Taking the College Out of Collegial
Very interesting Planning Commission meeting on CTN tonight. In the time we were watching, about six local residents stood up to protest the rezoning of a house near Hill and Olivia Streets - whose next-door neighbors are a sorority and a church - that a father wanted to buy for his college student daughter and two roommates to live in. Such an action, one resident said, would constitute “condemn[ing] a historic house.” It was an affront to New Urbanism and would contribute to sprawl, another argued. Some comments unwittingly illustrated not only how A2 residents want all the benefits of living in a college town but none of the drawbacks, but that sometimes those benefits and drawbacks are one and the same. One woman who doesn’t live in the area but bicycles past the house from time to time expressed disbelief that “our neighborhoods can be chiseled away for these college-bound kids,” which she said would disrupt the area’s “collegial” atmosphere. Another said that she moved to the neighborhood because “I like the atmosphere of students.”
We also like how the term “rooming house” is often used to describe a home where students live. It’s so appealingly seedy. All we’re missing is a front desk with Ma Bailey handing out the keys.
How buying a preexisting house contributes to sprawl escapes me. And, before I saw your title for this post, I was going to say: the biker needs a dictionary.
posted by Laura on July 22nd, 2004 at 12:13 amThey claimed that having students in the neighborhood will make longtime residents want to move away from downtown. But if that’s true, then students would move in, and there would be more of them per house, so there would be more total people who live within walking distance to work. And these are probably the same people who think that students shouldn’t have cars. So, no, it doesn’t hold up.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on July 22nd, 2004 at 12:17 amI’m confused, why would a house at the corner of Olivia and Hill (which is a residential area) have to be rezoned in order for people to live there?
posted by Alex(andra) on July 22nd, 2004 at 7:56 amSomething has to give, and Ann Arborites don’t understand that…in fact I would argue that all citizens in the US don’t get this.
Ann Arbor refuses to build up. UMich enrollment keeps going up. If there aren’t clean, affordable apartments available around campus, then entrepreneurs are going to do what they have been doing for the past few decades….convert homes in the downtown are that are designed for families into apartments. This moves more students into areas that aren’t really used to having students around.
This is why student/local problems will increase over the coming years, and this is why the couch ban issue is indeed important.
The thing that bums me out the most about planning in Ann Arbor is that citizens prefer the “do nothing” approach to planning…..in other words, they ignore these issues, and choose to wait. UMich enrollment and all the ancillary staff that comes with it keeps growing but the city itself isn’t growing (population wise) at the same pace. In other words, the students are pushing out the locals….and the funny thing is that the locals don’t understand that this is the path that they have chosen.
posted by todd on July 22nd, 2004 at 9:59 amI agree with todd’s comments, but I also think that the University has not lived up to its responsibilities in this area either. Enrollment keeps increasing, but the U has not built on-campus housing to accomodate all these people, thus pushing the students out into off-campus housing.
posted by tom on July 22nd, 2004 at 10:56 amSeeing as how UMich owned apartments wouldn’t contribute to the tax base, you’d think that us residents would be smart enough to look at enrollment figures, and then build a tall series of complexes that are DESIGNED for student living.
Everyone wins: density, increased tax base, proximity to campus for students, and the students wouldn’t have to live in poorly managed rathole houses…..and to top it off, the citizens and students could help to steer the project to a place that would be beneficial to all. Pushing students into town is actually preferable IMHO…but only if it is handled intelligently.
In the previously posted developers roundtable, the builders said that the demand for a 200K-300K condo isn’t there…but if you chop up the same property into units and RENT rather than sell, the numbers change in a big hurry in the favor of a developer.
If UMich decided to buy yet another parcel and build a signifcant number of dorms…..this would not be a good thing for the city. Worse yet, if they decide to put a complex up on North Campus with grocery/restaurants etc, it’s uh-oh spaghetti-o time for Ann Arbor.
I, for one, am thrilled that UMich isn’t smart enough to build dorms…
posted by todd on July 22nd, 2004 at 12:03 pmI think that if more students lived on-campus, the houses they would have otherwise occupied will instead be snapped up by people wanting to live in town permanently. The developers think there is no demand for $200-$300K condos downtown, but in the neighborhoods the demand for single family houses is still very strong. So I don’t think that more university housing will be bad for the city.
posted by tom on July 22nd, 2004 at 1:26 pmThe idea of private builders building student apartments sound good, but given the hostility in the city to any development, especially involving tall buildings and increased density, the likelihood of that happening is slim to none (and slim just left town).
(btw Todd, are you planning on doing a schwarzweizen again? I really liked it that last time you had it.)
Tom….you are spot on. Ann Arbor won’t build up until it is too late to make a bit of difference.
And I very much agree that if more students lived on campus, fewer of these homes would be rebuilt as apartments. My point is why would a thinking city purposely let UMich build student housing on UNTAXED land, when the could easily design and build the same thing on a plot near campus, and reap the financial rewards from the property taxes that come from a large high rise?
The Dunkleweizen just went on tap yesterday. I am glad you like it.
posted by todd on July 22nd, 2004 at 1:42 pmTodd,
You’re right, building apartments on taxable land is the rational thing to do. This being Ann Arbor…
Good news on the Dunkleweizen. I expect I’ll be paying in the next few days.
posted by tom on July 22nd, 2004 at 2:49 pmyeesh…
posted by tom on July 22nd, 2004 at 2:55 pmI expect I’ll be paying a visit in the next few days.
I didn’t know that proper spelling and syntax was needed here?! Or verb agreement for that matter?!
If it is, then it’s Dunkelweizen, not Dunkleweizen. But what the hell do I know?
posted by todd on July 22nd, 2004 at 3:02 pmTodd, I appreciate your insightful comments on downtown development. Just thought I’d let you know.
posted by Elizabeth on July 22nd, 2004 at 3:26 pmI have the same question as Alex(andra)–why would the property need to be rezoned?
And, to Tom and Todd, I lived for one year in Bursley Hall on North Campus. It doesn’t matter how many student-designed complexes are built–if they are anywhere near as awful as Bursley, people will still look to live off campus.
posted by Chris Herdt on July 22nd, 2004 at 3:36 pmWhat are those buildings they are building around the area of the Power Station? Such and Such Commons? Is that new student housing or something different?
Anyways, not to mention that by not building more apartment complexes or what not, they drive up prices in existing places even more because you have more people competing for them (and thus paying more). The only problem with that is that theoretically as people pay more, they want more bang for their buck.
posted by Kozzie on July 22nd, 2004 at 3:40 pmyeah, very good explanation of why the couch thing is important - more eloquent than mine.
In Boston and Cambridge, the locals are very aware that they could be pushed out - and they deal with it by putting a lot of pressure on the universities to build housing, not by passing punitive NIMBY legislation. These locals even get student groups to work with them, by framing it as an issue of off-campus housing pushing up rents instead of painting the students as undesirables. Now, maybe this works because the universities there are almost all private and in better financial shape than U of M, but it does seem to work.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on July 22nd, 2004 at 3:41 pmI’m also not quite sure how the zoning worked, but I think since the roommates would be tenants of the father who owned it, it needed to be rezoned. Isn’t there a difference in zoning laws between unrelated people and a family sharing a house?
posted by ann arbor is overrated on July 22nd, 2004 at 3:43 pmI always wondered who watched the planning commission channel…
posted by c-loh on July 22nd, 2004 at 4:50 pm(Lest anyone berate me for not being civic-minded, I should add that I am an urban planner and attend around four planning commission meetings a month. So, if I were to say you couldn’t pay me to attend a planning commission meeting, I would be lying.)
Anyway, apparently in Ann Arbor the only residential zoning district in which up to 6 nonrelated persons may live in a house together is the R-4 district. In all other districts you have to be an actual family or function as one. So, maybe this guy was trying to get his property rezoned to R-4.
The 6-person limit is actually pretty high. I think someone already mentioned on this site that the limit in Boulder Colorado (and several other college towns) is 3 people.
Can I say that I enjoy the idea of an urban planner and a rapper sharing the same nom de plume?
posted by js on July 22nd, 2004 at 6:11 pmjs
JS….I was too embarrassed to ask the guy/gal planner if this was the case..
too funny.
posted by todd on July 22nd, 2004 at 6:44 pmI prefer the idea that the urban planner and the rapper are *actually the same person*.
Is there a particular reason A2 won’t build tall buildings? Or is it just the Parisian ‘it’ll ruin our skyline’ thing?
posted by art student on July 22nd, 2004 at 8:42 pmUnquestionably this kind of thing happens from time to time, homeowners showing up to resist the “spread” of rental housing (or whatever they see as blighting) in their neighborhood. I’m sure it happens in Boston and Seattle and everywhere else cool and uncool, too.
Since I lived in a place (East Lansing) where the fight over students living in houses is absolutely central to city politics, though, it is striking to me how marginal this is in Ann Arbor. Nobody is running for city council pledging to roll back student rentals. Ann Arbor student neighborhoods have not been “downzoned” to limit unrelated occupancy to unreasonably low levels, so that every student house is a “nonconforming use” contingent on utterly perfect by-the-book behavior.
Random members of the public who show up at hearings say silly things all the time. It’s a lot more ominous when the city council finds it politically advantageous to adopt the same language and tone.
And that’s where student voters come in.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on July 23rd, 2004 at 7:19 amWow, I had no idea I had a double life as a rapper. No wonder I’m so tired when I wake up in the morning. Well, you know what they say, it’s “All or Nuthin.”
posted by c-loh on July 23rd, 2004 at 9:15 amLarry says “that’s where student voters come in”, but I’m a little shocked to find out that the Greens aren’t going to be fielding any candidates for A2 City Council this November, because they filed too late for a caucuss. Ridiculous! How the heck are we supposed to vote out NIMBYish, couch banning, development blocking, in-the-sway-of-the-OFW councilmembers when nobody else is running for office?
posted by Murph on July 23rd, 2004 at 9:26 amSounds like Will Rogers’ crack about being a Democrat should be updated: “I’m not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Green.”
posted by tom on July 23rd, 2004 at 10:33 amThe most disappointing thing to me is the lack of property rights that homeowners in A2 seem to have. You can walk down almost any street in the OWS or the off-campus student area and pick out a number of homes where the property owner would likely benefit from demolishing the structure and rebuilding. Most of these houses are eyesores, and not “historical” buildings that add to the quality of life in A2. Of course, with all the hoops you have to go through to take down a building in A2, I imagine most property owners view it not worth their time or money even to attempt to rebuild on their property.
Except for the few truly historic buildings in A2, property owners should enjoy great freedom to do what they want with their property. I currently live in a apartment in a “historic” house that was built in the mid-1800s. It’s an absolute shithole and has a number of safety hazards that are unlikely to be fixed (and yes, I’m moving out next month). Of course the ninnies on the historic commission would through a hissy-fit if my landlord ever tried to rebuild a safe, modern building on this property. Considering these are the same people pushing the couch ban for “safety issues”…well the whole thing is just sad.
posted by James on July 23rd, 2004 at 10:55 amMurph, that decision on the Green caucus has been reversed, and there will be a Green candidate in the 3rd ward at least.
James, sorry to hear that your building isn’t being maintained, but property rights are never absolute, and I reject mass demolition of historic neighborhoods as a “solution” to anything. Look at the awful result where that has been tried.
I want to see greater densities generally (and there are lots of places throughout Ann Arbor which would be great sites for more intense land uses), but developers rarely build new housing for lower-income groups (like students) without government subsidies. Unsubsidized private sector demolition and rebuilding almost invariably means throwing out the original residents and replacing them with much more upscale ones.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on July 23rd, 2004 at 11:32 amLarry, thanks for the update on the Greens. I had only heard that they were challenging but not expected to win.
posted by Murph on July 23rd, 2004 at 2:47 pmMoreover, the real eyesores in the student neighborhoods aren’t old houses, they’re the ugly-ass Modernist-box apartment buildings built in the 60s and shoehorned onto lots. I disagree with any large-scale destruction of historic residential neighborhoods, despite the density increased. I’d predict more expensive rents, and probably worse aesthetics and street-life.
Speaking of the local Greens, did anyone read the bizarre story in today’s News?:
“Donald Abdul Roberts has had numerous run-ins with the law and Ann Arbor police, and in court documents last May listed his address as “homeless.”
Yet last week at the Washtenaw County Green Party caucus, Chairman Pete Schermerhorn nominated Roberts as the Green candidate for Washtenaw County Sheriff…”
“”Our friend Gaia wanted to send a statement to voters that you shouldn’t have candidates who only see it from one perspective,” Schermerhorn said. “The sheriff clearly has always been someone who has been in law enforcement. We wanted someone who has seen the other side of the coin.” Roberts, who is 57 according to court records, has a history of legal trouble.
In 2001, he was found guilty of assault and battery and sentenced to 93 days in jail. In October 2002, he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and jostling an Ann Arbor police officer. In October 2001, he was found guilty of possession of liquor in a park and public intoxication…”
“Schermerhorn said “somebody has to bump into him” for the party to contact him. Schermerhorn said he saw Roberts at the Ann Arbor Art Fairs the day of the caucus and that’s how he knew Roberts would be willing to run for sheriff.”
What was this guy thinking?
posted by Brandon on July 25th, 2004 at 11:27 pmI guess he was thinking “if politics are a zoo, run a monkey.”
posted by Alex(andra) on July 26th, 2004 at 7:57 amInteresting idea, but I don’t think it would fly.
posted by Kozzie on July 26th, 2004 at 10:49 amGaia Kile received about 6,000 votes for sheriff in 2000 — almost twice as many votes as Ralph Nader in Washtenaw County, and probably one of the largest vote totals ever for a local Green.
However, that probably has a lot to do with his having an interesting name. And the fact that most voters in the county’s urban areas either didn’t get much information about the sheriff’s race, or got just enough information to take a “pox on both your houses” perspective.
In any case, the Green committee did not nominate Roberts.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on July 26th, 2004 at 4:26 pm