES IS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING
Department of Urban Planning

1965

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
PREFACE .......................................... v
CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT AREA ------------------------- I
Introduction -------------------------------- 1
Prior to 1920 _______________________________ 3
1920 - 1921 ................................. 1
1935 ---------------------------------------- 10
1937 ---------------------------------------- 11
1938 ---------------------------------------- 11
19A2 ---------------------------------------- 15
1943 ---------------------------------------- 15
1944 ---------------------------------------- 15
1945 -----—---------—----§ ------------------- 17
1947 ---------------------------------------- 19
1948 - 1953 --------------------------------- 19
1955 --—--------—-—-¥ ------------------------ 19
1956 - 1957 ................................. 21
1958 ________________________________________ 22
1960 ________________________________________ 25
1962 ---------------------------------------- 26
1963 ---------------------------------------- 27

The Effects of the Capitol DeveIOpment Area-- 29
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION -------------------- 43

Effects of State Action on the Capitol
Development Area ---------------------------- 43

Effects of Action by the City of Lansing on
the Capitol Development Area ________________ #4

ii

HOLDING ACTION ON LAND USE _______________________ 17

Legal Justification ------------------------- 48
Police Power -------------------------------- 49
Purchase: Negotiated ----------------------- 49
Purchase: Eminent Domain ------------------- 50
The Comprehensive Plan ---------------------- 52
Zoning -------------------------------------- 53
Official Map -------------------------------- 55
Gifts --------------------------------------- 58
Exchanges ----------------------------------- 58
Tax Foreclosures ---------------------------- 59
Subdivision Regulation ---------------------- 6O
Dedication ---------------------------------- 61
Re-assessments ------------------------------ 63

Purchase of Easements or Development Rights-— 63

Urban Renewal ------------------------------- 64
Escheat ------------------------------------- 65
Taxation ------------------------------------ 65
Liens --------------------------------------- 65
Leases -------------------------------------- 56
CONCLUSION --------------------------------------- 68
BIBLIOGRAPHY ------------------------------------- 72
APPENDIX ----------------------------------------- 75

iii

PLATES

PAGE
1. Capitol Development Area Location -------------- 2
2. Vacant or Unimproved PrOperty - I920 ----------- 5
3. City of Lansing Land Use - I920 ---------------- 7
A. Plan "A" of a Suggested New Capitol Group—l920-- 8
5. Plan ”BU of a Suggested New Capitol Group-l920—— 9
6. Existing Development Around State Capitol—l938——l3
7. Capitol Development Area ---------------------- la
8. Scheme One ------------------------------------ l8
9. Capitol Development Area — 1947 --------------- 20
IO. Suggested Future Scheme for Capitol
Development Area ------------------------------ 23
ll. Capitol Development Area as prepared
by the State - 1958 --------------------------- 2A
12. Capitol DeveIOpment Area as Prepared
by the State — 1963 --------------------------- 28
13, View of Radials --4 ---------------------------- 30
1A. Perimeters of Value - 1938-1963 e -------------- 32
15. Radial Value Profiles ------------------------- 33
16. Radial Value Profiles ------------------------- 3A

17. Building Permits Issued in the Capitol
Development Area - 1923 - 1963 - --------------- 36

18. Number of petitions for Rezoning In and
About the Capitol Development Area- l938—l963-— 37

19. Newspaper Articles Concernin the Capitol
Development Area -l93O - l9 3 ———————————————— 41

20. Positive and Negative Actions Effecting
the Capitol Development Area -- 1921 - I963 --- 42

iv

PREFACE

On March 9, 1961, President Kennedy, in proposing a
Federal Open space program in his Housing Message to
Congress, said: "Land is the most precious resource of
the metropolitan area. The present patterns of haphazard
suburban deveIOpment are contributing to a tragic waste
in the use of a vital resource now being consumed at an
alarming rate."

Open space must be reserved to provide parks and
recreation, conserve water and other natural resources,
prevent building in undesirable locations, prevent erosion
and floods, and avoid the wasteful extension of public
services. Open land is also needed to provide resources
for future residential deveIOpment, to protect against
undue Speculation and to make it possible for State and
regional bodies to control the rate and character of
community development.1

Centralizing the activities of government has long
been accepted by many planners as an efficient use of
public funds. Most state capitals throughout the country,
especially in recent years, have given serious consideration
to keeping their administrative offices together. For

over 100 years the Capitol of Michigan has been located

 

l. U.S., Housing and Home Finance Agency, Urban Renewal
Authority, Preserving Urban Open Space (February 1963),

p‘30

in Lansing, Michigan; and, during this time, planners
have proposed many schemes for its harmonious development.
As in most developments of this type, time has required
changes and revisions of plans. An effort will be made
in this paper to review the changes that have occurred
in and about the present Capitol Development Area in
Lansing from 1920 to 1963.

There are certain controls available to governments
that restrict the use of private property to provide the
desired services for which governments were created.

These will be briefly reviewed and related to the Capitol

DevelOpment Area.

vi

 

 

 

THE CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT AREA

Introduction

Government is big business. Governments--loca1,
state and federal--are among the largest employers in the
United States. Buildings housing the various govern-
mental functions, require a considerable amount of land
and are generally located in or become the center of
urban develOpment. Early planners usually underestimated
the SCOpe that government functions would one day assume.
As a result, the land provided for those functions was
usually inadequate and further expansion was restricted
by surrounding develOpment. The area for the Capitol
DevelOpment of Michigan is no exception.

LOCated immediately east of the central business
district of the City of Lansing (See Plate 1) is an area
that for many years has been known as the Capitol
Development Area. The area was first designated in 1847
when the Legislature of the State of Michigan decided to
remove the state capital from Detroit to a site more
centrally located in the State. The area now known as
Lansing, Michigan, was selected for the new state capital.

Although Lansing has been the Capital since 1847,
an area for the State's office facilities was not formally
suggested until 1920. (See Plates 4 & 5.) In 1963, as
a result of continued expansion, the State offices were
located in over 50 buildings dispersed throughout the

l

 

TAJISAIS III. . .awmii iia-|.\ xi» ,1 911/wa732. l‘ith-.,_---:-\ .15.: .,.H..,H.-.H\-La..-

514' \i..\ .P‘ i ‘- . w . ,HA I 1" I \~\\ A

 

 

ii

an
m< 928E359 no.3 maio

H .02 Opmam
-L: -4

mop< unmsqofio>mm HOpHQmo

.Qs.‘ ‘
buan

 

3
Lansing area, and about 50 per cent of the office Space
was privately owned.

Pursuant to the act of the assembly authorizing the
new capital, approximately 1500 acres of land on both
sides of the river were laid out as the Town of Michigan.
Steps were taken by the State to protect an area for the
Capitol by offering free perimeter sites to churches.
However, throughout the 115 years that the State Capitol
has been in Lansing difficulties have been encountered
in keeping land available for future office space needs.
One of the major difficulties has been the lack of funds
to acquire property for this purpose.

During the years since the Capitol moved to Lansing,
a number of plans have been made to facilitate future
needs of the State; however, urban development in the
area has caused many difficulties and necessitated changes
in plans. Also, the existence of the capitol facilities
has had an influence on properties and development in
the Lansing area.

An effort was made to review the changes that have
occurred in the Capitol DevelOpment Area and an attempt

was made to determine the causes that effect the changes.

Prior to 1920

In 1859 the City of Lansing had a recorded population
of about 3,000; and, as the new capitol, the area was
Open to exploitation. Soon after the news of its

designation as the Capitol of Michigan, eastern capitalists

1+
and promoters bought up large tracts within the City to
hold for speculation. The retention of these lands
caused new families to settle in outlying districts.2
Lansing’s population gradually increased in the next
60 years, and by 1920 totaled over 57,000. Although
there was a great demand for land in the central area of
Lansing by this time, many large parcels of land were not
as yet improved. Plate 2 indicates the vacant or unim-
proved property in the central area of Lansing in 1921.
The City of Lansing, as well as the State, had no
definite plans for future development of the Capitol
City up to 1920. In about 1919, the City of Lansing hired
Harland Bartholomew, City Plan Engineers of St. Louis,

to create a plan for the development of Lansing.

1920 - 1921

In 1921, Harland Bartholomew presented the City
Council with the Lansing Plan. The Plan . . . "encouraged
the wider appreciation of the civic value of dignified
and impressive public buildings"3, and provided for a

suggested new capitol group for State government offices.

 

2. State of Michigan, Department of Administration,
Building Division, A Report of the Progress by the
State of Michigan in the Development of its Capitol
Area - I935-l960, p.11.

3. Harland Bartholomew, City Plan Engineer, The Lansing
Plan: A Comprehensive City Plan Report for Lansing,
Michigan:l92l, p. 5A.

 

 

"1

I I16

3‘-

I'.m
'W'“-v
_ .

'1
.1“

u“‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I ' " J ' ‘ i
'C .4.
G C F! L _
ene 49 1§E %; 1
3 L U ”
O W a
E L)
qpp m
3““ m a). m.
m
J§
Iona .
5‘1 N S R . as:
N
Ottawa R i V
‘ ’ £71 \
MIChigan l m E; 3 §
‘_

 

{
N. "a“ .
Allegan h} §x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a v ~
N k s »
Washtenam Dk-
, \i m» '
Kalama 2cm R IQ Q
Lenaweer—P ES _l
Hillfldaéé J////A\\\\x
g 4, _ N
St. Joseph E 3
a i u
(.1 it (a
$>> *1 E
Main. U“ “' _4;

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plate No. 2

VACANT OR UNIMPROVED PROPERTY - 1920

a

Source: The Lansing Plan, A Comprehensive
City Plan Report for Lansing, Michigan

6

The areas suggested by these plans became better known

as the Capitol Development Area. The report indicates
that the public was not overly concerned with the group-
ing of State office facilities . . . "It is apparent that
heretofore neither those who represent the state at large
in the legislative assemblies nor the citizens of Lansing
have been especially interested in the possibilities of
grouping the great state buildings.“P

The lack of State building grouping and reservation
of land for future office needs is depicted in Plate 3,
which shows the land use in the central area in 1920.
The map indiCates that develOpment had already enveloped
the Capitol and the Lewis Cass Building. The separation
of these two structures can be partially attributed to
the erection of the Cass Building on a site that was
publicly owned. The availability of this site apparently
took precedence over the grouping of State offices.

The Lansing Plan also points out that the present
State office facilities would eventually need expansion. .
"The State of Michigan is not always going to find its
present capitol adequate and is very likely in time to
need additional office buildings similar to that built
on Walnut Street. It would be an obvious service to the
people of the state to plan an orderly groupipg of these
structures in advance of their construct10n.’

Bartholomew prepared two suggested plans for the new

Capitol Group in anticipation of expansion. Plan "A,"

 

4. ibid.
5. ibid.

A
v."
«CH

r\

V
l.
Il'\

"u"

if.

u
I.-
h

‘1

l‘
M“

  
  

. ,; . - ‘ '
'l".‘...4 ;. ' ‘ v '; u-I .
'- ’3"...”.',-“.‘.)‘ "‘1
' 2' ‘ W368 " ‘ ‘ "
S a “any. 3.13m: , -3 N
-‘ ’~ '.. . >’.: . '.A- ‘5

. i! A

 

 

 

 
 

   

 

 

 

 

 

   

  

.‘(Vh- {1&1014‘4;

'xamaab
' (1?,-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ari}:

 

 

.O‘ (’1’

" .- , i '9
. my; JM‘fA}
’ ' , . .44:

a 91"“ ”WT?

 

 

 

' D

 

  

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- l ‘ -
. 1m): 1 ‘. . .
I if. a). _ ‘9- ~ I” .. d

 

 

 

l
} ___.
Hillscalea. i

 

 

Ix
._._‘_

 

 

 

 

Plate No. 3

.lrSycamon:

v—»—P-ine-J _

.thesirnitll_lll_l_-i.

SLTY or: LANSING LAND USE - 1920

 

Source: Lansing Planning Commission
- Work map by Harland Bartholomew'

&.Assoc.

 

 

 

 

Residential
Commercial

State Gov't Bldgs.
Public & Quasi Pub.
Churches

Park Land

Vacant ~

I

fiu‘

 

off
“H‘itl

v“.

"in

u“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   

   

, , i I;
t T“
Genesee 9 S‘ as
I In
#5 a 4...} H‘I
5 5.1 ‘r‘l 0:»
C 31 c?‘ U‘
a o a: g
c: H L) o-‘ai
Shamasap 3
Iona
0mm: __________ ..........
Michigan_.

 

qunuuuaa';

Allegan A i

L

 

Washtenam

 

 

Kalamazoo

 

 

 

 

Hillsdalea

 

St. Joseph

 

Pi

 

Lhestdut

Main

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,8ynamnre

7

Plate No. 4

PLAN "A" OF A SUGGESTED NEW CAPITOL GROUP- 1920

Source: Lansing City Planning Commission - sketches made '
by Harland Bartholomew, 1920

 

u; ”I

AM.

' Q
‘n"
'N
1"HVI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
2.3.9 u
43.3w?
iflqg
i p55“
\u
i 5:: :..h 94:. ”tumor.
mafia
i ¢LC: «chm. i
p
a. n
A a a ..
n c . e m _ . e a
0 t .1 l c d S M
e S I t. h l e a e 8 O .
n 0 C A .8 m W l J
9 . i h a. a l
G M.. 8 l . mm. m t.
.w.. m L s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plate No. 5

M

"B" or A 3!}chst NEw CAPITOL GROUP- 1920

Source: Lansing City Planning Commission

 

- sketches made by Harland Bartholomew

 

10

Plate 4, the scheme recommended by the planners, indicates
12 blocks for the Capitol Development Area. This plan
contemplates the eventual use of the site for the present
Capitol as an open plaza, to provide an impressive View
of a dignified Capitol Group farther west. Plate 5, Plan
"B," indicates 9 blocks for the Capitol DevelOpment Area.
This plan anticipates the eventual replacement of the
present Capitol and suggests a group of buildings,
including the new Cass Building, related to it.

Although these proposals for the Capitol Development
Area were the most sound plans up to this date, planning
for the Area, as well as other parts of Lansing, did not

take on significant proportions until the mid 30's.

19.22

In 1935, the Lansing City Council authorized the appoint-
ment of a City Plan Commission. This Commission immedi—
ately inaugurated a project for the preparation of a
comprehensive plan for the City of Lansing. Recognizing
the need for cooperation, both financial and otherwise
with State government, the City Plan Commission arranged
a meeting with the Finance Committee of the State Admin-
istrative Board to initiate a joint venture in financing
the develOpment plans. In August, 1935, the State

Administrative Board approved the recommendation of its

Finance Committee that a sum not to exceed $5,000 (which

would be matched by City funds) be expended for preparation

ll
of a definitive plan in which the basic requirements of

State and City development would be set forth.6

122

In 1937, the State Legislature created the State
Capitol Building and Grounds Commission. The Commission
was directed to prepare a master plan for the develOpment
of State buildings and grounds in the City of LanSing.

The Committee had several meetings and reports were made
to the Governor.7

The funds appropriated by the State and matched by
the City were used to engage Harland Bartholomew to
re-evaluate the Lansing Plan of 1921, and to prepare a
plan for the future development of Lansing and the Capitol

Development Area.

1938

In the latter part of 1938, Bartholomew submitted the
Lansing City Plan to the City Plan Commission. The need
for grouping of State office facilities was again

emphasized in this plan: " Additional office facilities
are now needed for the many persons who administer

the State's activities and extensive improvements

will be necessary in the future.. It is imposs1ble for
any organization to function efficiently under conditions
such as are found in the State offices in LanSIng

today. State departments should not be located in

R

6. State of Michigan, p. l.
7. ibid.

A 12
iii‘ifiis‘éuifiiiicifafifiirifiofiifimiiSuZESiXyifiéo‘éihofiinSing'S
department be located in different bui§dings or in
different parts of the same building."

Plate 6 displays the existing develOpment around the
State Capitol in 1938. Since 1920, intensive development
had occurred to the east, north, and south of the Capitol.
The land use map also indicated the increased develOpment
of commercial uses along Washington Avenue.

The general plan for the State Capitol Development
Area, as shown on Plate 7, encompasses an area of
twenty-two city blocks. The area begins in the north at
Ferris Park and extends southward in a two—block area to
Lenawee Street where it turns westward continuing from
Capitol Avenue to Sycamore Street and occupies both sides
of Michigan Avenue from Capitol Avenue to Sycamore Street.
The proposed development plan contemplates expansion of
the facilities to the block west of the Capitol Building,
and the other buildings and open areas are subordinate
to this concept. This plan is based on the retention of
the Capitol Building as the focal point of the design

and the creation of a strong east-west axis.9 The plan

was accepted by the City and State as a logical develOp—

ment for the Capitol Development Area.

 

8. City Plan Commission, The Comprehensive City Plan:
Lansing, Michigan, by Harland BarthoIOmew and .
Associates, City Planning Consultants (St. Louis,
Missourri, November, 193 ), p. 76.

9. ibid., p. 79.

Ger.

 

1 Mick

.I

.r‘n.

niche

3h,

«.‘x‘a

.,. J0

 

 

ShaJEMMDP

 

Iona

 

 

Ottawa

 

 

 

 

Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

Allegan

 

Washtenaw

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kalamazoo

\_,/

 

 

 

Lenawee—-

 

 

 

Hillsdale

 

 

 

St. Joseph

 

 

 

U

 

 

Main,

 

 

 

 

 

 

~_gvnanore

 

Plate No. 6

Mc- xo“ 5.. .0 I.

EXISTING DEVEIOMNT AROUND STASIE CAPITOL — 193g

Residential

cammmi
Source: Lansing City Planning

Commission State & FEderal Bldga.

Ifififlici51mmmilhfiu

|l-Il[l

 

.
,.J

‘H

n

p-
y...“

1'11

A...

 

 

    
 

     
 
 

Genesee—__L_____

‘ l . -
I"

v
'1'

r

 

 

 
     

 

 

 

Shaiuaspp \ZE- "
\E ]
Iona \:E
El IIIKIIL [
‘ =
Ottawa _,,,.,,,. ..........

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan . i .< 1
i ‘\i‘i"\E i
n- h
Allegan = g .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. Ml Hug
Ma S ht ens w \\:_:.
Kalamazao ‘g wan... . r
i x; g. E
. _ E i 5 § :
”Shame; ' %u\u.ai;_lus--u n . 'x-l" __
a
Hillsdale ' l{///»\\\\x
n N .
. fl ,5
St. Josem .0 3
. cc (D 44’
(>55 51: 3,5
Maj-11L Ui’ Q1 {IL
I
Plate No, 7 ' i i i . I . -

QAEITOL DEVELOPMENT AREA - 193g,

l5

iggg

The City of Lansing Zoning Ordinance approved
August 31, 1942, repealed the zoning ordinance passed
June 13, 1927. The Capitol Development Area, as defined
on Plate 7, was zoned "D-M” Multi—Dwelling and "D"
Apartment Districts by the new zoning ordinance. Zoning
of these areas was effected to protect the Area from

commercial encroachment.

1942
In 1943, Governor Harry F. Kelley reorganized the

State Capitol Building and Grounds Commission. The
Commission undertook an inventory of all facilities used
in Lansing by the State and engaged the services of Smith,
Hinchman and Grylls, Inc., Architects and Engineers of

Detroit, to assist in its work.10

1944

In March of 1944, the State Capitol Building Comm-
ission recommended the acquisition of a four block area
immediately west of the Capitol, and that prOper steps
be taken for the protection of the land surrounding the
areas to be acquired against possible future encroachment
by commercial structures.11 This year is memorable in
10. State of Michigan, p. 1.
ll. ibid., p.2.

16
that it was the year when funds were first provided by
the State Legislature to initiate land acquisition.

In the same year, the State of Michigan and the City
of Lansing established a mutual agreement concerning the
protection and development of the Capitol Area. By
resolution on March 24, 1944, and with concurrence of
the City Council on March 27, 1944, the City Plan Comm-
ission gave assurance that that agency and the City
Council would COOperate in every way possible with
officials of the State to effect necessary street closures
and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance.12 In essence,
the resolution provided that the City of Lansing would
not permit any zoning changes in the Capitol Development
Area. This mutual agreement provided a basis for
decisions by the Legislature that resulted in a major
expenditure of funds for acquisition of private properties
and planning and construction within the designated
Capitol Development Area.

In December of 1944, Smith, Hinchman and Grylls
submitted a report outlining the space occupied by the
various agencies of the State, including probable future
requirements for a period of 10 years and 10 possible
master plan arrangements.13

The ten master plan arrangements for the Capitol

 

12. ibid.
13. ibid.

17
Development Area submitted by the Architects occupy an
area ranging from 14% blocks to a 16 block area. Scheme
No. one, defined in Plate 8, covers a 15% block area and
bears the Architects' recommendation, since it seems to
best exemplify the contemporary trend toward open
planning and satisfies the requirements of the State's
building program during that time.14 The other nine
schemes are contained in the appendix of this report.
All ten proposed schemes tie in the Cass Building to the
Capitol and the proposed new structures. Variations in
the plan are in the use of blocks immediately northwest
of the Capitol grounds. The schemes also provide for a
number of alternative arrangements of buildings in the

four-block area west of the Capitol.

194_

In September, 1945, Smith, Hinchman and Grylls, the
firm which made the field investigation and prepared the
preliminary report for the Capitol Building Commission,
were commissioned to develOp preliminary site and
building plans for the four-block area west of the

Capitol.15 This action by the Commission did not provide

for consideration of the remaining six blocks proposed

 

14. Report on Requirements for the Expansion of Site and
Building Facilities: Michigan State Capitol Group;
Lgnsing, Michigan, by Smith, Hinchman & Grylls, Inc.,
Architects & Engineers, December, 1944; p. 35.

15. State of Michigan, p. 3.

 

‘ f
1‘1

K"
(/1

"l
n
1

MG ‘

a
.,.
‘—

v.‘

I“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' l i J i
Genesoee—i ' i i i 0
4: U
E a
3 E c
Shamaaae_. 3
Ioga
: II III II" II III III:
as ° 1\\ 55
Ottawa _ _':\\\ qll'nnlnn
I \\
Michigan ii.
Allegan 4;
25
III II I_Il'.'
WashtenaLL_
Kalamazoo *—*
Lenawee-- . 7*—
Hillsda—le
. a. I A
’ s. B
St. Josenh E F‘
q G) 43
c c: m
P: T" (U
Main 'mr a 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plate No. 8
gamma: N0. 1

19
by Scheme No. One, Plate 8.

1231

By 1947, plans for the Capitol Development Area
indicate that scheme No. one (Plate 8), recommended by
Smith, Hinchman and Grylls, had been reduced from 15%
blocks to an eight-block area. Plate 9 defines the
State's Capitol Development Area for 1947. It was
concluded by the State that this area sould fulfill the
office needs for a number of years. Although the area
outlined on Plate 9 was of prime concern to the State in

1947, other areas were being considered, but, as yet,

had not been defined.

19A8 - 1921

In 1948, the Building Division of the Department of
Administration was given authority and duties formerly
assigned to the two commissions established in 1937 and
1945. After some three years of preparing plans,
Specifications, and acquiring financing, the Building
Division was able to start construction of the Stevens
T. Mason Building. The structure, completed in 1953,
occupies a site in the southwest block of the State's

Capitol DevelOpment Area of 1947.

1955

h

In 1955, the City of Lansing constructed the Civic

H !
fir
H‘L‘

,
a Y

..:flu
‘*n"E

,.
H‘.

W. I ‘
mm;

GBHGBOBLI

 

Shamasee.

 

Iona

 

 

 

 

 

OVMflflL

 

 

 

 

Mic higan

 

 

Allegan

 

Washtenam

 

 

Kalamaznn

 

 

 

Lenaweere

 

Hiiiedeie

 

 

St. Joseph_

Svca nnre

P1 no

 

hhestqut

Main

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w

Plate No. 9

CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT.AREA - 1947

21
Center in the two blocks immediately north of the Cass
Office Building. One of the major factors contributing
to its construction on this location was that the City
owned one of the two blocks. The site was formerly
occupied by the Prudden Auditorium which was built about
1916. (Mr. Prudden deeded the property to the City with
provisions that it be used for auditorium purposes.)

The State did not favor the construction of the
Civic Center by the City, for the State believed its
construction would obviate connection of the Cass Building
with the Capitol Office complex. It was also assumed
that there would now be two agencies seeking parking for

employees instead of one.

1956 - 1957

During 1956, preliminary specifications for a
building to house the State Supreme Court, Law Library,
and Solicitor Generals Office were prOposed and sub-
sequently approved by the Legislative State Office
Building Commission. Bids were prepared in connection
with the State office building and state library. In
February, 1957, the Capitol Outlay Budget recommended
that an appropriation be made for acquisition of land for
parking and future develOpment of the Capitol Development
Area, and that the prOposed buildings be financed from
the sale of bonds. However, due to lack of funds, the

Legislature was unable to authorize either project.

22
This-was one of the most disheartening setbacks
for the Capitol Development Area in the period following

the construction of the Mason Building.16

195;:
In 1958, the City Planning Board of Lansing
released the Comprehensive Master Plan, 1960-1980,
which outlined a future scheme for the Capitol Develop-
ment Area. As depicted in Plate 10, the area includes
31 city blocks and extends north to Shiawasee Street,
south to St. Joseph Street, east to Capitol Avenue,
and west to Sycamore Street. The area proposed
encompasses the Capitol, other State office buildings,
and local civic structures. Also proposed for inclusion
were two City owned buildings, the Civic Center, and
proposed City Library.
The State did not agree with the City scheme of
1958 and advanced its own scheme the same year.
Plate 11 depicts the Capitol Development Area as con-
ceived by the State. The plan, which includes 23
city blocks, excluded two blocks west of Pine Street
which the City suggested be used to meet future parking
needs. The State deleted the two-block area south
of Kalamazoo Street, since it believed that due to

the traffic volumes on Kalamazoo Street this arterial

 

16. ibid, p. 5.

n
A”:

.. h
awn-‘1

 

'-
“’1

‘~"4

 

91‘)

V

 

‘
’ "| f.

 

 

 

 

d

II II’ I "I'I' " ‘I' II I. II

  

1 GL 4.
Geneeee i 1 S;—
13‘ {ii I} :1
g 1:: ,1 '5‘
"i 23 C? 53.
hm ti Q ‘3'
S 1331:1133 (A n ----------------------------- ‘2‘ i
i

 
   

éillllll III

 

O
C T
S
L;
’/

 

lllllllll

 

   
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

i i i . (h 5

Vi :im 1 = ‘ =

i. C”) _ _ i [I] =

E \\\\\ é'\\5

"1 , E I

AllEEdfl = - ?\Y ”
IlIaShter‘OM E\ E
: t .. "P
a A - a 1
: I - i
Kalaramn E i E 1i
3 E l
T

 

 

u I IIInntnI

U
134-

(/2
Cf
CI
0
(O
(D
‘J
is
M‘iy" I w‘

JAMS;

 

 

.- -Sitc a."

Ma jg

 

 

'
*-
n
w
M

Plate NO. 10.

_ §QCCESTED FUTURE SCHEME FOR CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT
AREA '

Source; Lansing City Planning Board

WL_

.—
dino-

 

(‘1

'...

‘-
‘~"h

I""ai

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          

_ Shabla” I?
_ mdetdnrdas ,llflli
_ (iii:
1 ii
.
iul If?‘\)HI>
A F Llufichg unfit-n- ufii
n" iiiiilLi.
u.
.-
.-
A
m" n... __
(kl. ruralrfu iTIOiciii Iliili vim" twat?” vii. Diiii.iigviiii.iiid
"V\\ .
.1
u"
u.
3.2.2:... .............. 2.2.... .C

  

figfi: .. A. , -, l- ; . s 31.. A,
a

\\\\\x

R

 

:
I
s
I
t

.\\
.\

o

- .3..:A-:. 3.:2 ........_:... 2:

I "I "I I"! ll

 

\\\\\

-_ :3

iilliiiitliviilliilall
[I

 

\\

 

 

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n...
n... D .c a .
m a m . I do w I w .n
n I o .1 E 9 fl _ A e
2 O .. C 4 l w l L o t .C S
e S T. ab A A. l e a e S O
n no c .r I. m. w .1 .d
e l .nu pd my 1;.
flu I a: .1; w u I: a
”C AG n: in ~ u
.1... VA L S

958?.

ii -f). I - in): lifi.i.linuu 0.34m. 05%!)

 

 

CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT AREA AS PREPARED BY

‘

 

THE STATE - l

‘

Plate No. 11

25
roadway would make a logical boundary. The block south
of the Capitol was also deleted, since it was occupied
by themain Post Office; and the block north of the
Capitol was excluded for it was dominated by St.
Maryls Church and School complex. The State's scheme
anticipates that the City would acquire one of the

blocks for Civic Center parking.

1299

In 1960, a suit in Chancery in the Circuit Court
for the County of Ingham was instituted against the
City of Lansing by Vernon Anderson to change the
zoning in the Capitol Development Area. The suit was
brought against the City so that certain property
could be developed for prOfessional offices. The
fear was that the results of the suit could abolish
the safeguards established by the City to protect
against encroachment of the area for Capitol DevelOp-
ment which was set aside jointly by the City and
State agreement more than two decades ago.

The adjudication was not a clear—cut victory
for either side. It might be said that the decision
indicated to the City and the State that the Capitol
Cevelopment Area could not be protected from commercial
development much longer.

At its meeting on April 5, 1960, the State

Administrative Board was concerned that the abolishment

26
or even the relaxation of the present safeguards
would cause considerable loss to the State of Michigan
and, indirectly, the City of Lansing, and would cause
the State to abandon plans for the expansion of its

facilities within the Capitol Development Area.17

1962

On May 7, 1962, a high-rise apartment development
was proposed on the northwest corner of Pine Street
and Ottawa Street, just northwest of the State-owned
Stevens T. Mason Building. Morton L. Scholnick, the
develOper of the proposed structure, requested that
the City of Lansing allow the use of the requirements
provided by the Community Unit Plan, Section 36-7
of the Lansing City Zoning Ordinance on the prOposed
site. Section 36—7 requires that the tract of land
must comprise an area not less than ten acres and be
used for residential purposes. It also requires . .
.. "that the average lot area per family contained
in the site, exclusive of the area occupied by streets,
Will be not less than the lot area per family required

in the district in which the development is located."18

The request was not for re-zoning, since the tract of

 

l7. ibid. p.l.

18. City of Lansing, Michigan, Zoning Code: Reprint
of Chapter 36; 1958;.p. 608.

27

land was already zoned "D" Apartment District. The
request was basically fer a more intensive use of the
property.

On June 18, 1962, the City Council approved the
proposed development subject to certain conditions.
The approval of the high-rise apartments was of grave
concern to the State and steps were taken to re—examine

its plan for the Capitol Development Area.

1963

In June, 1963, the architects for the State were
called upon to revise the State's 1947 plan of develop-
ment. Up to this point, the existing State plans
for the Capitol DevelOpment Area were for a loose
arrangement of buildings, roughly a 40 per cent
coverage, resembling a campus arrangement. But
with the anticipated intensive use of the property
prOposed by Scholnich, the State believed that perhaps

its loose arrangement of buildings was not the best

use of the land.

Plate 12 shows the plan for the Area of the State
for 1963. The Area covers 13 blocks, fewer than was
planned for in 1958. One reason for this revision
was that the land was thought to be more valuable
and therefore required more intensive use.

The new plans, prepared by the Architects, prOpose

a complex of buildings with two decks of parking

L«VI

 

'I
_. I

u.
‘1

50‘.“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F .
Genesee g T.
r;
3 E CL
0 (1}
, e L)
Shanasee fl
Iona
Ottawa ............................ '
”-I" I" III r- ------ ) —- -- -
Michigan f?S_ \\k .
Allegan &. \ "

 

 

 

 

 

 

-——-—-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”a

Kalamazmn 1

Lenaweer“

Hillsda—le a A
g 43 \ -, f‘l A

St. Josenhi 9 - lg 11

t <2 <1) *
is A L 1
Main vi! a} _I'\ i i

Plate No. 12

QAPITOL DEVELOPMENT AREA PREPARED BY THE STATE — 1963

29
having roughly 100 per cent coverage of the prOperty.
This prOposal is designed to satisfy office-space
needs for,the State until 1968.

By 1980, it is expected that twin—tower office
buildings will be built in the complex. Also antic-
ipated is the acquisition of a one-half block area
immediately west of the Cass Building and the eventual
movement of the building complex west from the present
plan, between Ottawa and Allegan Streets. Future
plans may also provide a bridge to connect the State

building complex to the Lansing Civic Center.

The Effects Of The Capitol Development Area

 

An effort was made by the author to determine
whether the holding actions on land use in the Capitol
Development Area had any effects in and near the Area.
An examination was made of the prOperty value changes
.and direction of these changes in 1938 as compared
with 1963. Using the center of the Capitol grounds
as the axis, radii lines were projected a distance
of 1800 feet, encompassing an area beyond the Capitol
Development, as shown on Plate 13.

For any property that touched any of the radii,
the total assessed valuation (land and building)
was obtained for 1938 and 1963. These values were

then categorized so that they would best represent

changes. These values were then delineated by the

L.)

6.”;

311C]

., ‘

Il~"
\

.ci-Ivl

7”

‘u‘ln.

9
"WW!
‘0

i
.‘M.

|“.‘

Gene

IOna

Ott

Michi

Allegan

Washte

Kalama

Lenawe

Hillsd
St. Jose

Ma

 

 

 

Plate No. 13

VIEW OF RADIAL - USING THE CAPITOL.GROUNDS

AS THE CENTER

Distance between circles - 200 feet
Radii are 30 degrees apart

 

31
categories represented on Plate 14.

A comparison of land values in 1938 and 1963
indicates that property values decreased as the
distance from the Capitol increased. Also, it is
evident that the highest land values are located to
the east of the Capitol Development Area, and that

between 1938 and 1963 the higher land values were

:u: i-vju.
M

located to the north, south, and to the east. The

 

land in most of the area described is in commercial I
use which had been denied movement to the west by zoning
regulations. The changes in land value as the distance
increased from the center of the Capitol ground

can further be illustrated by the following radial

value profiles (Plates 15 and 16). Using the plan

view map (Plate 13) as a guide, one can locate each

of the profiles.

The difference in the length of the graphs is
attributable to the fact that in some areas there
were more public or exempt properties than in other
areas. Data for assessed valuation on public or exempt
properties were not available, since they were not
assessed.

To compare the assessed values of properties with
actual sales or market value in the Capitol DevelOpment
Area, the Lansing Board of Realtors was contacted.

The intent was to acquire information.about the asking

price, selling price, and year the prOperty was sold

 

0

j

WWW

 

BFQI - SU-JAV "IO BESTSMIRSCI

   

17%;“

b

 

 

t
Tamas nd
washign+

 

 

 

 

Shamasep

 

 

 

 

Iona

 

 

Ott

 

 

Michigan ‘I 5’ We .0 r

Allegan

 
 

 

washtenam

 

 

 

 

 

Kalamazoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

-‘__‘AL__ -. A“

Hillsdaée I

 

 

4.
V

 

St. Josephs

H DQIP

QVC
VU

Main,

 

 

m;
“NEH.

-HRin94
JL est

Plate No. 14

PERIMETERS OF VALUE - 1963

@Immps 0:? VALUE - 1938
. *Assessed valuation

Source: Assessment Records $100,000 .- UP
Lansing City Assessors Office
$20,000 - $99,999 [:3

$3,000 - $19,999 -

* Includes land and buildingS. Data svailable '39 compiled by __

——..- uvc a.)
RADIAL VALUE PROFILES

 

Rad11#1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rad11#2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\

 

 

 

 

Radii#6

 

 

 

 

“my: nu. 4.0 W
RADIAL VALUE PROFILES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1963 __
11 # 7 Ram # 10
\
‘ .
‘ /’\‘\
Rad11#8 — .. Radii#ll
53
1:33 \ [4‘ .
l/\/\
12
Radii # 9 Mi #
4 ”fl
,’ \ , \
’ \
\ \
\
x

 

 

 

35
between 1921 to 1963. The request for this information
was denied.

An attempt was further made by the author to
determine whether the number of building permits issued
reflected the formal or informal restrictions applied
to the Capitol Development Area.

Plate 17 shows the number of building permits
issued in the Capitol Development Area from January
1923 to July, 1963.

The graph portrays a gradual decrease that has
occurred in the number of building permits issued
through the years, and it was assumed that this
decrease could be attributed to the restrictions on
prOperties in the Capitol Development Area. More
likely, the decline was a natural reflection of the
age and built-up character of the area. The graph
does not reflect any appreciable change after 1942,
when the Capitol Development Area was rezoned to a
multi-dwelling and apartment district.

The power of the holding action imposed in the
Area is further illustrated on Plate 18 which shows
the number of petitions seeking rezoning of the
Capitol Development Area from 1938 to 1963.

The high and low points on the graph can be analyzed
as follows: When the Lansing Plan of 1938 was released,
there was a gradual decrease in requests due to the

anticipatidn that properties in the Area would be

 

 

 

 

 

mo
4 8.. mm ' on, “J; 3 a “M. cm MN MW
/
z \/ \/
\ xx // . -
z/ a \ \x\.. x, \f/ \— .
< < , .// .\ a \ / ) x... J
\ I \ ’ \ \.\ . . \
zal . I, ; ...a. i: \ xx .
/ x / l|\ \
<. (xx , \
’\\ — \\/
< _
. s I x //
a \ < z
. / ..
.

 

mmm: 0» mama .. 45¢ .

 

w HZMZQOAM>MD JOHHA<U ZH OmbmmH wHH2mmm OZHQAHDm

w . . NH .02 women

 

 

of Zoning Reguests

 

No.

37

Plate No. 18
NUMBER OF PETITIONS FOR REZONING IN THE

 

 

 

 

15' CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT AREA - 1938‘to 1963

14

13

12

11‘

10

9

8

7

6

5

4 a...

3

2

l

0.

w\ o (m
to C) Ln (3 U\ \o \o
9\ «i -d UN Ox 0\ O\
O\ ox ox ox r! .a r,
.4 r1 r1 .4
YEAR

Source: Official Proceedings of the City Council of
the City of Lansing. City Clerks Office.

acquired by the State. These requests for rezoning hit a
low point at the outbreak of World War II, in 1941. Requests
gradually increased when the property owners became convinced
that the State was not taking prompt action in acquiring
properties. A high point was again reached in 1945, and the
City made an agreement with the State to deny any requests

for zoning changes in the Capitol-Development Area. This

 

38
brought about another low point in the number of rezoning
requests.

The highest number of petitions was presented
in 1960, which could be credited to the first law suit
against the City of Lansing to change the zoning in the Capitol
Development Area. The law suit was brought about from a
refusal to allow an attorney's office in a district that
permitted other professional offices. The case resulted
in the exclusion of this district from the Capitol Develop-
ment Area. The damaging effect was not the establishment
of the professional office district, but that it weakened
the authority that had protected the Capitol Development
Area.

There has been much said and written about the
development in the Capitol Area. Plate 19 pictorially in-
dicates what was reported in the State Journal about the
develOpment of the Capitol Area. The graph represents
actions, opinions (public and otherwise) concerning the
Capitol Development Area. This information was abstracted
from articles written in the Lansing State Journal between
1930 and 1963. There were 160 articles examined, and
each article was objectively judged to be for or against the
development of the Capitol Area. About half the articles
were neither for or against the Capitol Development Area,
but were concerned with its development. Assuming that the
articles were written with public opinion in mind, one

could conclude from the graph that the public has been in

 

39

favor of the development of the Capitol Area.

The changes in the Capitol Development Area can

be reflected in the actions taken by the City of Lansing,

the State of Michigan, and people who had interest in

the Area.

on the

1921

1935

1937

1938

1938

1942

1943

1944

1953

1955

1958

1960

The following are actions that have had an effect
Capitol Development Area:

Plans were prepared by Harland Bartholomew for the
Capitol Development Area.

The State Administration Board approved the funds to
be expended for a plan in which the basic requirements
of the State and City development would be set forth.

Creation of the State CApitol Building and Grounds
Commission. This commission prepared plans for the
State buildings and grounds in the City.

Bartholomew submitted the Lansing City Plan of 1938
that included a plan for the State Capitol Development
Area.

An agreement by the City and State to one plan for
the Capitol Development Area.

Adoption of a new zoning ordinance by the City of
Lansing.

Study conducted to inventory State office facilities
and needs.

Funds were made available by the State for the purchase
of 70 parcels of prOperty for the expansion of office
facilities. .

Completion of the Steven T. Mason Building by the
State.

Construction of the Lansing Civic Center by the
City of Lansing.

Comprehensive Master Plan of Lansing was prepared
redefining the Capitol Development Area.

Suit in Chancery to change the zoning in the Capitol
Development Area.

40

1962 - The approval of a high-rise apartment development on
the northwest corner of Pine and Ottawa Streets.

1963 - Re-appraisal of the State's plan for the Capitol
Development Area decreasing its size.

If one were to arbitrarily reason that these actions
were for or against the development of the Capitol Area,

an illustration such as that depicted on Plate 20 would

result.

 

 

IN:

"I:
Q‘f‘F

fimgsoh. Boom wcfiwcmq Lucknow

30.3.8 80 mopoogoH .39

 

.
.
v
v
.
v
.u
v
v
o
.

_i

 

. a. v m m ,
_=.==== Em— _w__=.5%_=n_.=__._.==m.======_=._.=éE_==_==W==__==._.==_==_.== 35%“

J

an
W“
AA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

T. T. T. .L _.L I T. T. .L T. T. T. T. T. _.L T. T. I T. T. T.
C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. .r: m h.. h. h. Mu +1
C. .6 T. 6 8 L 9 C. fl Cc a T. O 6 L 9 C. C.
”Emu.
mood 0p Omma

 

<2 BZQEQHEQ ADHEU E BmzH<0< mo m8 maog

m... .0... 33m

_=========_

.

 

 

‘E96T'
T96T

i

1 a

========================================

aloe

 

 

-L§6I;-

onofleo nu Auv
93.33: no 33m .3 9
9:33 no .38 .. ®

 

an.amxmp maoHpue

o o *
memos o>apoonobm o no hflmhsm doMBSn one; mcowpo ma

1

9.0.3.3.. m>fiumm®z

   

. was... 3.3.8

nuAvow .nwnw.

4 _ a... aw he

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SS6I
6n6t
snét
Th6T
L€6I
_££6I
.686I“‘
536T
ta6t

 

$3 8 Ema .:. Hm”... SESEB 33.20

H... 350% 9.899. 35% a Eamon.
om. 6.. 33m

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION

Effects of State Action on the Capitol DevelOpment Area

There are certain aspects of the State's approach
to the development of the Capitol Area which should be
evaluated. The enthusiasm of the State to carry out
the development of the Area varied through the years.

One can note that the pressures fbom other State

needs (such as health and eduCation), the recession of
the fifties, and threat of losing land in the Area, had
an effect on the funds appropriated by the State
Legislature for the construction of new office facilities.
The amount of activity can also be attributed to the
governors that were in office. Some were more inter-
ested in the Capitol Development Area than others.

It might be said that there were direct and indi-
rect land holding actions taken by the State that
affected land development. The most direct action taken
by the State through the years was outright purchase of
property. The funds for construction of buildings had
come from direct appropriations by the Legislature or
the Michigan Office Building Corporation, a non-profit
public corporation formed solely for the purpose of
drawing leases and issuing bonds.

The number of changes in the areas set aside by the
State for the Capitol Development Area can be interpreted

as a holding action device.

A3

44

1938 - 22 blocks
1947 - 8 blocks
1958 - 23 blocks
1963 10 blocks

It is believed that the land owners in the Area
were led to believe that the State would purchase their
land. Also, the changes in enthusiasm by the Legislature
about development in the Capitol Area also helped to

keep land use static.

Effects of Actions by the City of Lansing on the Capitol

Development Area

 

Probably the most direct and effective holding action
utilized by the City of Lansing on development in the
Capitol Area was zoning. Up to 1942, most of the Area
was zoned as "D" Apartment District. About 1946, it was
rezoned to "DQM" Multi-Dwelling District. The rezoning
was the major step taken by the City to obviate commercid.
develOpment of the Area.

A not so well known holding action was instituted
in 194A when the City Council and Planning Board assured
the State that they would protect the Area from any
change in zoning. Requests for zoning changes in the
Area were answered by a statement that the City could
not change zoning because any alterations would effect a
future building arrangement of State offices. This
response to requests was successful until 1960, When a
suit was brought against the City of Lansing to change

the zoning in the Area. The essence of the plaintiff‘s

45
case was that there was no such zone as the Capitol
Development Area.

There were two indirect holding actions on land use
in the Area by the City that can be noted also. The first
is the changes made in the plans proposed for the Area.

1921 - 12 blocks

1938 - 22 blocks

1958 — 31 blocks

The changes in the proposed schemes assisted in
repressing the desire for change. The second can be the
support of the City in favor of DevelOpment of the
Capitol Area. With the assumption that City officials
represent the public reaction, it can be said that the
people in the Area favored the development and therefore
did not force changes in land use.

If one were to evaluate the success of holding
actions used to control changes in land use in the Area,
the answer would likely be a qualified "yes". As of 1957,
there were only two non-conforming uses in the entire
Capitol Development Area. The City of Lansing has been
successful in keeping the agreement they made with the
State in 1944 to carry out the regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance. The main weakness that can be traced through
the entire history of the Capitol Development Area is
that the State Legislature has been reluctant in taking
action on development of the Area. Much can be attributed

to the lack of funds, but it can be said that, in the

long run, the State has lost out financially due to not

46

acting when it was to its advantage.

It is believed that numerous property owners in the
Area have been unnecessarily inconvenienced by delays
the State imposed in purchase of their properties. More
prompt action by the State would have resulted in the
State acquiring land at less cost and with more COOperation
by the prOperty owners. The State would probably have
been able to plan its buildings in a less intense arrange-
ment than is proposed in the latest plans.

There were certain characteristics of the Capitol

Development Area that discouraged change. In the original

town site, lots were as narrow as 25 feet. Developers
requiring large parcels of property were discouraged,
since many properties had to be assembled to obtain a
suitable site.

Land surrounding the area to be used for the Capitol
was offered by the State for church development. By 1937,
there were 10 churches within a two-block distance of the

Capitol. The cost of acquiring these church properties

has discouraged change.

At one time it was fashionable to live in proximity

to the Capitol, and many large, expensive houses were
built and still remain today. However many of these

houses are being converted into a higher use, although

the change has come about slowly.

HOLDING ACTION ON LAND USE

Holding actions on land use are one of the methods
utilized to achieve the realization of a planned
development. Following is a review of the more recog-
nized methods of controlling land use and how they
relate to the Capitol Development Area.

Holding action on land stems from the need for most
metropolitan areas to provide open space. Open space

encompasses three broad categories:

(1) Open space that would meet the need for outdoor
recreation.

(2) Open space that meets the need for conservation of
resources.

(3) Open space which meets functional needs in the
orderly development of the metropolitan area.

Open space may be large or small, public or private,
urban or rural, permanent or temporary. It can serve as
land permanently set aside for recreation, conservation,
for shaping development, or for any combination of these
objectives.19

In almost every municipality, government is directly
responsible for providing land for recreation, public
buildings and facilities, and for transacting public
business and providing services. To provide these

facilities and services, a municipality must have certain

 

19. Proceedings of the Third Annual Metropolitan Area

Pianningiconference, Northeastern Illinois Metropolitan
area Planning Commission (Chicago 3, Illinois) p.36.

#7

48

powers to reserve and preserve land.

Legal Justification

Public action to preserve urban land depends upon
one of three governmental powers -- the power to
(a) regulate the use of property, (b) acquire property,
and (0) tax.

The power to regulate permits a government to
control the use of property without compensation to the
owners. This power is derived from the police power and
can be utilized if it is in the interest of public health.
morals, Safety, or the general welfare. A limit is
reached in the use of the regulatory power when the public
benefit is outweighed by the harm inflicted on the owner
of the regulated property. When this occurs, the courts
declare that the regulation is an unconstitutional
"taking" of private property without just compensation.

The power to acquire private property may be used
by a government agency when the acquisition is for a
public use or purpose. Such acquisition may be by pur-
chase or condemnation. Court decisions have held that
condemnation -- acquisition at fair value without owner's
consent -- may be used for a broad range of purposes
including slum clearance, industrial development, and
housing.

Historically, governments could buy or regulate land

for public purposes and could condemn land only for public

 

49
uses. For example, a city could condemn land for a
public park, but was restricted to purchase from a
willing seller land intended for reSale for industrial
development. In recent years, the courts have dropped
this distinction and have upheld public purchase,
regulation, and condemnation as long as a public benefit
would result. Consequently, there should be no con-
stitutional barriers to the acquisition of public open
space by either purchase or condemnation, if a public

purpose is served.

Police Power

 

The most comprehensive and pervasive of all powers
of government is that known as the police power. In the
broadest sense, it is the inherent power of every
sovereignty to govern men. It includes the power of
government to regulate the conduct of individuals subject
to its jurisdiction in their relations toward each other;
and the manner in which each shall use his power embraces
regulations designed to promote the public convenience
and general prosperity, as well as the public health,

morals, and safety.20

Purchase: Negotiated

The traditional method of acquiring land for public

 

20. Donald H. Webster, Urban Land and Municipal Public
Policy (New York: Harper Brothers, 1958), p. 270.

 

SO
purposes is through direct purchase of full title.
Courts throughout the nation have affirmed that land

for public use is a valid purpose for the expenditure of

public funds. In most cases this method of controlling

the rights to land far exceeds any other control
available to public agencies. The State has, through
the years, been able to use this tool with considerable

success. The State of Michigan favored this method

since it created the least public reaction when a
government agency acquired the rights to private land.
However, it should be noted that the difficulty was

caused by the failure of the Legislature to provide the

necessary funds.

Purchase: Eminent Domain

The power of eminent domain, or condemnation, and
the legitimacy of its use for the acquisition of private
property for public facilities has long been recognized.
This power permits a properly authorized public body to
acquire land by involuntary condemnation proceedings;
provided the owner is paid a "fair" price for his prOperty,

and provided the property is taken for an authorized
"public purpose". The amount to be awarded to the owner
is determined by the courts in the condemnation pro-

ceedings, as is the question of whether the taking is for

a public purpose.

The mere existence of the power is probably as

effective as its actual use, for the knowledge that it

 

51
could be utilized often facilitates acquisition of
property or interest therein through some other means.21
Prior to acquiring or controlling property, a
governmental unit must have: (1) adequate statutory
authority for the acquisition which is proposed, and

(2) it must comply with constitutional restrictions of

the regulatory powers.22

In many cases, the use of eminent domain tends to

extend the process of acquiring land, and very often the

costs are above expectation. Therefore, other means of

acquisition are generally sought as a means of expediting

the purchase and saving money.

An additional step in the purchase method of con-
trolling land development is the lease-back arrangement
wherein the city owns the land and rents it to private
enterprise in accordance with certain conditions. A

contract method of the purchase Variety is the long-

term lease. The city or the unit of government leases

the land from the priVate owner to assume control of land

development

The use of eminent domain during the period when
the Capitol Development Area underwent a major change

was not the popular procedure for acquiring property.

21. City of Ann Arbor, Parks and Open Space Plan, Ann
Arbor General Development Plan, Part II, November,

I962. p- 47.

2@. Phillip P. Green, Jr., Cases and Materials on Planning
Law and Administration (ChapeI Hill, N.C.; VI:I;
IfiStitUte of‘G0vernment, University of North Carolina),

Ch. 6.

 

 

52
Nevertheless, the potential authority of this process
gave the State sufficient power to purchase desired land.
As the City of Lansing expands on its urban renewal
program, this process of obtaining property rights will

become a more acceptable method.

The Comprehensive Plan

In general terms a comprehensive plan may be defined
as the determinations, decisions, and forethought applied
to the develOpment of a community. It is a development
guide set down in words, maps, charts, and sketches which
the local governing officials and private citizens use
in developing land. The comprehensive plan enables the
community, through its governing body and planning
commission, to agree on a definite set of policies to
guide future physical development and physical design.
It further enables the governing body and planning comm-
ission to review all the specific projects requiring
their action prior to the completion of the plan and to
view each project as part of an overall scheme of
desirable development.23

Since the comprehensive plan is the basic guide for
urban growth, it can, through proper implementation,
retain certain lands for particular uses. The controls

incorporated in the plan encompass a variety of municipal

 

23. State of west Virginia, West Virginia Planning Manual
(1960), p. 28. _

53
functions. "Whenever the commission shall have adopted
the master plan of the municipality or any part thereof,
then and thenceforth no street, park, or other public
way, ground, place, or space, no public building or
structure, or no public utility, whether publicly or
privately owned, shall be constructed or authorized in
the municipality until and unless the location and extent
thereof shall have been submitted to and approved by the
planning commission; the acceptance, widening, removal,
extension, relocation, narrowing, vacation, abandonment,
change of use, acquisition of land for, or sale or lease

of any street or other public way, ground, place, property
or structure shall be subject to similar submission and

approval........"2

The comprehensive plan had been a major influence
in the evolution of the Capitol DevelOpment Area. The
plans prepared for Lansing in 1921, 1938, and 1958 were
a definitive guide in not only the development of the
area, but an influence in discouraging non-public
improvements. The plans set the stage for the existing
pattern and that which will follow. Although the State
did not totally accept the City's plans, it certainly
was guided by the land made accessible by the influence

of the City's schemes from 1921 to date.

Zoning

The most widely employed land-use control today is
zoning. As an indiSpensible tool of planning, zoning is
the division of a community into zones or districts
according to present and potential use of properties for

the purpose of controlling and directing the use and

 

24. Charles H. Haar, Land-Use Planning,gA Casebook on the
Use,_Misuse, and Re-Use of Urban Land (Boston; Little,

Brown & Co.; 1959), p. 27.

 

54

development of the properties. It is concerned pri—
marily with the use of land and buildings, the height
and bulk of buildings, the proportion of lot which
buildings may cover, and the density of population
of a given area. It is not concerned particularly
with land ownership. As an instrument of plan imple-
mentation, zoning deals principally with the use and
development of privately owned land and buildings
rather than with public land, buildings, and facilities.

Regulation bf land use through zoning is a
constitutional exercise of the police power of the
state delegated to local governments for the con-
servation and protection of urban and rural land for
its most apprOpriate uses in the interest of promoting
the public health, safety, morals, convenience, and
general welfare. A basic principle of zoning is
that the regulations be reasonable and comprehensive,
and reflect a sound pattern of existing and future
land use for all parts of the area under the juris-
diction of the legislative body concerned.25

Modern zoning regulations protect all types of
land use from the adverse effects of other, and pro-
vide flexibility to permit adjustments to changing
conditions in the community. Thus zoning regulations

provide a legal and administrative tool for progressively

 

25. Green, p. 18

 

55

carrying out the land use plan and other elements
of the comprehensive plan for guiding the growth and
development of the community.26

Zoning provides a means of control over private
property to protect the community against inapprop-
riate use of buildings and structures and thereby encour-
ages the most appropriate use of land. Although
the use of private property has long been recognized
as being subject to public regulation, zoning is a
comparatively recent application of the police power
to carry out the objectives of planning.27

Zoning was the most successful holding action
used to control land in the Capitol Development Area.
It enabled the City of Lansing to protect the area
from high-density development and to maintain the
minimum values of properties to be acquired. Although
there were several cases in which the plaintiff
questioned the zoning in the Area, the City was able

to protect this land.

Official Maps

 

Another method of holding land for future use is
the official map-— a device whereby a municipality

can reserve land for future public improvements.

 

26. Green, p. 19.

27. Webster.

56

Often official maps are adopted in the absence of a
comprehensive plan, although ideally such a map
should be preceded by a comprehensive plan or at
least the major street portion of a comprehensive
plan. A simple device, the official map is one of
the oldest extant planning devices. It is one way,
but not the only method, to fix building lines.
Lines of existing streets as well as widening lines
along existing streets and future streets may be mapped.
The purpose is to assure that buildings will not be
built in the beds of mapped streets and that land
needed for street widening and for future streets
will be available at bare land prices.28

The official map technique has been used success—
fully to prohibit development on sites for future
streets and highways, but its application to the
reservation of future parks and recreation areas has
not yet been applied widely. It has been found by
the courts to be an unconstitutional taking of prop-
erty without just compensation, when there is an undue
delay in acquisition and an unreasonable restriction
upon use of property reserved by an official map.

On the basis of available data and of an exper-
ienced judgement as to how the future use of land in

an area ought to be guided, the official map may be

 

28. McLean, Mary, Local Planning Administration (Chic-
ago; International City ManagerTs Association; 1959),

p. 36.

 

 

57
a valuable tool. The municipality is empowered to
restrict the use of real property which it may at
some future time decide to acquire. In this sense,
the official map is in the nature of a "restrictive
option."

In regard to the progress of this device, the
State of Maryland extends to all owners some comp-
ensation for their forebearance. Under its statute,
areas may be designated on the master plan as "re—
served" for public purposes. For three years after
the plan has been adopted, the owner is not allowed
to make any improvements in the reserved area, and,
as a consideration for this abstention, is exempt
from real estate taxes during the period of reser-
Vation.

Mapped reservation for parks is still in its
infancy, from a legal point of view. The official
map has had its greatest success in connection with
streets. Its success in being utilized as a device for
setting aside open space will depend on public use,
reaction, and court decisions.

The official map usually receives status after
the planning commission of any municipality has adop-
ted a comprehensive plan which includes a major street
plan and has certified a c0py of such major street
plan to the governing body of the municipality.

The governing body may establish an official map

58
showing the location of the streets of the municipality
and theretofore establishes by law public streets.29
It has not been the practice in Lansing to use an

official map to guide development. Several reasons may
be cited; zoning had been a successful control, and many
property owners were content with waiting until the State
decided to take their property. However, there is some
indication that the original "town" site map for Lansing

could be considered an official map.

are.
There are many examples of gifts of land left to
cities for public facilities. Often a landowner will
find it advantageous in terms of the effect such a gift
will have on his Federal or State tax position. Aside
from the benefits to the donor, however, a sense of
public spirit may often induce individuals and organiz—
ations to make a gift of land to the city.30 Most of
the land that the Capitol of Oklahoma is now using was a

gift, but such was not the case in Lansing.

Exchange

Often a city may find it beneficial to exchange its
land or interests therein for land owned by another

public agency or private individual. Such a trade may

 

29. Green, p. 28.

30. City of Ann Arbor, p. 48.

59
often prove adventageous to both parties.

In the case of the State of Michigan, it had no land
available for exchange, although the State was able to
take advantage of a playfield the City owned for con-
struction of the Lewis Cass Building. In this case it
may be said that the "exchange" worked as a disadvantage.
The Cass Building is now the only building that bears no
relation to the rest of the existing or proposed building

complex.

Tax Foreclosures

 

Planning literature contains frequent references
to the possibilities of acquiring desirable properties
through tax foreclosure. Such possibilities are usually
of slight significance, except during times of economic
hardship. In most cities, only a relatively small
amount of property has become available through this
process since the beginning of World War II. If property
is valuable, it will usually be "bid in" at the fore-
closure sale by the delinquent taxpayer himself, rather
than being allowed to fall into the hands of the city.31
There are cases (e.g.- Cook County, Illinois) whace,
although the land may be valuable, it will not be "bid
in." This is prevalent where a subdivider may improve

land for housing in an area where the market becomes

 

31. Green, pp. 73,74.

60
Saturated and the property is forced into receivership.
There was no record of property made available to

the State of Michigan due to tax foreclosure.

Subdivision Regulations

 

Although more recent than zoning, subdivision
regulations, under the police power, have also become
an accepted method of local government control for the
development of land.32

Through vigorous and judicious enforcement of its
subdivision regulations, a municipality can have an
effective tool for acquiring and preserving land for
future needs. The primary objective of subdivision
control is to assure that the land subdivided will con-
stitute a permanent asset to the community, and will
provide the maximum degree of health, comfort, convenience,
and beauty consistent with true economy.

Land subdivision regulation is the guidance of land
subdivision development by a public authority, preferably
the planning agency, enforced through the power to with-
hold the privilege of public records from plats that do
not meet established requirements and standards.

subdivision controls are usually administered by

local planning agencies to regulate the subdivision of

 

32. Community Builder's Council of Urban Land Institute,
The Community Builder's Handbook (Washington, D.C.;

1960), p. 65.

61
raw land into building lots, streets, and other pre—
scribed uses. More recently, these controls contain
provisions related to the preservation of open space.
For example, they may prohibit or limit development in
areas without public utilities, such as water and sewer,
where such development would be unsafe or unhealthy.

A number of subdivision regulations include a
positive requirement for the developer to dedicate a
specified portion of land in each subdivision as perman-
ent open space, or to contribute a money equivalent to
pay for permanent Open space elsewhere. It has not yet
been determined precisely by the courts that required
dedication is a taking of property without just compen-
sation, rather than a reasonable requirement for pro-
vision of services.

More specifically, subdivision regulations can
require a special assessment providing land or funds for
public improvements. The City of Lansing could have
used this regulation to dedicate open Space in the Capitol
Development Area. However, at the time this land was
subdivided no such regulations were recognized. This

type of assessment will be more acceptable in the future.

Dedication

 

Public open spaces and sites for various types of
public facilities have come to form an important part of

community living. The proper location and develOpment

of schools, neighborhood parks, playgrounds, and many

62
other public facilities are essential to sound land use
planning. Properly written subdivision requirements
insure that appropriate sites will be reserved for all
necessary public facilities and open Spaces. In the
event that a public facility is shown on the comprehensive
plan and is located in whole or in part in the subdivision,
the approving authority requires a reservation or
dedication of such area by the subdivider as a condition
of recording the plat.

In many instances it is possible to secure the
reservation and dedication of public sites by persuasion
rather than resorting to the force of law. In other
instances, the dedication of sites can be secured only
by legal compulsion.33

The City of Lansing was able to secure several park
sites in the Capitol Area, but the purpose for obtaining
the property was not for State administrative offices.
There was only one parcel dedicated by the City as park
land that was obtained by the State for a building. It
is doubtful that the City could have set aside land for
State administrative offices and been able to retain it
long enough for the Legislature to provide funds for its

purchase.

 

33. webster, pp. 445:55.

 

63

Re-assessments

 

Re-assessments are used to insure that farm owners
and large landowners can keep their land in an
agricultural use or other open space without the hardship
Of taxation based on the potential urban development.
This action enables large tracts of land in proximity to
urban areas to remain in Open use for the benefit of
urban dwellers. It has gained popularity in large
urbanized areas.

The re—assessment approach to Securing property
cannot be directly applied to the Capitol DevelOpment
Area. The present location of the State Capitol was
the Site of the first settlement in Lansing and had

always been an urbanized area.

Purchase Of Easements or Development Rights

The purchase by government agencies Of easements or
development rights can compensate property owners for the
relinquishment of the right to develop their property for
urban purposes. Voluntary placement of limitations on
develOpment rights in property through deed restrictions
have benefitted property owners or groups of property
owners who desire to keep their areas Open. In addition

such restrictions can result in lower assessed valuations.34

 

34. St. Louis County Planning Commission, A Clarification
Of the Rural and Open Space Categories of the Land
Use Plan, (St. Louis County; May, 1961), p. 9.

 

64

The use of an easement or development rights has
value only if the State desires Open space but does not
need actual land. The need for Open space is apparent
at the site of the Mason Building. If construction
continues at its present rate, it is conceivable that

this tool could be used.

Urban Renewal

Within the last decade, the possibility of creating
parks and Open spaces through "urban renewal" has become
more significant. The federal government gave impetus
to the practicality of redevelopment through the enactment
of "Title One" in 1949. Prior to the enactment of this
legislation states tried such inducements as condemnation
and tax abatement. Now the federal government offers to
further reduce the cost of redevelopment by sharing on a
two-tO—one basis with a municipality the loss in write“
down of the value of land to its prOper re-use value.
This enables a municipality to develop playgrounds and
parks which benefit a project area and to credit these
improvements as part of its financial contribution.

Acquiring prOperty through urban renewal appears to
have great potential in expanding the Capitol Development
Area. Although to date the City has not found it
necessary to obtain property in the Area using this
device, the future will hold its greatest potential,

especially to the west of the present develOpment.

65

Escheat

The original owner of all land was the state, from
which all titles were traced upon grants and subsequent
conveyances. It would be impossible to conceive of land
becoming unowned: therefore, we have the law of escheat
under which if an owner of land dies leaving no heirs
and not disposing Of the land by will the ownership of
the land goes to the state. However, this very rarely
happens. The use of this tool did not contribute any
property to the development of the Capitol Area in the

past and it is unlikely that it will in the future.

Taxation

Under the right of taxation, the state levies taxes
for its support and for the maintenance of all of
its varied branches that protect and benefit its
citizens. Land, because of its permanance and access-
ibility, is convenient to tax and is usually the basis
for taxation. If such taxes, when levied, are not paid
in due course they are enforced; and this may result in

the owners' losing their land.35

Liens
In addition to other interests in land, various

rights, known as liens, affect the possession and

 

35. Phillip A. Benson and Nelson L. North, Real Estate
Principles and Practices (Prentice-Hall Inc.; 1939),

p. 8-9.

 

 

66

ownership of land. A lien is the right given by law

to a creditor to have a debt or charge satisfied out of
the property belonging to his debtor. Liens may entitle
the holder to have the land sold whether or not the

owner desires it.

Leases

Persons owning prOperty permit others to hire it
and charge them for its use, the Object of the owner
being usually to derive an income or profit from the
property. A lease is the agreement under which the tenant
assumes possession, and the document specifies how long
the possession shall continue and the amount which shall
be paid the landlord for the use of the property.

The use of taxation, liens or leases have in this
sense very limited restriction possibilities, eSpecially
in reference to the Capitol Development Area. However,
used in combination with other land use controls they
can be useful in Obtaining the rights to land.

Governmental agencies have available more tools to
control the use of land than private individuals or
groups. In addition there are more controls available
now than in the past. Implementation of plans have been
directly related to public support or yields to an
assortment of public, private, and political pressures.
Other considerations such as availability of funds,

prOper authority or controls, and management are factors

67
which contribute to the success or failure Of develOpment
plans. Therefore, it is not one but a combination Of
many factors that dictate the success or failure of a

plan Of development.

CONCLUSION

There are a number Of Observations that can be made
in relation to the governments holding action. It is
apparent that plans were made for development as far
back as 1920, and continually revised to accommodate
changing needs. The State's plans for the Capitol Area
were more closely related to land they had already owned,~
whereas the City of Lansing had plans prepared
anticipating ultimate develOpment of the Area.

If one were to select the factor which could be
categorized as the major implementation of development
plans it would have to be the failure of the Legislature
to provide adequate funds. Conversely, zoning restrictions
applied by the City of Lansing helped perpetuate low
density-development in the surrounding area which assured
low property costs at the time of acquisition. As years
passed, the area delineated by the State for future
expansion continued to decrease. This phenomenon
continued even though the number of employees increased
and rented offices were scattered throughout the Lansing
central area. The Capitol Area was restricted from
development to the east due to the high cost of commercial
property. Growth to the west was least restricted;
however, lack of funds for property acquisition limited
expansion to a large degree. As evidenced in the study,

the existence of the Capitol Area appreciated property

68

69
values and attracted development. However, in some cases,
where it was anticipated that the State would acquire
property for future expansion of offices, the property
was allowed to deteriorate.

Further review of the State's activities indicated
that the tools provided by police power contributed to
the development of the Area. The City of Lansing
provided assistance that contributed to much of the
success Of the development of the Area.

In relation to planning there are several underlying
facts revealed by this study: (1) Future needs may be
too costly if the phrase "Make no little plans" is
disregarded. (2) Use all planning tools available to
implement plans. (3) The timing of proposals may be
as important as the proposals themselves.

' There were a number of approaches used to de-
termine cause and effect Of changes instituted in the
Capitol Development Area. An attempt was made to
determine sales in the Capitol Development Area.

Access to this information was refused. An illu-
stration showing the assessed valuation of properties
in the Capitol Development Area between 1938 and

1963 was prepared(see Plate 14) to reveal whether the
Capitol has any effect on the Surrounding area and
whether there were any changes in the period studied.
This study appeared to have some correlation and did

indicate that higher values were concentrated near

70
the Capitol. It also indicated that properties were
permitted to deteriorate during this time period.

A graph showing building permits issued in the
Capitol Development Area from 1923 to 1963 (See
Plate 17) had no correlation. The only real information
that the graph revealed was that there was a gradual
decrease in the number of building permits.

In examining the number Of petitions for re-
zoning, (See Plate 18) there was correlation. The
number Of actions related to the Capitol Development
Area could be related to the fluctuation in the num-
ber of zoning petitions.

Between 1930 and 1963, there were a number of
newspaper articles written about the Capitol Develop-
ment area. (See Plate 19.) After examination of
these articles one would have to conclude that there
was no real correlation between "public" Opinion and
changes that occurred in the Capitol DevelOpment area.
One Objection to this approach was whether the news-
paper reported Or helped to create public Opinion.
There was no conclusive evidence to indicate that
public or newspaper reaction had an effect on the
development in the Capitol Area.

There were, without question, a variety of factors
that Obstructed change in the Area. It is suggested
here that the major power to reserve the Area for

State office development was that Of implication.

71

The implication was that the area was set aside by

the City as the "Capitol Development Area". A request

for change in the Area would be answered by implying

that this area was reserved for State offices and

would not be changed. One would conclude that if you

tell people something long enough, they will become

accustomed to it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Benson, Phillip, and North, Nelson. Real Estate Principles
and Practices. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc.,

1939.

Chapin, F. Stuart. Urban Land Use Planning. New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1957.

The Communitnyuilders Handbook. Prepared by the
Community Builders' Council Of the Urban Land

Institute. washington, D.C., 1960.

Green, Philip P. Jr. Cases and Materials on Planning
Law and Administration. Chapel Hill, North
Carolina; Institute of Government, University

of North Carolina, 1962.

Land-Use Planning: A Casebook on

Harr, Charles M.
Boston,

the Usep_Misuse, and Re-use of Urban-Land.
Toronto: Little, Brown and Co., 1959.

Horack, Frank E. Jr. and Nolan, Val, Jr. Land Use
Controls: Supplementary Materials on Rea
Property. American Casebook Series. Edited by
Erwin N. Griwold. St. Paul, Minnesota: West

Publishing CO., 1955.

McLean, Mary (ed.). Local Planning Administration.
3rd edition. Chicago: The International City
Managers' Association, 1959.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Internal
Affairs. Zoning: Insurance for Livability.

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1962.

Pitfalls Of Zoning: Apguide for Attorneys. Home
Title Guaranty CO., 1959.

Urban Land and Municipal Public

Webster, Donald H.
Harper and Brothers, 1958:

Policy. New York:
19600

West Virginia Planning Manual.

Willhelm, Sidney M. Urban Zoning and Land-Use Theory.
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.

72

 

73

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

Parks and Open Space Plan, ann

City of Ann Arbor.
Part II. Ann

*Arbor General Develppment Plan.
Arbor, Michigan: November, 1962.

City of Lansing, Michigan; The Comprehensive City
Plan. prepared by Harland Bartholomew and
Associates, City Planning Consultants. St.
Louis, Missouri: November, 1938.

The Lansing Plan. prepared

City of Lansing, Michigan.
City Plan Engineer. St.

by Harland Bartholomew,

Louis, Missouri: 1921.

City of Lansing, Michigan. Zoning_Code. Reprint Of
Chapter 36. 1958.

Of Lansing, Michigan. Lansing Zoning Ordinance.

City
Adopted August 31, 1942.

REPORTS

City of Lansing, Michigan; Planning Department.

Recommendations on High-Rise Apartment Development;
Proposed by Morton L. Scholnick. June 25, 1963.

Special Report SS-1-62.

City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Planning Commission.
You and Modern Zonipg.‘ Publication No. 112,
ZoningSeries N. 2. November, 1959.

Duke, Richard. The Planning Process in Community
Development. Technical Bulletin B-31. Institute

for Community Development, Michigan State Uni-
versity. August, 1962.

Lansing, Michigan, City Clerk. Proceedings of the
Lansing City Council Meetings. .

Northeastern Illinois MetrOpolitan Area Planning
Commission. Proceedipgs Of the Third Annual
MetrOpolitan Area Planning Conference. Sept-

ember, 1960.

Proceedings Of the

Southwestern Legal Foundation.
Dallas, Texas.

Institute on Planning and Zoning.
1960, 1961, 1962, 1963.

74

State of Michigan, Building Division. A Report of the
Progress by the State of Michigan in the Develop-
ment of its Capitol Area - 1935 to 1960.
(Mimeographedl

State Of Michigan, Capitol Building Commission. A
Report on Requirements for the Expansion of Site
and Building Facilities of the Michigan State
CapitOI Group. Prepared by Smith, Hinchman and
Grylls, Inc., Architects and Engineers. December,

1944.

Urban Renewal Administration of the Housing and Home
Finance Agency. Preserving Urban Open Space.
February, 1963.

 

APPENDIX

Schemes Recommended by Smith, Hinchmen, and Grylls

for the Arrangements Of the Capitol Development Area

75

1151'

K5

Le

H‘

 

    

 

‘ 0.
.....:o... .. .
t o .00.“.- . . v.
I .. .. .....o...... 3.31.0.
J- t... \ .25.Lmn.’\ L .

. .fl...
,. I)
Vii-“0 “polar

c v . (n

'I» 4'... .

      

' .lou!
. .

    

O. I II
.. .u .. . nun... .. w .
“A hasten.

swan-.11....VFJJJ

  

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

papa

 

 

(\"\

 

 

\\.

 

 

Genesee_—(

O

S

 

Iona

 

<‘\\'

I: I'll-l .4
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

 

 

 

Ottaua_

Allegan

Michigan

\

an

 

 

I. II...“-

 

 

 

 

usapawn.

 

 

 

 

Washtenam_.

Kalamazoo

 

mic

 

 

C

Lenawe

.1.

 

Hillsd

nice «chm

 

St,

 

_Main.

Joseph,

SCHEME 1A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aalndt
,linanss d_

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shawasep
ma /
Ellll‘lllll Ill 2
Ottawa 5 E
Michigan [ \ ‘63;
13
a;
Allegap ‘1. \
Washtenaw
b
1. Kalamaznn
Lenawee——
Hillsdale
St. Joseph
Main

 

 

 

 

!

 

 

-"

Genesee

,C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S‘nfizu'fi S 39

lona

Ott.

 

 

 

:T— :« uh uh.}{l(((((.(j.(rll(.
. I.
l

 

. anhrvuuuu—uubwiffl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘

I

I

I

. H\\\\x
I

.pn.pp-~p~u .pphuh kph—e

Eifl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alle
wasntena
alamazcn

K

III,-

\
 \ .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lenawee——*

-

:11!!!.1!!Mfluflufihmfluummwlutn

 

Hillsdale-

 

 

 

 

'00

-

Joseph,
Mala

St,

 

&E3

6.

 

SCENES

*

31293

0

3142 5840

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES