Bad!
An Ann Arbor High School class of ‘40 alum opposes tearing down his alma mater (now the Frieze Building) for the new dorm. “Historical considerations” aside, he doesn’t think a dorm should be in a location that’s near anything else. “In my opinion, the location is not suited for a dormitory…Dormitories need buffer zones and quiet surroundings.” In other words, sprawl.
What is it with all of these nostalgic AAHS grads, anyway? Doesn’t anyone else want to see their former high school go down in a Buffy-season-3-style demolition?
Well, having graduated in 1940, he seems to still be stuck in a Corubusierian Modernist planning mindset… big towers surrounded by acres of meaningless greenspace. Look at Bursley Hall for an example, much of Michigan State’s campus, or typical public housing projects. You’ve got a tiny room in a massive unornamented building and can’t walk to anything, but at least you’ve got… buffer space. These views were pretty much the norm for much of the 20th Century, and certainly haven’t quite died yet… just look at our zoning codes.
posted by Brandon on December 1st, 2004 at 3:14 pmI suppose Corbusian may have been the correct term.
posted by Brandon on December 1st, 2004 at 3:15 pmSimmer down, y’all. “Corbusian Modernism”? The dude is advocating protecting a neoclassical structure, after all. Sprawl? He would probably be happy if a new dorm were plopped on Palmer Field.
Criticisms that the North Quad will be disruptive to the neighborhood are legitimate — didn’t anyone here ever walk out of their freshman dorm on a Thursday or Friday night to see a stream of cars parked everywhich way as people picked up their friends or carried in groceries? I ride past S. and W. quad and see it all the time and hear the stereos bumping. With the N. Quad site, these cars will just double park a block away.
However, this is just to say that the architects and planners will have to work overtime to overcome these challenges and consider the neighborhood, not that the idea could or should be shot down.
posted by Dale on December 1st, 2004 at 4:23 pmThe Frieze building has been an eyesore and vastly underutilized space as well on campus since I’ve been around - the fact that they’re turning it into more living space for students is brillaint. South Quad, West Quad, East Quad, Martha Cook, and Barbour house all are right next to campus and don’t have “buffers.” Bring on the new!
posted by remember2002 on December 1st, 2004 at 4:51 pmDale, I think the old part of the Frieze Building would be worth saving, but seeing as the U isn’t going to be doing so, it seems like a great place for a dorm. Who wouldn’t want to live at State & Washington instead of surrounded by a nice green buffer on North Campus (which is where I expected the next dorm would be placed) or Palmer Field? Give the kids some urban living. Either that, or retrofit North Campus so it’s more urban (which I don’t see happening in any real way anytime soon). And I figure there won’t be much need for friends to pick anyone up (due to being so near to everything worth being near to) and with a dining hall the lack of a nearby major grocery store will be rendered pretty moot. Oh, and don’t forget Buffalo Wild Wings. I’d still like ground-floor retail, especially on State Street, but I won’t complain too much.
posted by Brandon on December 1st, 2004 at 6:30 pmI’m pro-North Quad; you don’t need to argue with me, Brandon. I’m just cognizant it could be f—ed up pretty easily.
Ground floor retail? When dorms are locked down 24/7 as it is? MAYBE the university could put a student-friendly U. service on the ground floor (something post office-y), but general public retail I doubt.
“I figure there won’t be much need for friends to pick anyone up (due to being so near to everything worth being near to) and with a dining hall the lack of a nearby major grocery store will be rendered pretty moot.”
Come on. Like people never want to leave town or go to a party on the outskirts? Or need a DD to drive ‘em home? If you don’t plan for auto traffic the neighborhood is going to get screwed (legitimately)and lash back at students/the university.
I say, have a small semi-interior short term parking lot that empties onto Washington. 20 minutes max meters and have it policed heavily to keep things moving.
posted by Dale on December 1st, 2004 at 8:30 pmDale, I’m with you on that–even if only setting up the stretch of Washington along North Quad as a standing-only zone would be a good way to plan for pick-up/drop-off parking. Maybe validate for half an hour of parking in the power center structure to encourage slightly-longer-term parkers to not go cruising the neighborhoods?
posted by Murph on December 1st, 2004 at 8:44 pmWell the ground-floor retail wouldn’t need to be a security risk… storefronts accessible only from the outside seem sensible. If you can do it with the apartment building across the street it doesn’t seem any less sensible for a U building. Seems like a waste of a prime stretch of street otherwise, and a way for the U to make some extra revenue on the side. But that’s just me.
posted by Brandon on December 1st, 2004 at 10:31 pmIt’s been “wasted” nigh unto a century now (at least), so I don’t think there’s any great loss.
I’d like to see how it could be done, but the university has spoken — freshmen and everyone else don’t mix.
ps what type of retail do you suggest would go there?
posted by Dale on December 1st, 2004 at 10:36 pmSure, but it’s an opportunity for “downtown” to grow as the area’s population does… seeing as this is a city of 110,000 people and the central business district hasn’t expanded significantly in at least half a century, it can’t hurt.
Here’s a really radical idea… use the entire first floor for a grocery store? We could use one in central Ann Arbor, as you know. If that wouldn’t happen, I’d enjoy assorted smaller shops, selling a little of this and that. I don’t know what the demand is for these days… I suppose we don’t need too many more coffee and bagel shops in the area. Anyone else have ideas? Knowing the University, they’d end up leasing-out the space to Wendy’s or Subway, though.
posted by Brandon on December 1st, 2004 at 10:44 pmActually a decent pharmacy would be a good option, too, especially since Decker Drugs is now Noodles & Company.
posted by Brandon on December 1st, 2004 at 10:45 pmIf they put in shops at all on the ground level it will probably be crappy little fast food places a la the Union, which isnt really needed…casue we already have the union. and the league even though it only has two.
posted by me on December 1st, 2004 at 10:48 pmA grocery store would be fantastic, however, the owner would have to have friggin’ rocks in his head to open a store (especially a grocery store) with NO parking.
Dream on.
posted by OFW insurgent on December 1st, 2004 at 11:56 pmI don’t recall lots of green space around East Quad. Nor did we really have any parking. And yet, we endured… The Frieze building is ugly and lame, and is a great place for a dorm.
posted by Personality on December 2nd, 2004 at 9:38 amI may be a complete idiot, and this concept may have been thoroughly discussed and dismissed on this site before, but I think it might be time to restrict cars for underclassmen. The little buggers shouldn’t be going home every weekend anyway.
A fabulous idea that will never happen:
To live in the new downtown dorm, one must sign a pledge not to own a car. If busted, huge fine.
posted by OFW insurgent on December 2nd, 2004 at 10:07 amCar ownership is restricted already by the market - most freshmen and sophomores don’t have cars on campus because there’s nowhere to park. For those willing to deal with the hassles of finding parking and paying for it, I think car ownership is fine.
posted by remember2002 on December 2nd, 2004 at 12:25 pmI still really don’t understand why other AA residents feel that they alone are entitled to all of the available public parking. Get rid of free street parking, let the city sell passes for spots where there aren’t meters, and let the market take care of the parking problem. It isn’t just students who should think about not having cars if they live in the downtown area.
posted by Anna on December 2nd, 2004 at 12:55 pmMy sister’s dorm at Emerson fronted on the Boston Common; their ground floor was taken up by retail (and I think the Emerson student health center), with students checking IDs and signing in guests at the desk that guarded the elevator lobby. The UMich dorms already have front desks open a huge portion of the day that could guard the access between the public and residence areas of North Quad. (Or to have resident-MCard-opened doors between the sections, like all the other dorms have outside.) In fact, since they’re talking about theatre space or classroom space in the new building anyways, that’s no more secure than commercial space, so they will have to address these problems anyways.
As far as the “need” for retail–rents are high enough on that strip for all the businesses that already exist without parking (aside from all the structures, of course) that it seems reasonable to extend that. While the University shouldn’t say, “we’re going to have commercial space for fast food”, I don’t think they should necessarily bar fast food from the space. I’m going to wax free market as far as the contents of the commercial space go, but I agree with Brandon that it would be kind of nice to have.
posted by Murph on December 2nd, 2004 at 5:08 pmAnna, I understand what great fun it is to lampoon “AA residents” and evil “homeowners” in your posts as self-centered, demanding assholes, but think about this:
car storage is not the same as parking.
For instance, currently in the strip of cars where I must park in front of Commie high, there is an out of state car, parked about 6 feet back from the legal zone (thus cutting out at least one available parking space in addition to the one he is currently using) and it hasn’t moved in over a week.
I know that when I was a student, other than walking 5 miles a day in 6 feet of snow, I did not drive every day (I was on cinder-blocks in a lot behind my house, not in the street), however, most non-students DO use their cars every day to go to work etc. Students (on campus, particularly dorm students) have door to door bus service to nearly any destination they might need, available nearly 24/7, and rarely have any business out of town, other than going on road trips or going home for more money.
Also, since the university pays NOTHING in city taxes, all the associated city services (fire, police, parking enforcement, etc.) is on the backs of homeowners, which makes them get a little freaked when the U isn’t providing for their people (parking). So you can’t blame them for being a bit concerned.
In the meantime, can’t we all just get along?
posted by OFW insurgent on December 2nd, 2004 at 7:57 pmAnn Arbor gets considerable revenue from the very fact that the University of Michigan is there. Furthermore, I was under the impression that the U makes a payment in lieu of taxes for fire service, and parking enforcement exists because it generates revenue for the city. In all, taxpayers come out ahead in property values and in revenue generated from businesses that exist in Ann Arbor largely because of students; they are not exploited in the Ann Arbor/University of Michigan equation. Beside, as AA residents have noted often and loudly, many students live off-campus, meaning that they are local property tax payers (via their landlords) and are not subject to the University of Michigan exemption.
Finally, bus service isn’t 24 hours a day, and many students work as well as go to school (as I did when an undergrad) and need cars to get to their jobs. If AA makes parking expensive enough, those who do not need cars (except, say, to shop for groceries) will leave them behind.
As a homeowner, I do not believe homeowners are ‘evil’ or anything of the sort. I simply believe that the false distinction between ‘local’ and ’student’ is just that — false.
posted by Anna on December 2nd, 2004 at 8:10 pmI don’t think I was making that distinction. I was referring to students who live in dorms and store their cars.
I don’t feel this is a blanket condemnation of students. I certainly don’t have a problem with anyone who lives in town (student, aliens from outerspace, whoever) parking in the street, nor have I indicated I believe students are not entitled to street parking. I am simply discussing the parking issue as it relates to a new dorm downtown. I think the neighborhoods in the surrounding area will become parking storage areas if the U doesn’t figure in a solution to the impending problem.
“Local v. student”…where the hell did you get that?
posted by OFW insurgent on December 2nd, 2004 at 8:22 pmoh, and the “fire” fee the U must pay to the city is underfunded by millions of dollars per year. Ask Larry K.
posted by OFW insurgent on December 2nd, 2004 at 8:24 pma little anecdote about students storing their cars…
i knew a guy who parked his car on the street in residential hoods long term while he lived in the dorms. he insisted he needed to have a car. he was from chelsea for christ’s sake! and i’m sure he’s not an isolated case.
posted by tubby on December 2nd, 2004 at 9:44 pmTo me the fact that people (myself included, though in my driveway) own a car but may only drive it every week or 2 is a great thing. If “permanent residents” in central Ann Arbor need to drive so often, maybe they ought to look at other means of transportation. I’d rather have the city filled with only occasionally-used cars than ones used three times a day. I’d like to see more of the University workers take the bus rather than park on the street, too, but they have every right to do so and I don’t want to see the U build even more parking… it only encourages car commuting, which works against the new AATA MRide program. Even out-of-town UM workers have the park-and-ride option, as annoying as it is.
posted by Brandon on December 3rd, 2004 at 12:14 amThe fire fee thing is actually a payment by the state to the city, not a payment from the university to the city.
posted by js on December 3rd, 2004 at 9:06 amI know that all cities with universities are in the hole over fire protection because the state has been behind in payment (the cities have formed a coalition to deal with it). I don’t know how much the figure is for UM, but I know that Ypsilanti is down over $3.7 million (which is almost exactly the same as the cost of their rec/ed program that they had to cut a year ago).
And finally, Anna, maybe one of the reasons the “locals” resent the University because they’re always being told how great UM is and how they should be grateful, while UM does what it wants with little regard for the town’s interests. Even if there is a benefit (which I’m not disputing), UM still is an arrogant institution, and that comes across almost constantly in their dealings with locals. Add to that a slew of moronic 17-year-olds and it’s easy to regard UM as the 300 pound gorrilla that no one wants to deal with.
(Oh, and finally, as a rebuttal to the whole “What would the town do without UM?” Bullshit. What’s UM gonna do? Move? Suuuuure. They’re gonna tear down the hospital and move it to Flint or Grand Rapids? We got them and they got us, so maybe locals would like to be considered a little more when UM plans things…)
I am totally with Brandon on the car “storage” versus “parking” issue. I would be delighted if all cars were stored most of the time and used for the occasional jaunt to the supermarket. Students (and anyone else who lives close to where they work or go to school) are doing the environment a favor — I don’t think that’s something that should be discouraged or penalized. What is worse is that a lot of non-student residents of AA use their cars to run errands in town when they could easily walk or take the bus, e.g., cars circling around Zingerman’s on Sat. mornings.
JS: Town/gown issues exist everywhere, and the resentment usually tends to be one-sided — except in Ann Arbor where many of the local residents are equally arrogant.
P.S. If the state’s payment on behalf of UM for fire service is underfunded by millions, does that mean that the UM uses millions + what the state pays in fire service? I’d love to see those stats.
posted by Anna on December 3rd, 2004 at 11:06 amDoes fire service include ambulance service to dorms for alcohol poisoning, EMTs at the stadium for heat stroke, and fire trucks to the dorms for microwave popcorn-related smoke alarms? I can see how that could get pricey. “Millions” is a lot, though.
I’m with Anna and Brandon on “storage” parking. The fact that so many students can get around on a day-to-day basis while leaving their cars parked for a week at a time is great; now we need to work on the reasons they do need to use their cars occasionally. If we had reasonable transit connections to the Amtrak station in Toledo and to DTW, it would be easier for students to get home for break and back. Add transit to East Lansing on, and you get the ability to travel to football games or to visit friends at MSU, Northwestern, OSU, and Wisconsin without driving. Have the (city) buses run later and more frequently on weekends to facilitate grocery shopping and entertainment. (Transit prevents drunk driving.) Transit to Detroit for concerts, sports, “cultural events” (I’ve never understood why concerts and sports don’t fit in that category), etc.
Make all that happen (easy, right?) and we don’t have to worry about the storage parking, because people won’t have as many cars.
posted by Murph on December 3rd, 2004 at 5:16 pmThe sentiment about people (students and non-students alike) coming together with the common goal of only “storing” cars, using public transport, and planting daisies down the center of Division Street is touching…I’m even feeling a bit misty-eyed…
but unfortunately, it bears little resemblence to reality.
And how exactly does one identify cars “circling around Zingerman’s” as “residents of Ann Arbor?” Especially on a Saturday morning. Game Day and the Farmer’s Market (as pathetic as it may be this time of year) tend to bring lots of out-of-town folk to this neighborhood.
Just curious.
posted by OFW insurgent on December 3rd, 2004 at 8:01 pm“…And how exactly does one identify cars “circling around Zingerman’s” as “residents of Ann Arbor?”
Simple. By living in Ann Arbor for 10 years and knowing many of its residents.
posted by Anna on December 4th, 2004 at 3:01 pmboy, you sure know some assholes.
posted by OFW insurgent on December 4th, 2004 at 3:21 pmOn the fire service: The state pays a fee to every city with a college in order to offset the cost of fire protection, since in 1974 the state made it mandatory for local governments to provide the fire coverage. Again, I don’t have numbers for U of M, but in Ypsi EMU is getting far less than it costs to provide fire service for the university. To be clear, the $3.7 million isn’t per year— that’s the total that Ypsilanti is owed for providing coverage. The last year that they were payed the total amount owed was 1979.
posted by js on December 6th, 2004 at 8:48 pmI know that Ann Arbor is owed money as well, because they’re part of the coalition of city councils fighting the state to get paid. Unfortunately, the state has no money to pay them with, but Ann Arbor may have been more or less successful than Ypsilanti in negotiating with the state these last 30 years.
On the Town/Gown: Yeah, I know it’s everywhere. And here it’s particularly perverse because those who often are the most NIMBY about U. development are those who have benefitted the most. But I tend to see them as suburban paternalistic assholes who would be deprived of at least a good portion of their public stage if the U. didn’t so often seem to act with arrogance that only stirs them up again. I see no contradiction in asserting that both sides are assholes, and their behavior makes it hard for legitimate issues to get the hearing they deserve.