Adobe Acrobat File:Introduction.pdf
This document is a text-only version of the original Adobe Acrobat file. Graphics and formatting may be lost in the conversion from pdf to html.
View the Adobe Acrobat version of this file.
City of Muskegon
Waterfront Redevelopment Plan - 1999
Prepared by:
City of Muskegon Department of Planning and Economic Development in
Collaboration with MEGA's Lakefront Development Task Force,
. . . and with the gracious assistance of "citizen planner", Colette Klukos.
Table of Contents
Introduction ..............................1
Goals
&
Objectives.....................6
Part I Part II
Current
Conditions......................8 Lakefront
Nodes........32
A.
General
Land Use...................9 A. Civic/ Cultural.......32
B. Commercial & Industrial...........13 B. Resort/ Residential..36
C. Recreation & Natural Habitat....14 C.
Port
Facilities........40
D.
Residential.........................18 D.
Recreation/
Habitat.44
E. Historic Resources.................20 Conclusion................46
F. Urban Design.......................22
G.
Transportation.....................24 Appendix: Port Authority
H.
Zoning..............................26 Study
(MEGA)
I. Environmental......................27
Introduction
The Muskegon Waterfront Redevelopment
Sub-Plan has been drafted as an addendum
to the City of Muskegon Downtown Lake-
shore Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1997.
It is a procedural step in a planning sequence
designed to refine - and give physical shape
to - many of the conceptual recommenda-
tions of that plan with regard to both gener-
alized land use, and specific projects. The
plan also expounds upon many of the prin-
ciples put forth in the Muskegon Lakeshore
Trail Master Plan, and attempts to enhance
and augment that project's impact along the
lake.
In addition to "fleshing out" some of the
concepts included in the Master Plan's
"menu" of projects, the intent of the Sub-
Plan is to incorporate and synthesize ideas
which have recently entered the public de-
bate. Perhaps more importantly, the Sub-
Plan helps fill in some of the gaps in the
City's current lakefront planning efforts
which heretofore have been concentrated GEMS concept. *City of Mus-
primarily on the downtown waterfront. Ac- kegon Downtown/ Lakeshore
Redevelopment Plan
cordingly, the plan boundary areas include a
fairly narrow swath of land between Lake-
shore/ Shoreline Drive and the water's edge,
from Bluffton on the west, to the Causeway
on the east. This stretch of land is over 8
miles in length, and contains nearly every
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 1
primary lakefront nodes: Civic/ Cul- front and City as a whole. Chief among
conceivable type of land use imagin- tural, Resort/ Residential, Habitat/ Rec- the former are the previously mentioned
able. Although geographically limited reation, and Commercial Port. Lakeshore Trail bicycle/ pedestrian path,
in scope, the analysis is not circum- the second phase of Shoreline Drive
scribed by physical boundaries. This is Although the nodes appear to be geo- (Shoreline Drive- East), the much antici-
due to the knowledge that the ensuing graphically isolated, in actuality, they pated Grand Valley State University
discussion centers on what is arguably are conceived as overlapping, integrated (GVSU) Water Resources Institute, the
the City's most valued asset, and that and non-mutually exclusive. That is, possible reincarnation of cross-lake pas-
all developments within its vicinity are each is expected to contain a mixture of senger ferry service, and the Clean
likely to have wide-ranging repercus- (often similar) land uses which support, Michigan Initiative (CMI) which has
sions throughout the City and region. and are most compatible with, the pri- earmarked $50 million for waterfront en-
Therefore, the recommendations mary proposed use such as "residential", vironmental site remediation and redevel-
herein, seek to better integrate or link "port facilities" etc. In no instance opment.
the proposed activities along the shore should these "nodes" be construed as a
to existing inland land uses, in spite of traditional, segregated zoning scheme. In addition to the projects cited, a number
the fact that the mechanics of such of alternative development proposals
linkages are not always spelled out in Finally discussion of each node con- have recently entered the public dialogue
precise detail. cludes with a brief discussion of plan- (in the aftermath of the failed waterfront
ning and design considerations and gambling referendum). These include po-
Organization standards appropriate to each. The intent tentially controversial projects such as
is to form the basis for future Planned bulk handling operations and manufac-
The plan is composed of two principle Unit Development (PUD) design and tured housing. Several of these projects
sections. Part I briefly discusses current development guidelines applicable to all are likely to involve significant changes
land use, historical development and waterfront properties. in property ownership, land use and ac-
recommended land use policies, and cess.
helps provide the rationale for the site- The Current Context
specific recommendations of the plan If viewed in piecemeal isolation, oppor-
which are covered in section II. The need for a comprehensive and spe- tunities for infrastructural economies of
cific lakeshore plan has arisen due to a scale and/or positive spin-off develop-
Section II contains specific recommen- number of projects either in-progress, ment created by the projects cited above
dations for major changes and reloca- planned or still in the discussion phases may be lost.
tions of land uses. These recommenda- which, if realized, will have a lasting
tions are discussed in terms of four influence on both the profile of the lake-
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 2
Top: A flurry of recently proposed projects
underscores the need for a balanced, me-
thodical planning effort along Muskegon
Lake.
Above and left: Conceptual site plan and
perspective of the proposed GVSU Water
Resources Institute. * Hooker/ DeJong Ar-
chitects.
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 3
Shortsighted decision-making on the that most people want to see the "real"
part of City leaders may cause misgiv- working city (or facsimile thereof) and residential and commercial develop-
ings among potential investors, over the not a sanitized landscape stripped of all ment, as well as additional Foreign
viability of Muskegon as a "destina- historic references. Trade Zone (FTZ) designations. Such
tion" city, and underscores the need for developments often require substantial
proactive planning of the lakefront (and While dirty "heavy" industry should public expenditures for infrastructure
not planning in a vacuum). The intent certainly be kept away from the lake but can help spur ancillary economic
of this plan therefore is to set the stage and its most sensitive resources, it is activity resulting in an active, year-
for a comprehensive, coordinated and important to remember that the lake - round, lakefront.
proactive planning program for Muske- more specifically the bulk shipping it
gon's most cherished asset - its water- permitted - holds the City's "raison d' A major premise of this plan therefore
front - and the multitude of opportuni- etre". Were it not for the ample natural is that all manner of land uses proposed
ties its presents. harbor, it is doubtful that the City for the lakefront need not be mutually
would have ever attained its present exclusive, and are in fact desirable. In-
The "Post Industrial" Waterfront stature as an important Midwestern in- dustrial, recreational, commercial and
dustrial center or acquired the proud residential land uses can, and do suc-
A number of general, and site-specific moniker, "Port City". cessfully coexist, often with great ef-
principles have guided the development fect. In fact their coexistence has
of the overall plan, and its component Although bulk shipping on the Great proven to be the crucial ingredient in
projects. Foremost among them is the Lakes has been greatly diminished, it is the projects cited above and dozens of
recognition that the industrial heritage obvious that the lake figures no less others both in the U.S. and abroad.
of the City and lakefront is something importantly in the economic future of
which should be celebrated rather than Muskegon, as it did in the past. Al- With its sizable lake frontage, and
eradicated. Cities as diverse as Balti- though tourism should no doubt play an proud industrial past, there is no reason
more (the Inner Harbor) Cleveland important role in such a future, tourism to believe that Muskegon's prospects
(The Flats), San Francisco (The Em- alone tends to be seasonal, and acutely for a revitalized lakefront, incorporat-
barcadero/Ghiradelli Square) have all sensitive to the vagaries of the econ- ing such varied uses as residential de-
capitalized on their industrial pasts to omy, and the whims of the traveling velopment to port facilities, cannot also
create interesting, inviting and "ani- public. Moreover, it tends not to create attain the same level of acclaim.
mated" waterfronts. jobs which pay family-supporting
wages.
The key to their success, and those of Greater economic balance would be
other cities, has been the realization afforded by investments in lakeside
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 4
Assets & Areas of Concern
It is a widely held belief that cities with
water amenities enjoy a significant ad-
vantage in attracting tourism and devel-
opment. If this is indeed true, Muskegon,
with its miles of shoreline has the poten-
tial to become a premier Lake Michigan
destination city and Great Lakes port-of-
call.
The City has been variously described as
a sportsman's paradise and a developer's
dream. With it miles of shoreline front-
ing on two lakes, these alternative vi-
sions need not be dichotomous.
In western Michigan only Traverse City
with its meandering peninsulas and inlets
has more water frontage. Because it sat-
isfies the natural human instinct to be
near water, the lake, and its rare natural
beauty, is a constant source of community In earlier decades, the lakefront was the nucleus of most commercial, industrial and
pride and visitor interest. transportation activity in the City.
In addition to its aesthetic appeal, the lake
also offers abundant recreational activities
such as boating and fishing, as well as ar-
eas of natural habitat. Its mid-coast loca-
tion and excellent trans-portation links
also makes it attractive as both a general
cargo and passenger service port.
Waterfront Redevelopment Sub-Plan 5