Little Green, Have a Happy (and Quick) Ending
First, the Greenbelt, now the Greenway? At first we weren’t sure if our suspicion of this Doug-Cowherd-hatched scheme stemmed from our dislike of insects and general distrust of anything that smacks of nature, but now that the real urban planners at Arbor Update have weighed in, we feel better about our reflexive anti-park sentiment. In fact, as much as we appreciate Goodspeed’s Ann Arbor Voting Guide, we have to take issue with his statement in support of Washtenaw Proposal A, in which he declares, and we quote, “Yay for parks and recreation!” From here on out, we’re taking a strict hard line against parks.
Thanks for the link to the Update analyses. I read that NYer article last week, and it was a fantastic piece of work, forcefully arguing that large, dense urban areas often have the potential to be more environmentally friendly than parkland fantasy-camp suburbs like the “Cambridge of the Midwest” (I’m really losing track of all the bizarre analogies, so don’t hit me). Less use of cars, greater public transit, etc., although New York is (as was argued in the article) a much better poster child than, say, L.A. (which receives a fantastic examination in Mike Davis’ DEAD CITIES). To tell the truth, I wouldn’t mind seeing a small park downtown myself (considering Liberty Plaza a bit of an eyesore), but then I have no problem with taller buildings either.
I hate to confess that I had a delightful Ann Arbor experience last weekend during the No Fun Records show at the Blind Pig. Pure, utter joy, although half the bands were from Lansing and Detroit, apparently. The Avatars rule and I felt a little less bad about living here.
posted by Lazaro on October 20th, 2004 at 8:29 amIf you go to the “weighed in” link, you will read that Brandon talks about the AATA putting in a small commuter system on the existing Allen Creek railroad tracks….my brother and I have been talking about doing exactly that since we moved here.
Where do I sign to make that happen. Terrific idea on it’s face.
posted by todd leopold on October 20th, 2004 at 11:26 amThe Washtenaw County Parks are the best county level parks in Michigan if not the country. Facilities include recreation center, water park, one of the 10 best public golf courses in the nation and numerous undeveloped parks with dozens of rare and endangered species, only someone who has never explored the beyond downtown Ann Arbor would vote against this. This millage is for ten-years and everytime is come up for a vote since the creation of the parks in 1974, it passes by a larger majority.
posted by Ben Heumann on October 20th, 2004 at 11:40 amActually, Todd, that was Murph who wrote about the commuter rail.
Lazaro, that was indeed a fun show at the Pig on Saturday– I really liked the Hard Lessons and Coronados as well. I’m still not quite sold on The Sirens, but they’re fun.
posted by Brandon on October 20th, 2004 at 12:11 pmThe Sirens are a Heart cover band, far as I can tell…
posted by js on October 20th, 2004 at 12:22 pm(The Avatars rock, haven’t seen Thee Coronados yet, and missed the Hard Lessons again…)
Oops sorry Murph.
Question for you Urban Planning students: given the current building climate in Ann Arbor (eg. Toll Brothers pulled out of yet another housing project in the downtown area), do you think that more parks coupled with a lack of building height will help or hinder sprawl?
posted by todd leopold on October 20th, 2004 at 12:42 pmI think it will help sprawl. It’s simple math, really: decrease land area by parks, and create an anti-building environment, and you will be helping Toll Brothers build in Manchester and Chelsea instead of Ann Arbor. It’s that simple.
The Mayor and all the other anti-development voices keep saying things like the Toll Brothers building was an okay height but in the wrong place. Where, then, if not on Main Street?? are there building owners on Washtenaw Ave. clamoring to build tall buildings? not so much. We can’t necessarily control where _all_ development goes. It just won’t work in a capitalist society.
posted by KGS on October 20th, 2004 at 1:08 pmIs Hieftje anti-development? He has been talking up greater downtown density.
posted by tom on October 20th, 2004 at 4:35 pmSince Jeff Spoon’s dainty development plan went down the toilet, and Beal decided to switch the building to primarily office space, I should think it would serve as a shot over the bow of the Downtown Development crowd’s yacht.
Now, there’s the Central Park (of Ann Arbor) plan taking shape. Truth be told, I’d much rather pay for parks than have my property tax money go to support Washtenaw Community College.
As for the Kolb Mayor H. shuffle, Hieftje’s big boast is that under his leadership, he and Council have trimmed fat out of the city’s budget. Talk to a firefighter, and s/he will point out that those of us paying property taxes are paying higher taxes for less emergency service coverage. Lovely. He’d never get my vote for state office.
I see Ann Arbor heading into some very tough financial times. When Gelman’s dioxin crosses into the Old West Side, the chemicals are really gonna hit the fan. So far, Pall’s paying for the clean-up, but the plume is headed right for the river.
Lifer
posted by Lifer on October 20th, 2004 at 5:06 pmTodd,
Putting commuter rail on the Ann Arbor RR line is (from what I can tell) a distant fantasy of AATA. It would probably have a large park-n-ride out on Ellsworth (trying to keep a lot of the traffic from even getting into the city) and stops at Eisenhower Pkwy (just east of Wolverine Tower, the Stadium (connecting with the University’s buses), and downtown. On the north end, it might hit North Main / Depot, Plymouth Road / Barton Drive (connecting with the #2 to Pfizer), and on up to North Territorial, in order to grab US-23 traffic all the way up there and bring people into town.
In order to make this any kind of politically feasible, though, we need a combination of more development and less parking downtown, so that people *require* some kind of alternative to driving. I really think that Cowherd is extremely anti-growth, and not a very good environmentalist at all. Other groups in the area are more intelligent–the Huron Valley Watershed Council has spoken strongly in favor of more development in Ann Arbor, knowing it’ll mean less development outside of Ann Arbor.
posted by Murph on October 20th, 2004 at 8:32 pmThe commuter rail could head to points South, too, like Milan.
posted by Brandon on October 21st, 2004 at 6:52 amHmmmmm, Milan would be great. I’d also like to see an express line to Clio. And dont forget Saltine.
posted by Orful Otis on October 21st, 2004 at 9:56 am“I really think that Cowherd is extremely anti-growth, and not a very good environmentalist at all. Other groups in the area are more intelligent–the Huron Valley Watershed Council has spoken strongly in favor of more development in Ann Arbor, knowing it’ll mean less development outside of Ann Arbor.”
I am inclined to agree with your sentiment, although I never trust second hand reports as to what Cowherd is purportedly saying. I very much agree that anyone who has studied the history of Urban Planning, particularly in regards to the growth of college towns, where the cities are “virtually” recession proof…..these towns seem to take $$ for granted, spend like crazy, and hold everyone out of the town who doesn’t have the $$ to afford to live there.
What I have a really hard time accepting is that anyone calling themselves an envrionmentalist can’t grasp the concept that developers are just as happy developing Dexter, Milan, Saline as they are Ann Arbor…..anytime you hear the phrase “we’re going to table this building project so we can look in to the this”, the planning commission has just sent another 100 units to Dexter or some other sub-suburb.
Off the top of my head I personally know of 5 wealthy Ann Arbor developers who have turned their sights to Saline and Dexter SPECIFICALLY because it’s so difficult to build anything in Ann Arbor. This makes me see red.
Oh, and Murph, I agree that we need more density and less parking to make something like the light rail work…..it’s something Ann Arbor should have been working on years ago.
Murph, do you know why the Ann Arbor City Planner was let go? She seemed to be the only person in the Ann Arbor govt. w/ an actual professional degree (Umich UrPlanning, I believe).
posted by todd leopold on October 21st, 2004 at 10:37 amTom,
When the chips are down I have seen Hieftje speak out against development more often than for it, no matter what he says these days. He insists that the dense proposals ‘aren’t in the right place’ but I have a feeling ‘the right place’ will never come (a la North Main Condos). It’s one of the reasons I won’t be voting for him this election.
I know first-hand what Cowherd has said at Planning Commisions, at least. With the exception of the accessible dwelling unit fiasco, he has been against every major development in this city in the last four years that I can recall. Not a very good track record for a so-called environmentalist.
As for why Karen Hart was fired, well, I think it was all political. They got rid of her & her position, taking away what little independance the planning commission had from the city council in the process. She was a fantastic planner. Hieftje & council gutted the best-run department in the city with her loss. All of the planning staff have planning degrees from one place or another, at least a third were from UM before the gutting took place. Now I’m not so sure anymore.
posted by KGS on October 21st, 2004 at 1:09 pmKGS, pretty astute comments.
I have never understood why any city, let alone Ann Arbor, would let uncredentialed, yet well-meaning people sit on a board that makes day to day decisions about things related to planning and construction….of course I am talking about the Planning Commision. It’s like asking a doctor to defend you from murder charges. Why on earth would anyone want amateurs to guide city policy regarding growth/sprawl, and have them rule on the minute detail of day to day building activities?
I believe that the answer is that individuals and NIMBY’s want the ability to quash/control any project that they see fit.
Question for KGS, as I don’t know the answer: does Doug Cowher have a U Planning degree?
posted by todd leopold on October 21st, 2004 at 2:23 pmTodd,
(adding to KGS’s comment): I know that Wendy Rampson, on the planning staff, has a UMich planning master’s. Jeff Kahan, also on the planning staff, has a planning master’s from somewhere, but I don’t know offhand where. As to why the firing? My City government inside source says power grab, most highly benefiting City Administrator Fraser–I believe Fraser ended up in direct control of the newly combined planning/building department. (”Office of Developer Services” or some such.)
The Planning Commission is supposed to take technical advice from the planning staff–such as Rampson and Kahan and to consider the combination of the planning staff’s advice, the general visions/goals expressed in existing city plans, and community input. It is intended to be an interpretive body rather than a technical one. I’m disappointed that Carlberg is the one City Council member who has opposition in this election, since she sits on the planning commission and seems to be pretty sharp. She has also stated that the planning commission *does* suffer from a lack of technical expertise, and that it would be good to have more professional planners (or even engineers) on board to provide some analytical skills.
I’ll be filling out an application to the currently-vacant Planning Commission seat as soon as it gets here in the mail from the Mayor’s office…
posted by Murph on October 21st, 2004 at 2:43 pmTodd,
(adding to KGS’s comment): I know that Wendy Rampson, on the planning staff, has a UMich planning master’s. Jeff Kahan, also on the planning staff, has a planning master’s from somewhere, but I don’t know offhand where. As to why the firing? My City government inside source says power grab, most highly benefiting City Administrator Fraser–I believe Fraser ended up in direct control of the newly combined planning/building department. (”Office of Developer Services” or some such.)
The Planning Commission is supposed to take technical advice from the planning staff–such as Rampson and Kahan and to consider the combination of the planning staff’s advice, the general visions/goals expressed in existing city plans, and community input. It is intended to be an interpretive body rather than a technical one. I’m disappointed that Carlberg is the one City Council member who has opposition in this election, since she sits on the planning commission and seems to be pretty sharp. She has also stated that the planning commission *does* suffer from a lack of technical expertise, and that it would be good to have more professional planners (or even engineers) on board to provide some analytical skills.
I’ll be filling out an application to the currently-vacant Planning Commission seat as soon as it gets here in the mail from the Mayor’s office…
posted by Murph on October 21st, 2004 at 2:43 pmThe planning commission is currently made up of uncredentialed people who are not professional planners because the people who HAD been creditialed - urban planners, architects, lawyers, landscape architects - were not reappointed, or were not appointed in the first place. Who is responsible for that? why the Mayor, of course.
Why not have professionals on the commission? because in a town this small, there are numerous allegations - some from Cowherd himself, in the infamous Observer article - that the professionals are too tainted with their business relations with the all-evil developers. The whole thing makes me sick, especially when I know it is far from the truth.
No, it doesn’t make sense to me. If people are really worried about developer favoritism, fine, make only half the board with professionals. But to have NO land use professionals at all is just plain stupid.
Doug Cowherd does not, as I recall, have a planning degree from the UM or any other university. His creditials were listed in the Observer article, though, so if you can find that you’ll find the answer.
Wendy Rampson does have a UM planning degree (she was a professor of mine long ago), but she has been transferred away from planning and into community development. I believe Jeff Kahan does as well. Karen Hart and Alexis Marcarello did too, though they are both gone now. The other planners - Coy, Chandra, Donna and Matt - got degrees from MSU or another university. I don’t know the background of the new planning ‘manager’, Mark Lloyd.
I think Murph is right - it was a power grab for Fraser, as well as simplifying some things for the Mayor & city council. Still doesn’t make the actions any less rotten, in fact, maybe more so since we can’t vote someone else to be city administrator.
I’ve filled out at planning commission application (and a greenbelt one) but until this mayor gets kicked out, I seriously doubt he would appoint me! I guess I’m just too reasonable, thinking that development isn’t all bad…
posted by KGS on October 21st, 2004 at 3:26 pmThis obsession with the all-evil developers is baffling.
Let me go on record as saying that the developers like Shaffran are SMALL PEANUTS. Focusing and bickering about what and where they do their business is pointless. I’d like to add that I believe that Shaffran and local developers like him are the best friends an Ann Arbor environmentalist could ever have. These people actually give a crap about the town that they live in, and they want to see Ann Arbor proper thrive.
The big boys are the regional and national REIT’s with billions of dollars to blow on large developments like what’s going in in Saline….HUGE 1,000+ unit housing tracts to roll into town.
THIS is what is sprawl, not a piddly 20 story building in DOWNTOWN Ann Arbor. A U Planning degree holder know this before their first semester has passed. Some shmo who likes parks and trees doesn’t….and hey, we all like parks and trees.
The thing is, putting in a park with trees where a parking lot was feels good….but if it undermines the overall plans of a city (assuming there actually IS an overall plan), then it could potentially be the worse thing that you could put in. A homeowner who has kids and lives next door to said parking lot will never in 1,000 years get this…..and will act accordingly.
posted by todd leopold on October 21st, 2004 at 3:49 pmMy wife and her lovely sisters and I are going to be in Ann Arbor for the weekend.
Are there any late night bars or places to go?
posted by tksauce on October 21st, 2004 at 5:19 pmAh, yeah, this is totally unrelated, as I know little or nothing about urban planning (but my god, can they actually consider taking parking *away* in Ann Arbor? Isn’t that something we desperately need *more* of?). What with the RED SOX BEING IN THE WORLD SERIES and me being far from those idyllic eastern shores, I’m missing the baseball vibe. Is there anywhere a fan can go to watch the games in this city that isn’t too far from campus?
posted by art student on October 21st, 2004 at 8:47 pmTodd,
You should apply to the planning commission, along with Murph. The extremely reasonable points of view expressed here are needed there too.
The mayor’s failure to reappoint several members of the planning commission and the reshuffling of the department was definitely political for council to get more control of a quasi-independent agency.
We need to start a group of environmentalists who support good development inside the city and who can have representatives at all of these planning hearings and other meetings to speak out for some sanity around here.
The show of force for transit-oriented smart growth at the Northeast Ann Arbor proposal a few months ago was a great thing to watch. But there is no (real) environmentalist group that can counter the neighborhood associations and the Sierra Club on a regular basis and good groups such as the watershed council support infill development but their priorities and energies are more focused beyond the planning commission and city council.
posted by Matt on October 22nd, 2004 at 3:15 amMatt,
I’d be happy to support such an effort, but putting someone like myself on the planning commission would contribute to the problem. I know what it is that I’d like to see happen in Ann Arbor, but I don’t have the tools that I would need to see it through….ie. I’m not an Urban Planner. This is specifically the problem with the current commission…they are fumbling around in the dark. I would make things worse, not better.
If I were in charge, I would ELIMINATE the planning commission, and replace it with a small group of well paid experienced Urban Planners. Why on earth do we want to put the future of the city in the hands of amateurs working part time? It makes zero sense. Have you ever watched a planning commission meeting? Why are people who don’t know squat about developing/real estate/planning have the authority to shape the city? These are nice people, but come on already.
Have seminars to put together a 30 year master plan using citizen input (Wash. County just finished doing just this), finalize the plan. Remind citizens that this is their chance to shape the city for the future. Hire REAL planners to execute the plan.
This last part is critical…..DO NOT allow citizen input on a project by project basis. A neighbor of a new project will ALWAYS try and control or quash a project. This is the WORST possible way to manage growth in a city. Ask the city planner of Boulder. He’ll tell you the same thing…..and he’ll tell you that this is the #1 reason that sprawl happens. It’s not the developers. Nope. It’s the citzens who don’t understand long term planning.
History has shown that wealthy homeowners will ALWAYS try and maintain/increase the value of their home. That’s their first and last priority. If this means turning badly needed parking spots into parks, so be it. If this means lopping stories off of a proposed building, so be it. Anytime you hear about a project being tabled…follow the money. Who benefits from less housing in Ann Arbor? The answer is people who already own property in Ann Arbor. They don’t care about affordable housing (which is why they laughably ask developers to foot the bill for affordable housing). They don’t care that developers will move their projects to neighboring towns….ask a homeowner who wants to put in more parks downtown if he/she thinks that this is going to lead to more sprawl in Dexter/Saline….I’ve got $50 that says that they will look at you like you’re nuts. They don’t believe in cause and effect. They just know that a park is pretty with nice trees.
posted by todd leopold on October 22nd, 2004 at 10:18 amTodd, abolishing the Planning Commission would be rough–it’s a pretty well-entrenched institution in every Michigan city. I’ll agree that neighbor input should definitely not be a defining point on project approval–unless the neighbor can demonstrate real, tangible, severe harm directly resulting from the proposal, their input should be noted, but not allowed to control the decision. Again, I have to paraphrase Carlberg, who said a little while ago, I think about the N. Main Condos project, “People say the project will hurt their property values–that’s silly. If you own a house in Ann Arbor, *nothing* is going to make your property value go down.”
Art Student, the problem with parking is the opportunity cost of the land it requires–if you build parking lots, you have less land available for stores, offices, parks, houses, and other useful and worthwhile things. That’s right, “parking” is not itself worthwhile, but is only a pesky requirement of those other things. Get a good enough transit system and good enough density and mix of uses, and the ability to access things without a car increases, so the amount of parking needed per person decreases. At the very least, we need to consolidate parking in structures to free up some of the land occupied by lots; getting developers to build parking under their buildings is even better, but super-expensive: we need to let them build 10 or 15 stories to afford the cost of underground parking.
Todd, Matt, and KGS, I expect all of you to be involved in my council challenge next year. I’m willing to run in the 1st Ward (though if I can get myself nominated to the planning commission, I’d rather spread out the influence and let somebody else on council), but keep a lookout for people willing to run in the other Wards. With a platform based on “not screwing over students” and “developing Ann Arbor in a halfway rational fashion”, I think that we can at least put enough pressure on to get council to listen to us, if not actually win some seats.
posted by Murph on October 22nd, 2004 at 11:53 amYou’re on, Murph. I’ve thought about running for a council seat in my ward too (5th) but I like Wendy. Not sure I care much for Easthope though. If I had known he was running unopposed this election I might have run.
posted by KGS on October 22nd, 2004 at 12:19 pmAre you gonna try to get Dem nomination, Murph, or 3rd party it?
posted by js on October 22nd, 2004 at 1:45 pmI’d love to see you take out Johnson (I think that’s his name), since Groome is up for the re-elect this time around. If I can, I’ll try and swing my boss onboard, since he generally agrees with your positions, but has the clout to raise a lot of cash (he used to be on the council himself, now he’s on the DDA).
js
Hey Murph, maybe you could run as an ultra-moderate Republican… they seem to be hurting for candidates around here these days, and would have more resources than a 3rd party… hmm…
posted by Brandon on October 22nd, 2004 at 5:56 pmTurnout is so low in the August primaries that a really well organized effort could probably win, as a Democratic candidate. I think that’s the best way to send a message. The fact that the mayor and other Dems support instant runoff voting shows they aren’t too worried about a third-party challenge, which I think is also less viable now because of the national/Nader political climate (same problem for moderate Republicans locally).
I agree with Todd on the need for planners to make these decisions, in the abstract, although with the current system entrenched as Murph notes it is important in the short run to get progressive voices on the current commission even if they are “amateurs.” On the Northeast area plan, for example, it would be best if the commission actually accepted the planning staff’s proposal without trying to make a lot of changes that are inevitably site-specific responses to neighborhood opposition.
Also, in historical perspective there is nothing sacrsanct about planners as a profession. Urban planners collectively were largely complicit in the segregation by race and class forged during the 3-4 decades after WWII in metro areas and it is only more recently that the profession has become much more engaged in issues of social justice. But that aside, the planning staff here in Ann Arbor is really good and without politics cramping their style we would have ADUs and denser developments and a lot of other good things. But citizen input is still important, the process is completely structured to enable it, and so progressive non-NIMBYs need to take advantage of it same as the neighborhood associations. And Jean Carlberg is right, too, nothing is going to make overall property values go down here in recession-proof Ann Arbor.
posted by Matt on October 23rd, 2004 at 4:07 pm