Left is Right, Ignorance is Strength
In what will probably be seized upon as an example of their pro-Republican leanings, the News runs an oddly late story (and we an oddly late post, due to a broken power cord on our laptop) about Mayor Hieftje’s vote total falling short of Kerry’s, complete with cross-party sniping about whether Republicans voted for Kerry or Democrats voted for Lumm. But none of this manages to capture the upside-down-land quality of A2 politics, where couch ban supporters are considered to the left of density proponents.
I’ve always thought that Ann Arbor talks progressively but acts conservatively. Its obsession with historic districts, which attempt to freeze neighborhoods exactly as they are, its fierce protection of property values, its resistance to increased density, etc, mark AA as a pretty conservative town despite its progressive pretensions.
posted by tom on November 16th, 2004 at 5:02 pmOK…wait just a sec.
Historic preservation may run amok in this town, but it’s not simply about “freezing neighborhoods exactly as they are.”
Tom, I don’t know if you are originally from the Detroit area or not, but there are many painful examples, particularly in Detroit, but a few as well out here in this preservation-mad enclave of what can happen to unique and interesting architecture if it isn’t protected in one way or another. The pre-civil war era Monroe block in Detroit as well as Little Harry’s (bulldozed to put in a lovely IHOP) come to mind.
I know better than anyone how much fun it is to rip on the OFW and the Hysteric Commission. I live in them and have had to go before their various tribunals for all manner of minor renovations…but it is dishonest to say it is about property values alone.
By the way, I am totally FOR increased density and know many fellower travellers who *gasp* live in the historic district and OFW who agree with me.
posted by OFW insurgent on November 16th, 2004 at 9:58 pm…and another thing, damnit!
you want to see property values go through the ceiling? Get rid of the historic commission and developers will be buying up the downtown, knocking down the houses and building McMansions maximizing the lot lines. Check out some of the monstrosities on North Fourth Ave. if you don’t get my drift.
(North Central isn’t considered “historic” so they can get away with it.)
posted by OFW insurgent on November 16th, 2004 at 10:09 pmHistoric preservation does run amok in AA, and many of the areas they seek to “preserve” have no historical interest at all. In many cases (not all), its about control, not preservation.
posted by tom on November 17th, 2004 at 8:40 amMy comment about protecting property values is aimed more at resistance to any project which is perceived to lower them. For instance, Arbor Update has item about the Greene Street apartments which is being greatly opposed by the neighbors.
In any case, I was not saying that historic preservation districts were created to preserve property values, but instead were created as a way to stop change - a conservative value.
posted by tom on November 17th, 2004 at 9:38 am“Historic preservation does run amok in AA, and many of the areas they seek to “preserve” have no historical interest at all. In many cases (not all), its about control, not preservation.
My comment about protecting property values is aimed more at resistance to any project which is perceived to lower them.”
So true. These people don’t care about density or sprawl. They want increased property value and a quiet place for their kids (not that there’s anything wrong with that)…..therefore they will *always* act shocked when college students want to live on their black.
Backing up my assertion about the fact that these people don’t care about sprawl….OFW insurgent: the next time you find yourself at a meeting in the Ward, ask the attendees how you curb sprawl. I’ll bet you $50 that everyone answers “put in more downtown parks” or “buy property for the greenbelt”, and no one answers “the city needs to get rid of the height restrictions on new buildings”. These answers will tell you all that you need to know about their motives.
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with these motives….aside from the fact that they are the *biggest* contributors to sprawl in this little town.
posted by todd leopold on November 17th, 2004 at 9:57 amOops. Block, not black.
posted by todd leopold on November 17th, 2004 at 10:11 amI am FOR getting rid of height restrictions (to a point, no more University Towers please)…I have lived in the Kerrytown area since 1988 and want to see the businesses in the area continue to thrive, especially the folks at Kerrytown since I know most of them. It is also the main reason why this continues to be such a desireable neighborhood (in a state where stripmalls and drive-thrus are the norm, unfortunately).
It’s a struggle, since most people around here would rather drive to a BigBox store and get a week’s worth of shit rather than take advantage of places where they can walk and get just what they need (i.e Food Co-op or Kerrytown). If these places can’t make it, it will be a sad day, indeed.
posted by OFW insurgent on November 18th, 2004 at 2:39 pmI’d rather walk to a big box store for a week’s worth of stuff, like I did in Cambridge. Sparrow’s great for meat, and of course I like Zingerman’s, but there is absolutely no reason to go the People’s Food Co-op other than that it’s close to my house. I wouldn’t be disappointed to see it go under.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on November 18th, 2004 at 2:45 pm“I am FOR getting rid of height restrictions (to a point, no more University Towers please)…”
In my (and apparently several U Planning prof’s) opinion, we *specifically* need more buildings the size of University Towers. We will never get them, and housing will continue to move to neighboring cities.
It’s a very simple math equation. Either you build up, or you build out. There isn’t a middle ground. In my mind if you don’t want tall buildings in a city like Ann Arbor, then you are saying that it is more important to have an unobstructed view of the mountains(oh wait, there aren’t any mountains here) then it is to reduce urban sprawl and hold taxes down.
This position is pro-sprawl, and anti-progressive design. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I don’t blame you for thinking this way. I just vehemently disagree with your position.
posted by todd leopold on November 18th, 2004 at 3:56 pmTodd,
I have talked to Doug Kelbaugh about this very subject…I don’t think he is entirely sold on the idea of high rises (over 15 storeys) either. To me, there is no problem with buildings of 10 floors or so, but do you really think a city of this scale can handle multiple buildings the size of University Towers? It ain’t Manhattan (understatement, I know).
For the record, the reason I choose to live here, other than the fabulous mountain views, is because it is such a walkable community and mixture of commercial and residential. I am also for the idea of garage apartments and other creative solutions to housing issues.
I too am very concerned about sprawl, I think you are being a bit binary in your argument.
posted by OFW insurgent on November 18th, 2004 at 7:43 pmPersonally I’ll take the middle ground on the height issue - I don’t want to see any more U-Towers, but higher buildings should definitely be allowed and encouraged. For me higher buildings would be up to 15 stories. If designed properly people would hardly be aware of their height, at least not when walking down the street.
The lack of backbone in Council & from the Mayor on the height issue is appalling. Currently we are only building out. I think we should encourage Council to allow for taller buildings so that those of us who like the downtown and want to live here have somewhere to go (and if at least some of the units could be moderately affordable, that would be a BIG plus!!).
posted by KGS on November 19th, 2004 at 10:35 amOFW,
You are 100% correct that I am being binary in my argument. Look at what has happened to your city in the past 20 years. More chains, higher taxes, higher business failure rate downtown, increasing rents, cutbacks on city services, etc. etc. The city is in crisis, and I am apparently one of the few who believes that this is case.
In my opinion, the city should be in emergency mode if it hopes to keep any of the small town feel that everyone seems to talk about. There is less resistance (a serious understatement) if you want to develop in *any* of the surrounding towns when compared to downtown Ann Arbor.
*A Small Businessperson can no longer afford to do business dowtown*. Ask yourself why the Del Rio building is still vacant. My brother and I didn’t even bother looking at it. Between dealing with the city and all the damn taxes, you’d be crazy to pick up that little property….if you weren’t a national chain. It is no accident that all of these chains are coming in.
In my opinion the city will continue to dawdle on this issue, and Ann Arbor will look like every other American suburb inside of 10 years. Like Boulder and Denver, Ann Arbor had it’s professionals work on long term planning in the 70’s and 80’s, and each and every time the citizens shot down these plans (mass transit instead of beltway for Denver; greenbelt with zero infill for Boulder).
Take a look at the post on the proposed apartment on greene. Citizens will fight *any* new project tooth and nail, adding costs and expenses, and depriving the city of new property taxes. You’ll note that the approval has already been tabled. You can add at least $20K to the cost of that project right there.
It’s sad. I really believe as long as citizens are allowed to give input on *individual* projects that it is too late for Ann Arbor, and it will become yet another overpriced corporate strip-mall infested suburb. It is already happening……
posted by todd leopold on November 19th, 2004 at 11:23 amWell put, you have won me over.
I haven’t been involved in any anti-development issues with the OFW, other than fighting the proposed Burger King on First & Huron a number of years back and some of the original plans for the Broadway Bridges project. I sit out when they go after couches, halfway houses and the most recent tall-building proposal on North Main.
Do you know of any groups who are currently working to pressure council on these density issues and are getting together to strategize? Or are there simply pockets of like-minded folks who commisserate together? If there are such groups, I would be interested in joining.
posted by OFW insurgent on November 19th, 2004 at 12:16 pmThe only groups that feel like I do are Urban Planners and developers, and since most
half-assed environmentalists can’t think in large terms, the developers have been vilified in this town. These groups have no real power.
I do know that there are a few Downtown task forces that are trying to solve these problems, but….
Unless:
1. You remove public discussion on *individual* projects
2. You replace both the appeals board and the planning board with credentialed, full-time professionals…the problems will never be solved.
Without the above two conditions, citizens and amateurs will ruin any long term planning that is in the best interest of the city. A task force can’t solve anything as long as you let a citizen complain his/her way into planning/building decision. Citizen input needs to be at the Master Plan and Oversight level.
Want affordable housing? Put it in the Master Plan. Want density? Put it in the Master Plan. Want more locally owned businesses? Put it in the Master Plan……then give the plan to full-time, professional urban planners, lawyers, and administrators and let them do their job. This will get rid of all this NIMBY crap that happens in any town that has people with money and a degree or two.
But I can assure you that if you try to do this that citizens will freak out and call the Ann Arbor government a bunch of fascists. People want to control every little thing, and this leads to a championing of mediocrity.
Ann Arbor should be better than that….and this is in large part why this website exists.
posted by todd leopold on November 19th, 2004 at 12:37 pm*A Small Businessperson can no longer afford to do business dowtown*. Ask yourself why the Del Rio building is still vacant. My brother and I didn’t even bother looking at it. Between dealing with the city and all the damn taxes, you’d be crazy to pick up that little property….if you weren’t a national chain. It is no accident that all of these chains are coming in.
posted by tom on November 19th, 2004 at 2:07 pmTo add to Todd’s point, the local businesses that are opening downtown are all expensive, high-end restaurants. An article on Logans, opening in Wasabi’s old space on Washington, said that their target is $50/meal. Rush Street, opening in Zydeco’s old space on Main, is another expensive restaurant. Smaller, cheap eats type places that make a downtown livable for people with normal incomes are being pushed out to the edges.
The local chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) is very interested in becoming more involved in pro-density discussions. Not because we architects have any particular financial interest (no matter what mud Cowherd slings) but because like urban planners, local architects are sincerely concerned with the sprawl we see and we want a better city for _everyone_.
I have asked someone on planning staff if it is possible to let the chapter know (by email) when there is a proposal with public support against it, so that local architects can come and speak for it, especially if it makes sense in the downtown.
It’s a sign of the human condition I suppose, but it is harder to organize people *for* something than *against* it.
posted by KGS on November 19th, 2004 at 3:33 pmWell, I don’t know if it’s so much that people are negative as that when a new building is proposed, a non-planner like myself may think it sounds like a good idea because of the height or location, but not know enough about it to counter very specific arguments against it. And I guess unfortunately, an abstract goal like “more housing” sounds good, but it just doesn’t get people up on their feet like “huge apartment complex crawling with students three blocks away UNLESS WE FIGHT IT NOW!”
There has got to be some ambitious planning undergrad or grad student who’s willing to go to all these planning commission meetings and advocate for student housing and increased density.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on November 19th, 2004 at 3:41 pmWell, should anyone know of a pro-density group of people who live or work downtown, I would be interested in getting together with them.
Still Todd, part of your “conditions” I do find disurbing…and that is lumping together anyone who opposes any project as a NIMBY asshole and all citizen input as “amatuer.”
I don’t know if you are familiar with a scenario from the 70s up here in the OFW-North Central area, which was largely black at the time…the city planners had an urban renewal project in mind that entailed ripping down a good portion of the housing to put in a Beakes-Packard Beltway…this would have also included the Kerrytown buildings. Their thinking at the time was that it would move traffic smoothly round the town. The citizens in this area, particularly Lettie Wickcliff, fought like hell and were able to preserve the area. (We studied this particular episode of city history when we were opposing some of the original plans for the Broadway Bridges a few years back).
So would this kind of effort fall into such a catagory to you? Where exactly do you draw the line? Do “professionals” always know best?
posted by OFW insurgent on November 20th, 2004 at 9:04 pmYou are misreading my comments.
I can actually give you a local example of what I am talking about.
Washtenaw County just executed the citizen participation section. Here’s the link:
http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/planning_environment/comp_plan/public_participation/wrkshp_results.htm
They spent a few years working on workshops where ordinary citizens (like myself) could come in and quite literally tell officials what they want their county to look like in the coming years. These suggestions were integrated into a Master Plan for the County. Now whether or not we work from this plan is another question.
So as to your specific question, if I was in charge, this renewal project, and traffic flow patterns for the city would have been discussed in the *preparation of the Master Plan*. Opposition would be heard thenBEFORE the meter starts running. It would have never made it into the Master Plan.
To be clear, I am NOT AT ALL opposed to citizen input from amateur citizens (I’m one of them) or NIMBY assholes as you put it (I can assure you that I can be one of those as well).
What I am trying to tell you is that we need to regulate WHERE AND WHEN this input takes place. Let these active citizens craft their city in whatever image they choose. Ask them to craft a Master Plan with the help of the planning department. I am all for this.
But designing the city on the fly, as we are doing now, without a plan is beyond dumb. No one wins in this model. I have told this story before, but when my father (who teaches E. Planning) called up the city of Ann Arbor in 1995 asking for a copy of the Master Plan so that we could look at the relevant sites for a brewery what we got was a LAUGH from the planning department. “I can send you a map, but we don’t have a Master Plan”, was what we got.
When I said previously that citizens will always choose parks or property value over parking lots and new buildings, I wasn’t blaming them for it. They aren’t bad people for thinking like this. What I am saying is that this behavior is entirely understandable….and entirely predictable. You need to move this behavior upstream in the planning process or the process will always fail.
What you need to do is to sit all of these homeowners down in a room over the better part of a couple of years and ask them what they want their city for the next 30 years. Give them the relevant info: we predict in 30 years that we will have a population of X, will need X more schools, X more homes, X more mixed use apartments, X more roads that we think need to go here, X fire departments, there will be X more students at UMich, etc. etc. Then let them work in crafting a practical plan that fits these conditions. Then take the thing to profesionals from top to bottom, and let them execute the plan……review their work every quarter, and update the plan as needed (again with citizen input). I missed some broad strokes, but that’s pretty much it.
I hope that I answered your question.
posted by todd leopold on November 21st, 2004 at 1:07 pmIt did Todd. Thanks for a pretty informative discussion.
posted by OFW insurgent on November 21st, 2004 at 6:15 pmTodd, what you said isn’t exactly correct. It is true that technically the City of A2 doesn’t have a “master plan”, but that is because the master plan actually consists of several documents, namely the area plans (NE, W, S, Central, & Downtown), the transportation plan, the bicycle plan, and the Parks & Rec open space plan. The master plan for the city is really a list of the smaller plans. And honestly, the process you described is exactly what the planning department has done in the past, especially as it relates to looking back at the plan and working on issues in it. There is in fact a committee of the planning commission that works on this very topic; I was the chair of it when it started a few years ago. Also realize that it is state law that some part of the master plan must be updated every 5 years. The NE Area plan has taken an extraordinary effort and time, as that plan has been rewritten from scratch, with copious neighborhood input, starting in 1999.
There was also talk of conducting a vision plan for the whole city, and I think that would be especially useful for long range planning (50 years out or more). It wouldn’t be so much a nuts-and-bolts plan, but rather a real indication of where we want to go as a city. I encourage planning commission members, planning staff, and councilmembers to push for this vision plan whenever I meet them.
posted by KGS on November 22nd, 2004 at 9:59 am“The master plan for the city is really a list of the smaller plans.”
You and I both know that this isn’t the same thing as an integrated regional (as in the Ann Arbor region) Master Plan.
“And honestly, the process you described is exactly what the planning department has done in the past, especially as it relates to looking back at the plan and working on issues in it.”
I disagree. Yes, the planning department has worked with citizens in the past. The fork in the road hits when you arrive at the boards that are filled with non-professional part-time people (again, these people have great intentions). I have stated before that this often ruins the hard work of the U. Planners.
A second fork hits when you allow these boards to “table” (which, of course, is the same thing as a rejection) a proposed project because a few members of the community comes in and protests the project.
I’m not just pulling rabbits out of a hat, KGS. Speaking with planning professionals and architects such as yourself, I have been told that without question the #1 reason for sprawl in and around a wealthy community is community involvement in the last stage of the planning process.
The Observer cartoon mentioned in the above post argues my point perfectly: current residents want a wealthy area. They want higher home values, and the don’t want to “lose the small town character” which is, of course, codespeak for no development. They won’t tell you this in overall meetings. They would have to admit that they don’t care about sprawl, and they like being in a wealthy community.
They will never allow another building like U. Towers, and we all know that it is too late to for little 8-10 story apartment/mixed use complexes to go in….they should have been built in the 80’s and 90’s and they weren’t.
You can set up committees and plans until your head spins. As long as the community is involved on a project by project basis, true sustainability or affordable housing will never happen. Personally, I think that it is too late anyways. These people want a little village like a Vail or a Winter Park…and that is exactly what they are going to get.
posted by todd leopold on November 23rd, 2004 at 12:58 pmQuote: “You and I both know that this isn’t the same thing as an integrated regional (as in the Ann Arbor region) Master Plan.”
True. But with the staffing cuts, lack of money, etc. I HIGHLY doubt such a document would be feasible. I’m not even sure it would be useful, really. It depends on how much detail is in it. If it is exhaustively detailed, it would take 10 years to write. If it was very general, it would be more like the Vision Plan I was describing and would be useful as an oversight document but not for nuts-and-bolts planning.
What I was responding to in your comments was the process of making the plan in the first place, which is pretty much what the planning department does not. Where we differ (and what you explained in your second set of comments) is what happens after that. I think it is unreasonable to take ALL public participation out of the development review process. No master plan, no matter how well written, can account for every possibility. Development does not (and SHOULD not) happen exactly as we like or plan. Therefore it makes sense to have an oversight body such as the planning commission to be able to tweak as needed depending on the project.
That said, I agree with you in that the so-called ‘neighborhood groups’ have far too much political power and need to be curtailed in this town. How to do that I’m not sure, except to go out and speak _for_ projects that are good.
BTW, I never said that you were ‘pulling rabbits out of a hat’, where the heck did you get that??
posted by KGS on November 23rd, 2004 at 3:52 pmI don’t know where I got the pulling rabbits out of my hat from. A little hyperbole maybe??
This is obviously a sore spot for me.
“True. But with the staffing cuts, lack of money, etc. I HIGHLY doubt such a document would be feasible. ”
You are 100% correct. The planning department is the first to get cut….and it’s the last place that should get cut. The same thing happened in Boulder a few years sgo. They cut the planning dept. They now have a skeleton crew planning things in a major metropolitan area for the next 30 years. Sweet.
“Development does not (and SHOULD not) happen exactly as we like or plan. Therefore it makes sense to have an oversight body such as the planning commission to be able to tweak as needed depending on the project.”
I also agree with this statement. But what I do not agree with is that amateurs should man the wheel at this point. It should be a board of planning professionals who understand Michigan laws and can interpet the Master Plan (the will of the people) when making an impartial decision. Watching the Ann Arbor planning commission fumble in the dark during their meetings is downright painful. These are good people, but if I hear the word “move to table” one more time……..
…I’ve enjoyed the thread. Thanks for reading my rants.
posted by todd leopold on November 23rd, 2004 at 4:29 pmQuote: “These are good people, but if I hear the word “move to table” one more time……..” *laughs* That’s how I felt when I got off the PlanComm. On the one hand, I was sad because I felt like I’d done a good job and wanted to be reappointed; but on the other, I hated the glacial slowness of the process and the propensity to table anything the least bit controversial. Quite tiresome!
Anyway, one more point and I’m done: if you look at overall budget & personnel cuts in the City, the planning department was, to be fair, one of the *last* places to be cut. Unfortunately the cut was very deep with the removal of Karen Hart, who (AFAIK) was one of the best bosses in the city. The whole department worked well because of her leadership, I think. We’ll see if Mark works out as well, though he is already at a disadvantage because he has so many other people to manage too.
Anyway, interesting conversation, even though we’ve wandered quite a ways from the original post!
posted by KGS on November 23rd, 2004 at 4:55 pm