Fail to Plan, Plan to Fail
Watching an A2 Planning Commission meeting on CTN now and then can be very instructive in explaining the housing shortage. Watching ten minutes from the middle of a meeting where you’re not even sure what they’re discussing is probably less so. But we were intrigued to watch the arguments against a 24-apartment building. We’re not sure where the proposed building was to be located, but the neighborhood was described by a committee member as “struggling” due to a recent influx of students. A few families live there, she said, but “they live there with difficulty.” This committee member was the only dissenter in the 4-1 vote in favor of the development - which counts as a defeat because six members would have had to vote for it in order for it to pass.
“They live there with difficulty”? Did she (name?) have any testimonials to this effect? Or is this just her own prejudiced hoo-hah? And why difficult? Untidiness? Probably a landlord’s fault. Noise? Well, perhaps a calm talk with student neighbors in a cooperative spirit might go a long way to soothe any noise problem.
posted by Laura on December 22nd, 2003 at 11:55 pm eAre you sure this was the Planning Commission and not the Board of Zoning Appeals? I think the latter has a supermajority requirement (the code is written to discourage exceptions), but the Planning Commission does not.
posted by Larry Kesyenbaum on December 23rd, 2003 at 1:21 am eEr, that last one really was me, despite the typo in my name.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on December 23rd, 2003 at 1:28 am eWell, I’m almost sure it said “Planning Commission” at the bottom…that’s weird.
To be fair, this commission member at least realized that she could be viewed as anti-student - she often talked about making the area better for the students who live there - but I thought the whole thing was very interesting.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on December 23rd, 2003 at 1:44 am eIt is interesting, isn’t it? I’ve attended a grand total of 1 planning commission meeting, in Ypsi, but I was hooked–it was fascinating to get “insider” info about projects coming down the line, see what each of the Commission players said, and hear public comments. It made me want to (as a former A2 resident and current A2 worker) attend the Jan. 22 A2 planning c. meeting and of course keep going to Ypsi P.C. meetings.
posted by Laura on December 23rd, 2003 at 2:01 am eWithout getting myself into trouble, I will write that this is a typical meeting.
I think that I know the developer for this project, and if I’m right, he will simply take his capital and build this just outside of AA. Taking the housing and tax dollars with him, unfortunately.
What city planners don’t understand (and I’m talking about planners everywhere) is that if they consistently make life difficult on developers, then these builders will find the path of least resistance and move their money and tax dollars to adjacent towns where it isn’t such a pain in the ass to build something. This, in my opinion, is the biggest reason for sprawl—-and is also the reason that things like the Prop. B would be damn close to uneccessary as developers would have their hands full meeting the needs of a high density downtown.
Ann Arbor is making the exact same mistakes that Boulder, Denver, and a host of other cities have made—-instead of guiding developers in the PLANNNING stage into building exactly what the city needs, and at a good profit for the developers, they choose to let them guess at what is ok to build, and then tell them no for years and years and years.
True story: my father, who has taught courses in Environmental and Urban Planning at Harvard, MIT (that’s for you AAIO), CU and CSU had lunch with the newly appointed Planner for the City of Boulder. This man told my father that the City was notorious for the same things that AA is—not much parking, height restrictions on buildings, cantankerous city officials, etc. etc. He then went on to say that the city of Bloomfield, which is just up the road from Boulder, opened one of those regional mega-malls, and the retail and office occupancy rate plummeted by over 20% in a 12 month period and was continuing to fall as they finished their lunches. The contractors and developers who had dealt with the city of Boulder were jumping for joy, since Bloomfield was much more business friendly—they simply packed their bags and moved their money down the road. Ooops.
The fact that planners in AA continually compares AA to Boulder scares the hell out of meI grew up near Boulder, and the cities of Boulder, Golden, Bloomfield, and Denver has turned into one huge suburb. It is really, really, sad. Anyone ever see the Brown Cloud over the front range?? Sad. And Denver is STILL without good mass transit.
Larry, or others who follow this sort of thing, know that AA, or rather, one of the surrounding towns, is almost at the density neccessary for one of these mega-malls. You are starting to see the precursors you will find just a few years before these behemoths spring upthe huge Best Buys, the clusters of Home Improvement centers….it’s coming, and the more difficult of a time the city give developers, the more they will move these projects outside of downtown, and the faster the sprawl that the REAL developers are looking for will come to pass.
Just an opinion.
posted by todd on December 23rd, 2003 at 9:25 am eTodd, I think you’re right in that cities should guide developers to build what the city needs rather than make them guess, but no city needs a mega mall. Corporations are part of the problem. Commercial developments don’t have to be malls. We need to think smaller.
posted by Hillary on December 23rd, 2003 at 10:21 am eHillary,
I most certainly don’t want a mega mall, but where is the shopping downtown? Where is the parking for this shopping? If the city isn’t agressive in making this happen, then I can assure you that the mega-developers are. Ignoring this, which I believe most cities do, is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand, and hoping that these malls don’t pop up.
In my experience, hoping doesn’t get the job done. Corporations aren’t the problem—its the inability of citizens to identify what they want, and hire/vote capable people to enact a real city plan. If they don’t make these decisions, then the corporations are more than happy to make these decisions for you.
I can tell you from personal experience that the tactics of the city make it nearly impossible for a small local business owner to succeed. As an example, how much do you think the developer had to spend to get the project mentioned by AAIO in front of the city council? Now who is more likely to be able to sustain this financial loss: a small local business owner, or a large corporation? I think that you know the answer.
These tactics discourage small business, and encourage chains. What does, as an example, TGI Fridays care if they are delayed in the approval process by a few months? They have tons of operating restaurants that have cash flow, so these delays are next to insignificant. Now take some ma and pa store that only has $200 K to open their dream restaurant—-how much of a depletion of the cash reserve do you think these delays will cause, and what do you think this will do to their odds of success?
These are serious problems.
posted by todd on December 23rd, 2003 at 10:43 am eTodd, some devil’s advocacy/corrections:
First of all, it’s Broomfield, not Bloomfield.
Secondy, metro Denver’s transit is far superior to anything over here– they are even starting light rail. Boulder’s system in particular is great– buses run many routes at 5-15 minute intervals, and some until 3 AM. Plus, you can get all the way to the airport and Denver from Boulder via a $1 bus ride hourly, and the airport is nearly as far from Boulder as Lansing is from Ann Arbor.
Thirdly, Boulder is definitely not part of that suburb– it is very dense and ringed with miles of sales-tax funded open space. And part of the reason development (especially residential) goes outside of town is due to a yearly residential growth cap… Moreover, Boulder and Ann Arbor don’t have room for mega-malls… the urban fabric is in direct opposition to suburban development. I don’t see anyone putting a Best Buy in downtown Ann Arbor no matter how “easy” they make the approval process. I think housing is the biggest front where we need to fight for density in the city– as long as the townships allow it developers will continue to put crappy big-box stores and malls outside town.
Fourth, the “brown cloud” has supposedly actually improved in recent years due to better emission controls.
Fifth, as for planning, I think the city obviously shouldn’t just approve any damned project that creates more density. The city should, however, work with developers and tell them what sorts of buildings they want to see in particular neighborhoods and make it as easy as possible for them to get approved the first time, yes.
posted by Brandon on December 23rd, 2003 at 10:56 am eIf you ask me, the less parking downtown, the better. More housing, more transit, less parking. The more auto-unfriendly you make a city the more inclined people are to walk, bike, and take the bus… look at how many people get to UM daily via these means due to lack of parking/high price, for instance.
posted by Brandon on December 23rd, 2003 at 10:58 am eJust got this in:
posted by RJ White on December 23rd, 2003 at 11:00 am eOwners: Financial tailspin forces The Del Rio to close
Brandon,
First off the idea that the brown cloud isn’t as bad as it used to be is no comfort at all.
Yes, the Bus system is great (used it a ton), but it is not a replacement for subways/trains. We fought for years for mass transit running north/south along Broadway….instead we got the beltway that is C-470 and E-470, and all the sprawl that comes with it, togther with the near death of all business along the Broadway corridor. Not good. The developers were thrilled.
So was Douglas County, and impoverished munincipality until the good folks at Phillip Morris came in with tons of cash and offered to install Highlands Ranch, and a bunch of other developments over a span of five years that made Douglas County the fastest growing County in the US for 3 years running. Sweet. Littleton turns my stomach everytime I visit the folks.
Light rail was an overwhelming success. The thing is packed. Which begs the question: why did it take so damn long to install, and why isn’t it a larger system?
Broomfield—oops. Its been a while. I never said that Boulder should have a Mega-mall. What I implied was that if the planners had a clear conception of what the region needed, and went after it…there wouldn’t be a demographic need for a Mega-Mall. Do you honestly think that the city of Bloomfield could support that mall on its own?
As for parking downtown—-I agree, to an extent, but moving the density out of downtown, coupled with the new “open space” program the invites developers build on the fringes of these areas—-outside of AA, mind you, makes cars MORE necessary, not less. Or, of course, it makes it viable for a homeowner to do everything in the strip malls that inevitably pop up around these new developments, and makes trips to AA completely uneccessary….again, you get sprawl.
And lastly, I never said that they should approve everything. That’s what everyone says when you tell them how hard it is to get something approved in AA.
A little story: when we still lived in Denver, and were choosing between AA and Madison, we called the Planning Dept. for a copy of the city plan, and we asked where light industrial/ mixed use plots were….their response was a confused laugh (this was in 1995). What they sent us was a map that we could have purchased at a gas station. Helpful.
posted by todd on December 23rd, 2003 at 12:06 pm eFor all the cheap talk about preventing sprawl and promoting higher density within the city, there are catfights over the height of buildings and pressure from neighborhood groups that prevent development in areas that are prime for housing. The development process in A2 is hypocritical.
For instance, Dickens Woods. A worthless piece of thicket (it’s not a “natural area” as some would call it) A small group of NIMBYarders prevented just the kind of development that politicians and developers are talking about… The pols caved to the squeaky wheel. The proposed North Main corridor and the hillsides on the east of Bird Hills park overlooking the Huron could have been just the kind of housing development that would have helped anchor that end of Main… yet the NIMBY factor squashed that effort too! Now we have more park land that few of us ever use. And we pay for it in perpetuity.
What those kinds of misguided citizen efforts cause is the monstrous brick edifice plopped on the edge of the OWS, Ashley Mews. The Mews is poorly scaled to the surrounding neighborhood. But that’s the result of stifling development in areas that would be better suited to dense or “suburban” housing like apartments or condos. We remove land from development because of political pressure and the resulting development puts more pressure on the already dense neighborhoods closer to the city center.
It’s not so much the unpredictability of the development process, but that pols and bureaucrats cave in to special interests and NIMBYarders instead of taking a long term view and trying to do whats best for the entire city.
I cannot believe how much people of A2 will spend to protect their beloved parks at the expense of sprawl and good development within the city. It’s incredibly hypocritical on the one hand to be “green” and against sprawl but on the other to prevent dense development because of their own selfish interests. Ann Arborites cannot have it both ways!
Lastly, the Green Belt is a bad joke at the expense of city taxpayers to the benefit of surrounding townships. Every city planner I know (and I know all of them) said the Green Belt intitiative was poorly thought out and will increase sprawl.
PS the Green Belt intitiative was Heiftje’s pay off to the Sierra Club for their support.
posted by mucho gusto on December 23rd, 2003 at 12:47 pm eI have no idea who you are, but I would vote for you in a heartbeat.
You said it much better than I did.
posted by todd on December 23rd, 2003 at 1:31 pm eI don’t mind Ashley Mews so much– a building of that size that is contiguous to other larger downtown buildings doesn’t seem to be a problem– it first the neighborhood. I think those townhouses are particularly attractive. Of course no normal people can actually afford to live there, unfortunately.
That Dicken Woods debacle was ridiculous, however.
I don’t see the Greenbelt hurting the sprawl situation– it will likely protect a few parcels on ecologically-sensitive and agriculturally-useful land and divert development to the vast majority of the land still available. The impact will be minimal, though– we need a far more comprehensive plan. In fact, I see the Greenbelt vote as a way to leverage city officials to stand up to the NIMBYs in the name of density, especially if those of us who care pressure them to… we need to take down all those Sierra Club members living in the Old 4th Ward and Old West side who oppose such horrors as accessory apartments and six-story buildings.
posted by Brandon on December 23rd, 2003 at 1:59 pm eer, that was “FITS the neighborhood.”
posted by Brandon on December 23rd, 2003 at 2:00 pm eIntersting thing about the Ashley Mews, I live about a block away, the place seems to be nearly vacant as far as I’ve been able to tell.
posted by Dan on December 23rd, 2003 at 2:33 pm eLike Brandon, I like Ashley Mews, see the Dicken Woods episode as a debacle, and don’t expect negative impact from the greenbelt proposal.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on December 23rd, 2003 at 3:42 pm eAlso: the screams of outrage against accessory apartments didn’t come from the Old Fourth Ward or the Old West Side, where 2-unit and multiunit buildings are already common. Rather, they came from homeowners in “pristine”, all-one-family, mostly newer areas.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on December 23rd, 2003 at 3:45 pm eAll-one-family? Er, I meant, areas where all the housing is in detached single family houses.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on December 23rd, 2003 at 3:47 pm ewhat is an accessory apartment exactly ?
posted by Dan on December 23rd, 2003 at 4:41 pm eI sincerely hope the developers of Ypsi’s water street project read that.
posted by Steven B. Cherry on December 23rd, 2003 at 5:06 pm eSteven, are the Water Street residences going to be priced as high as Ashley Mews?
Dan, accessory apartments, (also known as granny flats) are apartments a homeowner rents out often above a garage, in an outbuilding, or possibly an attic on their own property. They benefit the homeowner by providing extra income (especially useful in Ann Arbor’s pricey climate) and benefit the city by providing more density in existing neighborhoods. A proposal to allow these a few years back was shot down unanimously after NIMBY uproar in city council– people were paranoid that undergrads would move in and trash their pristine neighborhoods. In actuality, such places, especially those further from campus, would mainly be populated by grad students and working folks. No matter who lived there, with the landlord on site the chance of major neighborhood “disruption” seems slim.
posted by Brandon on December 23rd, 2003 at 5:29 pm eWater Street pricing:
Supposedly they came down on the cost for a typical townhouse, to well-below AA levels ($140k?). The richer folk downtown are complaining now that it won’t attract the “right” (see “white” and or / “wealthy”) people. It’ll probably fall in between floppy and the Mews.
posted by Leighton on December 23rd, 2003 at 6:03 pm e*cough* $350,000–$700,000? Hmmm… I wonder if price is the problem at Ashley Mews… what were they thinking?
The units are supposed to range in price from $100,000 to $300,000 in the Water Street project. Ypsilanti is trying to get young couples to move in though, and I don’t think we want condos. I really hope I’m wrong, but all the young couples I know are either looking for or living in an older house.
posted by Hillary on December 23rd, 2003 at 6:57 pm eYeah I was curious to see who would be my new neighbors in Ashley Mews might be, but as I mentioned I really haven’t seen anybody coming or going. Most of the places remain unlit during the night. I was skeptical from the get go, this is Ann Arbor, not Manhattan, who’s gonna pay a million dollars for a loft here but some fool. I’m pretty certian anybody that does buy one of those units wouldn’t be a very friendly neighbor anyways.
posted by Dan on December 23rd, 2003 at 7:47 pm eDan,
I thought the same thing (that no one has bought those things), but a tenant told me that they only have one unit left to sell.
I am thinking that many were purchased as an investment, or as a second/third home.
posted by todd on December 24th, 2003 at 9:15 am eTodd-
posted by js on December 24th, 2003 at 11:09 am eThey’ve given Current the same shuck-and-jive about only having a handfull left, but they’ve been saying it for the last four years or so (every time they advertise in the Ann Arbor Guide, our glossy). I wouldn’t put it past them to inflate their numbers to make it look like people should buy now or lose their chance, especially if they’re really not all that filled up.
Otherwise, those last couple units must really suck, since they’ve been sitting around for so long.
js
1) Ashley Mews. I have inside information that tells me they are 2/3 sold, but I don’t see much activity or lights when I walk by there. Those dwelling units were designed to imitate row housing like Boston or NYC and were aimed at empty nesters. As if retirees will walk up and down three flights of stairs and use (or afford) that much square footage. Ashley Mews proves that outside developers don’t do their homework about A2 or it’s housing needs and that politicians are gullible to money and a a good presentation. Ashley Mews is a blot on the OWS. It’s massive and it doesn’t adress the actual housing needs of the urban core. The increased traffic on Ashley and First from the business hi-rise hurts the neighborhood. The edges of any urban neighborhood (OWS) that abuts a business district (Main St) is inherently fragile because of the pressure from the business district. So what did the planners and developers do? They misread the neighborhood, the housing needs, the fragility of the edge of the OWS and caved in to politics (As usual) Why wasn’t the last building (facing Ashley) left as a green area? Ashley Mews is NOT the kind of dense housing that the city needs. Money talks…
2) Accessory Apartments. Mr Kestenbaum is right! I think the accessory apartment is a good thing for all the right reasons. It helps those people who want to remain in town (retirees on fixed incomes and struggling single owners who like living in the city) pay the outrageous school and city taxes of A2. It’s the kind of high density housing that fits the needs of the urban core. They are small, infill, usually unobtrusive over a garage or in the rear of a home. (Ashley Mews isn’t any of those)
The NIMBY over-reaction to Sopa Kung by a few the northeast corner of town (Plymouth/Huron Pkwy) killed the accessory apartment for the the patrts of town that would welcome and support it. (Yeah, Sopa Kung is a scofflaw, but I think there was a tinge of racism involved too)
Look at the size of the homes being built in Newport Hills (3000-5000 sq feet) and others in the area. The sales market for those homes is small and who will be able to afford to maintain them? The cost of a re-roof in 20 years will be exhorbitant. I think the accessory apartment issue will be back and it will address the white elephant homes that will eventually be divided into two famliy units to be affordable for housing. The accessory apartment allowance is the kind of urban core housing the city needs for the reasons stated above. It fits the intent and needs of higher density housing in the urban core and is in line with the words (bit not the actions) of the politicians and planners
posted by mucho gusto on December 24th, 2003 at 2:34 pm eI forgot the Green Belt. I’m not against the idea of a Green Belt, but it happens that this one is poorly thought out and was a ploitical pay off for the Mayor’s Sierra Club supporters. The concept of a Green Belt is good, but as much in Ann Arbor, this one is poorly conceived and pays lip service to the concept. The so called Green Belt is a give away to the townships who won’t have to pay for their public parks like A2 residents do. The Green Belt is located too close to the city to really reduce sprawl. The Green Belt should have been located at the edges of the county, not in the adjacent townships. It’s all about how far people are willing to drive to get to Ann Arbor. People will drive 15-20 minutes but 30-40. Locating the Green Belt in the adjacent townships (10-15 minutes away from the city) will encourage development just outside of it, a 20 minute drive from the city.
The adjacent townships are already developed, those folks already use the A2 infrastrucure and don’t pay for it. The close location of the Green Belt encourages sprawl by locating development within a half hour drive of the city, not 40-45 minutes away.
posted by mucho gusto on December 24th, 2003 at 2:48 pm eMucho Gusto, the Greenbelt will not be anything like a belt and will only protect scattered parcels that are especially sensitive… sprawl won’t be “pushed out” any further than it is already going… it will just be re-directed along corridors with existing infrastructure. Moreover, townships won’t be getting free parks– the Greenbelt will mainly purchase development rights; the purchase of parkland outside the city was not one of the plan’s goals. The farmer or landowner will still own the field or woods, but it can’t be developed– it doesn’t mean the land will become a public park. I will agree that it was an inside job by the bourgeois Sierra Club types and the mayor– I would have preferred the planning department make a much more comprehensive plan, but I think the impact of Proposal B will be minorly helpful and not negative.
posted by Brandon on December 24th, 2003 at 5:32 pm eWell, and to reiterate a point that was made here earlier in a letter reposted from the Snooze, the Greenbelt was a short-term fix to get the ball rolling. Now is the time to pressure your local pols to make sure that the Greenbelt isn’t the only measure attempted to try to prevent sprawl.
posted by js on December 24th, 2003 at 7:01 pm ejs
The problem of hypocrisy still remains.
Supporters of the greenbelt pushed the problems into the future and into the surrounding townships instead of dealing directly with the problems within the city. The voters bought into the proposal because of their own selfish desires and hypocrisy. This is a huge reason why Ann Arbor is overrated.
Whether or not the greenbelt intitiative works will remain to be seen. The voters approved a pie in the sky proposal as opposed to forcing politicians and planners do what’s best for the urban core. The supporters of the greenbelt have put off the tough questions of how to achieve higher density lower cost housing within the city limits in favor of a poorly conceived and unproveable concept.
Politicians and planners have been so far unwilling to deal directly with the housing and quality of life issues within the city. They have been unwilling to stand up to special interests and NIMBY attitudes yet willingly tax city residents for the benefit of the quality of life for the surrounding townships.
We cannot predict the future of the areas around us, but we can elect people who will make the tough decisions that are needed today. Do not forget that we all must live with the long term political decisions made by short term elected policy makers.
posted by mucho gusto on December 25th, 2003 at 8:59 am eSo, Mucho Gusto, what exactly do you propose doing? What proposals are we to vote for? Which politicians?
posted by js on December 25th, 2003 at 10:47 am eLots of theoretical, not much practical. I know that we all live by the long-term mistakes of short-term pols. Better to have a philosopher king? Better to vote for… who exactly?
js
I propose that the Parks Commission get with the program and reverse their decisions regarding the Bluffs and Dickens Woods. No more $$ for acquisition. The Parks and Rec department AND it’s land holdings be reduced by 20% and that property be sold to the highest bidder for the kinds of development that politicians say they support.
Most folks I know do not favor 500+k$ downtown condos and 3500+ sq ft single families on exclusive sites. But that what’s we get. Folks say they favor dense, diverse and affordable, but NIMBY attitudes about those issues and the unwillingness to change zoning ordnances results in little of the kinds of housing most of woud like to see in the city. If the city wants to attract younger folks to the urban core, they should support lower cost and well designed housing efforts.
You see, js, Ann Arbor has plenty of people, politicians and everyday folks alike, who talk the talk about dense development, zoning changes and slowing or redirecting sprawl. (Which usually means wealthier communities that can prevent “bad” development…Wal-Mart? and locating it in Sprawl Land.) But few people who are willing to consider anything even remotely similar to my proposal would ever get elected. Even though, those kinds of proposals would increase the tax base, cause zero sprawl and use available infrastructure effiiciently. It would also diversify existing neighborhoods, and help reduce some of the financial troubles the municipal government has gotten us into over the last several years.
Your query about who to vote for is a straw man. Until enough people who are fed up with the staus quo or have a religious conversion of sufficient force to actually act on their beliefs, we’ll continue to elect reactionary and spineless politicans. Ones who put more value on party doctrine and re-election than those who can actually lead.
posted by mucho gusto on December 25th, 2003 at 1:32 pm eI voted for Rick Lax because he agreed with a lot of these ideas about NIMBYism, although he’s not a planner or anything. We all know how that turned out, though…
posted by ann arbor is overrated on December 25th, 2003 at 1:52 pm eI, for one, am really sorry to hear that the Del is closing, regardless of who is at fault.
posted by Anna on December 27th, 2003 at 8:58 pm eI’m sad to see an okay bar close, but I don’t quite understand the outcry and nostalgia that a lot of people seem to be going through. I didn’t think the food was that impressive, the atmosphere wasn’t anything too special, and the service was at times really shitty. I always thought of the place as a less-good Old Town.
posted by Anonymous on December 28th, 2003 at 3:27 pm eOld Town is so gratingly pretentious that I can’t stand to eat there. Del Rio was pretty good, an easygoing place with decent food, but with way too much ambient cigarette smoke for me to enjoy it.
I don’t think I’ve eaten at either one in years.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on December 28th, 2003 at 4:48 pm eThat’s funny, because I’ve always thought of Old Town as one of the less-pretentious bars in town… just sort of a classic tavern, no gimmicks.
posted by Brandon on December 28th, 2003 at 5:47 pm eWhat’s wrong with Old Town? They have the best bar food in town and it isn’t that smoky in the non-smoking section (the back).
I’ve only been the Del a couple times. Nothing special - kinda divey.
posted by James on December 29th, 2003 at 3:07 pm eI’m no Annarbour apologist, but I’ve never thought of Old Town as pretentious. Depressing, yes. But not pretentious.
posted by Boris on December 29th, 2003 at 3:13 pm eAny certainty is a delusion.
posted by Berglin Deb on January 25th, 2004 at 5:41 pm e