ann arbor is overrated. » Blog Archive » That Is Not What It Does

That Is Not What It Does

A preservation activist urges the U not to tear down the Frieze for the new dorm; doing so, she writes, will “[destroy] memories and our link to the past.” Memories and our link to the past? What do we need with those? you may be thinking. Well, “Grammy Award-winning singer and songwriter Ani DiFranco notes [that they] ‘reinforce our humanity.’” Time for a chorus of “The Frieze Is Not a Pretty Building.”

49 Responses to “That Is Not What It Does”

As an alum of the UM who had to take classes in that building, I applaud the university for tearing it down. IMO its historical significance is marginal and it is a drafty, outdated building that would cost a fortune to renovate in return for a tiny portion of the space they need. I am glad that they are saving the Carnegie library portion though - that at least *is* worth saving.

I don’t like preservation for preservation’s sake, and that’s what the ’save the Frieze’ movement feels like.
posted by KGS on January 27th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Please tear it down. Please tear it down. Please, God, make them tear it down….
posted by JennyD on January 27th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
On a similar note, has anyone else noted the massive suckitude of the Folk Festival lineup this year? It’s the first year since I’ve lived here that I won’t be attending. Indigo Girls one night, Keb Mo’ the next… fabulous.
posted by Brandon on January 27th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
The Frieze building is “sound and restorable”… Restored to what? A horridly placed and uncomfortable classroom building, circa 1997? A high school, circa “the good old days when U of M hardly had any students”? A plot of forest land? The Frieze is ugly, whatever used to be on the inside was taken away in dumpsters years ago, and the space it wastes is needed for students to live in. I don’t care if some of Ann Arbor’s most famous architects worked on it. It isn’t exactly the Law Quad, ya know.
posted by personality on January 27th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
I can’t wait to see the gorgeous new North Quad they build. Maybe it will be as inspiring as the LSI building, or the biomedical research building! (Or East Hall, or the addition to the grad library, or the ironic art and architecture building).

Most new university buildings are ugly and hostile to passersby — I’m very confident the facade of the Frieze is much preferable to whatever the first two floors of the proposed design will be.

This is not to say that the interior is functional or that I think the building is great. Rather, the Frieze and Carnegie facades are better than what we will get in their place (I’ve seen it so many times) and they do offer a sense of participating in a long and rich educational tradition that new buildings and designs are incapable of recreating. Preservation and urbanism are compatible.
posted by Dale on January 27th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
East Hall’s architecture may be souless, but is not new at all. It’s a gutted and re-modeled building, formerly known as East Engineering. In its old incarnation it was even grosser than the Frieze Building on the inside, with the added bonus of abandoned offices, broken windows, and pigeons flying around in the hallways.
posted by Anna on January 27th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Not merely remodeled — the new sections are nasty and the exterior treatment did the building no favors (not a point in favor of saving a facade, but).
posted by Dale on January 27th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Amen, Dale — as much as I wish the U would demand the architects come up with a new design that honors the old one, I’m sure we can count on something horrid.

I recently found out that the Art/Architecture/Planning programs (back before Art and Planning split away from Architecture) used to be in Lorch. I wonder what horrible crime was committed by the Architects to merit a move from Lorch — imho one of the prettiest buildings on campus — to the dump on North Campus?
posted by Murph on January 27th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
I know nothing about architecture, of course, but I absolutely love East Hall. I can’t even really remember what it looks like on the outside. But inside, there’s beautiful offices and a spacious, several-room student lounge with big skylights. When I had to take a class there, I was very impressed.

I spend most of my time on North Campus, so my impressions may not apply to the rest of the university, but I get a constant sense that things on this campus were not designed with people in mind. At my undergrad campus, most of the main buildings are connected and you can walk through building after building seamlessly. On North Campus, you’re always opening really heavy doors everywhere you walk. Our building recently started being locked on the weekends and at night, but there’s no card reader at the entrance close to the Media Union - where most people would be walking - so you have to walk all the way around in the cold. The Media Union itself is a nice building, I suppose, but with the several-story ceilings and everything, I guess it’s hard to heat, so it’s always freezing cold in there. We need more East Halls. At least on the inside.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 27th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
The chair of the archdoc program was a student here when they moved and said it was reviled immediately. The dean of the college when it opened said it was “essentially loft space.” I call it “The Crime,” rendered in cinder block.
posted by Dale on January 27th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
I for one am very much in favor of saving as much of the Frieze Building as possible. The exterior is great, and contrary to popular opinion, there is still plenty of historic fabric on the interior worthy of preservation. (Not that the U would save any of that even if they didn’t demolish the building. . . .)

And for what it’s worth, rehabilitation of existing buildings is consistently *cheaper* than building new. And also more sustainable. The community, the university, and the taxpayers have already invested so much in that building - and more will have to be invested in it, by way of hazardous materials abatement, etc, just to tear it down - why should we let all of that go to waste? ($5M for demolition??) I’m sure that EYP could come up with a creative solution to save substantial portions of the Frieze Building and still accomodate the University’s desired program on the site, if only the U had asked them to.

As for the Architecture program and Lorch Hall - if I was in the College of Architecture when they moved, they would have had to use dynamite to get me out of that building! (have you seen the huge arched windows in what must have been drawing studios on the north side? - wow!)
posted by Jeremiah on January 27th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
completely off topic:

brandon, you have a problem with richard thompson and keb mo, you have a problem with me. both have been festival staples since i began attending ten years ago, both are great live.

but yeah, the indigo girls suck.

folkies represent!
posted by e on January 27th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Ah ha ha ha, oh god, the art and architecture building. I pretty much live there these days, and can affirm that it is indeed a soul-suckingly awful building.

Yes, it was a great idea to build drawing studios with flourescent lights in them, because every student needs to learn how to draw things with their shadows completely washed out.

Walls that don’t go all the way up to the ceiling? Yes, please. I do *so* love hearing the metals kids hammering away relentlessly on the first floor when I’m trying to paint up on the second floor.

The courtyard in the center? Genius. Truly, an inspiring little piece of nature cradled in the midst of the building. Except for the whole, you know, concrete ground thing.

And that lovely glass facade? I actually heard someone say it was supposed to ‘recall the Bauhaus’. I leave that one for your contemplation.
posted by art student on January 27th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Unless you can “rehabilitate” the Frieze building into a dorm, who cares? The school needs dorm space. Dorm space. Dormmmm Spaaaaaaaace…
posted by personality on January 27th, 2005 at 10:50 pm
Cute.

But you could rehab substantial portions of the Frieze Building, and still accomodate the same living and learning program the U envisions for the site. (members of the group trying to save the building have said that they would even support a 10 story building on the site if the U saved the library and State Street side of the FB)

The whole North Quad idea is exciting - and it could only be enhanced by integrating historic portions of the existing building into the new environment.

I agree about the need for more housing - if the U could only get their act together and actually come up with anything even remotely resembling a long-range plan, I maintain that they’d have the sites for the next 6 dorms they’re going to build selected already.
posted by Jeremiah on January 27th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
Who needs humanity when we have a creationist UM administration? Yes, from the same institution that brought you that wonderful half-empty (oops, sorry Mr. Kosteva, I meant, half-full) melting pot of scholarly discourse and interdisciplinary interaction, The Life Sciences Institute, it’s the latest in post-modernist living, UM’s North Quad! Just think: bagels and lattes with your TA in the iPodiocoffeecourt (aka: Starbucks UPTOWN); lunch with your study group in the audicafenasium (aka: Wendy’s); and finally after a hard day of downloading professor.mpg in your loftacell, it’s dinner with Dean King in the 7th floor cafegymatorium (aka: Subway). Why would one ever leave the building? But heck, if they do have trouble finding enough mice…er…people to fill it, maybe the folks in Life Sciences can clone a few more faculstudents! And hey, Townies, don’t fret, the project is backed by the State Street Association, the same folks who brought you Tally Hall, two-way gridlock and The Link. To hell with Frieze. Let’s just pray that EYP can come close to matching the timeless architecture of that new monument to Kleenex-and-spit construction, The NEW Corner House building across the street. See you all at BW3!
posted by Delgado on January 27th, 2005 at 11:37 pm
As someone who spent much time in E. Hall both before and after it was remodeled: there are no “new parts” other than the atrium, which used to be a parking lot between the wings of the building.

AAIO, I don’t know where the skylight/student lounge is (unless you’re talking about the atrium), but as someone who also spent much time there, I can tell you that the space was dead, empty, and so poorly lit that you couldn’t have meetings or do work out there except on the sunniest of days. Almost no one used it except for a smattering of people, so on the 4th floor, they’ve now enclosed it for more lab space.

Furthermore, the layout of some of the floors of the building is so confusing that people spend years there and still don’t know their way around any floor but the one that has their office — that’s because they let faculty determine the layout (!), apparently without any sort of architect intervention.
posted by Anna on January 28th, 2005 at 9:10 am
I currently work in Lorch-pretty on the outside, not on the inside, with the exception of the old drawing studio. Also, as a fairly recent (1997-1999) resident of the dorms, we really need more space, and I lived in East Quad, one of the only living/learning communities on campus right now. It was great. The ability to roll out of bed five minutes before class meant I almost never skipped my East Quad classes, which I cannot say about all the ones I had to walk across campus to. I do heartily agree that the facade should be more welcoming and pedestrian friendly than some of the recent monstrosities.
posted by Becky on January 28th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Part of the Frieze building, the Carnegie Library, will not be torn down, from what I understand.
posted by to on January 28th, 2005 at 11:16 am
I have to admit that I’m skeptical about UM’s ability to “rehab” a building. Lane Hall (kitty-corner from Frieze) was “rehabbed” a few years ago, and they didn’t exactly do a great job.
1. Industrial-grade carpet with no padding underneath was glued directly to the original, beautiful wood floors.
2. Wiring in the building is absolute shit. When I worked there, we would trip a breaker every week. Sometimes more often.
3. Nearly all of the original fixtures were removed and discarded except for a few exterior windows now located in the interior, and one set of interior doors at the entrace.
4. Every time it rains more than inch, water comes out of the HVAC blowers in the lower floor offices and labs. Nothing quite like a puddle of muddy water in a computer lab to make you wonder about the soundness of a building.
posted by tubby on January 28th, 2005 at 11:38 am
No, the Frieze is not a pretty building. Neither was the Gandy Dancer when it was a decrepit depot in 1967. A visionary saw the possibilities. ditto the Earle restaurant, once part of a somewhat sleazy hotel chain in the 1970s. Also, the former Unitarian Church at Huron and State, now Hobbs and black architects, which at one point was being used as a basketball court. People with imagination, and a will to preserve the past, took these neglected buildings and made them into the beloved landmarks they are today.
A year ago the AA news published an op-ed piece by me about the need for student dorms. I laid out all the logic and saw it as a way to avoid the demolition of more historic houses. Now a bigger landmark must be the martyr for the university’s lack of maintenance. The Frieze decision is also an unplesant reminder of who calls the shots in this town. I can also call your attention to a book I just wrote called Lost Ann Arbor. It documents the many buildings our town has lost. Those of us who care about the future of Ann Arbor, and who aren’t leaving in four years (which probably includes Dr. Coleman), feel the lack of input from the community is the single most annoying aspect of this whole decision.
posted by swines on January 28th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
The Frieze Building, adaptive reuse of an old building actually is quite an argument in favor of environmentalists as well as preservationists. Check out the phrase “embodied energy”. This issue is surrounded by arguments why it’s better to save any historcally significant building.Or let’s talk about “sense of place”. Having a dorm this close to downtown, is a terrible idea. This will take away any meaning of community. Lastly, while the cliche “The Frieze is not a pretty building” My quote is “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” The Frieze building is much more than “pretty” the building has a spirit.
posted by Rick on January 28th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
The Frieze isn’t that bad - “Not a Pretty Building” was just a lame attempt at an Ani DiFranco reference on my part. I just don’t see how it’s possible for the university to build any decent student housing and please everyone in this town. It’s going to have to go somewhere, and if it’s in a residential neighborhood, whoever lives nearby is going to complain. They managed to avoid that, but then how do you have it downtown without knocking down something? Even if they built it in Saline, the Old Fourth Ward would probably complain that all the Saline commuters were going to park in their neighborhood. And, yeah, the university may be able to do pretty much whatever it wants, but we wouldn’t be in this situation without the input from the community that consistently opposes both tall buildings and any kind of dense housing that students might live in.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 28th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
And I don’t see how a dorm close to downtown destroys community. A dorm is a community. Having people actually living in the downtown of an area increases community.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 28th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Although I will admit that the university’s foot-dragging on student housing has caused students to scramble to defend any possible chance at a new building and maybe disproportionately blame neighborhood groups for standing in its way, rather than the U for letting it wait so long in the first place. But those are often the same groups that block private apartment buildings that might relieve some of the pressure, so it all works out.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 28th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
that’s just what we need: people plugging their own work here. Good grief.

As harsh as this may sound, if the building is preserved no future generation will step forward in the future and say “wow, I sure am glad we have this shitty building here instead of something that is (lord forbid!) useful in this tree-prison”…except they probably would not use the term “tree-prison”. By the way, when was the last time something useful was built in this city (parking lots don’t count)?
posted by ascanius on January 28th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Yes, they will. Particularly when they think about buildings like LSI and the BioMed building, they will think, “thank god I don’t live in a building like that.”
posted by Dale on January 28th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
Well hey, I’m a student but I’m going to be here for more than 4 years (bloody dual-degrees, bloody LSA schedule not working with bloody art school schedule), so does that automatically make my opinion valid? Can we get a vote on this?
posted by art student on January 28th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
The chem building is a new building that is pleasant to be inside.

The Dana/NRE building is a good example of a recent supposively well thought out and very environmentally friendly remodelling that, IMO, made the building a less inviting place to be in.
posted by James on January 31st, 2005 at 2:36 pm
For “Swines”:

Aren’t you a tenured professor at the U?

For “rick”:
Why on earth would having centrally located students in a mixed use building in the heart of the University Campus take away any sense of a community? Where should it be? Can I guess North Campus? Did I guess right?
posted by Anonymous on January 31st, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Well, I’ve tried to stay away from posting on this subject, since many here are probably sick of reading my rants…..

Swine,

Not trying to start a fight here, but do you not see a correlation between most of the downtown area’s neighborhood associations steadfast refusal to allow housing and/or tall buildings and the U. finally building badly needed quality housing?

More to the point, why would you want the University to build this housing, when you know full well that the City of Ann Arbor will not receive desperately needed property taxes for 500 living units? Is it because you can afford to pay the taxes that keep going up? Or is there another reason that I don’t see? Have you not noticed all of the longtime local businesses shutting down(Harry’s surplus just now) because of increasing taxes and skyrocketing rent? Do you not see a connection?

Just asking some reasonable questions of you, as you have obviously given this some thought.
posted by Anonymous on January 31st, 2005 at 3:59 pm
If you are going to start an incendiary debate here, oh nameless (not even a pseudonymn?) and e-mail-less one, I think it is only fair that you provide an email link to yourself. I think THAT is reasonable as well. It is easy to throw rocks from the glow of your anonymous computer screen.
posted by OFW insurgent on January 31st, 2005 at 7:17 pm
The neighborhood associations, by the way, are notable not so much for opposition to rezoning or redevelopment, but for their wonderfully effective opposition to the usually irresistable demands of the road wideners.

In Lansing, a similar sized city, where neighborhood groups have been marginalized, and the traffic engineers have been able to pave at will, the whole downtown area has been remade for the transportation needs of suburbanites, and resembles an expressway interchange. The concept of living in downtown Lansing is ludicrous. Every city neighborhood there is struggling, even the seemingly affluent ones. The lack of effective opposition to redevelopment has certainly not emboldened developers to build new apartments there.

In New York, Boston, and Chicago, effective use of land is an economic necessity. Absent major city economics, the “suburban imperative” seems to dictate that rising incomes get used to buy more and more space, abandoning the center. Land around Ann Arbor is just not expensive enough to induce most people to resist the suburban imperative. Even university students are more affluent than they used to be, and commuting to campus by car (i.e., from lower density locations outside of the walkable middle of town) has increased enormously.

In communities outside major metros, the one consideration which has worked to convince a critical mass of people to live on small lots and at higher densities is historic preservation. Look at smaller cities around the country: it is only those with an active local preservation orientation that still have a walkable core that is not being abandoned and losing population.

Of course preservation by itself is never enough, but developers are not at all interested in creating new higher density housing if no one in the area is already living at those densities.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on January 31st, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Here’s a thought on Harry’s Surplus (I didn’t notice it closed but here goes). Have you ever thought that it closed down because it was losing money? I know the concept might be tough for you to accept, but that happens. When it used to be in its old location, it was actually a surplus shop and sort of catered to that. It used to be pretty cool. When it moved to its new digs (although that tougher to say since it’s been a while), it became less of a surplus shop and more like many of the other shops in the area. Instead of filling a niche, it was filling something else that was being serviced by other places. Up to the point that you couldn’t find what you want.

Part of it has to do with rent but there are other factors as well.
posted by Kozzie on January 31st, 2005 at 9:06 pm
But it’s not like there’s all this housing downtown that’s unoccupied because the area isn’t historic enough and people would rather just live in Saline. Developers know that people want to live downtown or they wouldn’t be trying to build there. And it’s not just the preservationists trying to protect downtown; it’s the neighborhood groups, who are very closely linked to the preservationists, keeping any development - as well as density initiatives that don’t involve any new development whatsoever - out of their own neighborhoods without even trying to make a historical preservation argument.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on January 31st, 2005 at 9:15 pm
I promise - no one’s found memories of an Ann Arbor school building are worth a dime. I don’t care that you had your first kiss in the Frieze building. Knock it down. It is an eyesore. In fact, I will be happy to take the first swing of the wrecking ball and laugh my arse off at those out there whose physical representation of their memories I am destroying - man that would make me feel good!
posted by DrMandrake on February 2nd, 2005 at 8:33 am
test
posted by test on February 2nd, 2005 at 9:26 am
Wasn’t it a VERY long time ago that the Frieze Building was a high school? Does anyone know when changed hands?
posted by Anna on February 2nd, 2005 at 9:27 am
1956. ‘55 was the last to graduate from there.
posted by Dale on February 2nd, 2005 at 10:15 am
So, we are talking about a small number of people whose memories of high school would be obliterated. Personally, if someone wants to come Eternal-Sunshine-Style and obliterate my memories of high school, that would be OK with me.
posted by Anna on February 3rd, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Different era. Did you stay in the city where you went to hs?
posted by Dale on February 3rd, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Dale, Nope — Can’t afford it. Hope AA can learn from the lessons of my hometown and fix their issues with density & zoning. Of course then riff-raff, like professors, could afford to live there. Wouldn’t want that.
posted by Anna on February 4th, 2005 at 10:11 am
Preservation is far more than the nostalgia of old folks who can’t let go of their memories. EMU has one of the largest and oldest HP programs in the nation and it is filled with a diverse group of intelligent people (young, and some not-so-young) who recognize the economic, environmental, and cultural values inherent in preserving and/or adaptively re-using our built heritage. Ann Arbor was a key center for the development of the field of preservation architecture–now a respected and lauded specialization of practicing architects all over the country.

Preserving and re-using old buildings does more than preserve our culture and the aesthetics of our cities. It also saves energy, costs less per SF than new construction (when comparing apples to apples), saves schedule time over demolishing an old building and then building new, and conserves our natural resources.

I encourage those who can’t comprehend how UM could possibly use Frieze for any part of a new development to look at other successful projects. Go to Ypsi and see Cross Street Village, an apartment community for seniors adapted from the old Ypsi High School. Look at the Ann Arbor Armory converted to luxury condos. Look at Perry School (another UM building), recently the subject of a complete interior rehabilitation and adaptive-use project and now receiving a modern addition on the Madison Street side. The historic shell of this building was restored and preserved, while the University got the functionality it needed on the interior.

It just takes a tiny bit of imagination and guidance from the leadership of the University, combined with the skills of the highly qualified architects and builders in this area to come up with something that both meets the needs of the UM, creates a really cool living and working environment, and maintains the architectural heritage that makes Ann Arbor and other small cities desirable places to live.

For more enlightenment on the adaptive use and value of old buildings, please come see Stewart Brand, author of “How Buildings Learn”, who will be speaking at UM’s West Hall this Wednesday at 6pm, Room 411. For more details: http://www.mochi.org/HowBuildingsLearn.php
posted by Preacher on February 5th, 2005 at 11:10 am
I agree in general that it’s nice to adaptively reuse buildings, especially if they are of historic or aesthetic value. Personally, I would have liked it if the Frieze building could be rehabbed to suit the needs of the university. However, I’ve been successfully persuaded by arguments here and elsewhere that it would just not be possible to turn the Frieze building into the dorm space so needed by the university (and by extension, the community, if housing will remain in reach of anyone but the wealthy). If the Frieze had more to offer architecturally, historically, or aesthetically, I would be the first to argue the point. But it’s not a historic building, it’s not even that particularly old by most standards.

I would love to see the data that show that it’s less expensive to renovate an old, neglected building than to build a new one. Anyone who has built a new house versus restored an old one would probably disagree. I know that when Zingerman’s was expanding years ago, they restored a building that would have cost them much, much less to reproduce detail by detail. Not that cost should be the only — or even the most important — consideration, but let’s be realistic.

Anna

P.S. Historic preservation and reuse started long before Ann Arbor got into the game. Actually, in some places, long before Ann Arbor existed.
posted by Anna on February 6th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Anna:
Preservation architecture was not even recognized as an architectural discipline until the very recent past and Ann Arbor firms like Quinn Evans, Architects 4, and individuals like Richard Frank were pioneers in this field. Often looked down upon in their early years by their fellow AIA members for not practicing “real” architecture, several of these architects have since been bestowed the high honor of “Fellow” by the AIA. Sure, buildings were restored long before this, but you missed the point about Ann Arbor’s national reputation in this field, and what a shame it is to take a bureaucrat’s word for the adaptibility of a building when we are so lucky to have this talent at our fingertips. (Ironically, the very same bureaucrats who are putting Frieze down as unsalvageable are the ones who were in charge of maintaining it.) Folks who have a pre-determined agenda to take a building down often close their minds to any possibilities and will skew figures to match their argument.
Frieze would not have to be the “dorm space,” it could serve any number of the other functions President Coleman envisons (many of which are already in there). Even so, it could indeed work as residential space. I would urge you, besides the examples I have already stated previously, to someday see the Central High Apartments in South Bend, IN–some of the most-sought-after lofts in town, converted from the old high school. Some even have the original hardwood gym floors intact–including the free-throw stripes.
Costs of rehabilitation are well documented in studies conducted by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. It might have been cheaper to tear down Hill Auditorium and build a concrete black box theater, but the quality of life would go down in this town just a little bit more. I’m glad I don’t have to go to Bruegger’s Bagles to look at the old photos to remember what Hill used to look like.
I don’t think it is right to pay $5 million of taxpayer money to take a building down without spending a nickel to have the architects and engineers take the first few weeks of programming to look at the possibilities of incorporating it into the UM’s needs. Again, you need to compare “apples to apples.” In your Zingerman’s example, to get a fair comparison, you would need to compare the cost of doing what they did to tearing the whole thing down and rebuilding it detail for detail, along with all the new work incorporated therein. Owner’s knee deep in a project are often quoted as saying they should have just torn it down and built new, and in some cases this may be true, but those Owners are also the same ones who appreciate the quality of workmanship and materials common in old buildings. Chances are their costs would be just as high because of this committment to quality, not because they had to jack up a beam or replace a rotted joist.
On another tack altogether, why not put this whole project over on Thompson Street behind the Student Publications and Student Activities Buildings? There are already precedents there for high density high rises (Tower Plaza, Maynard House, Social Research) and incorporating an underground parking structure would help defray some of the vehicle parking concerns. It would be a quieter and more pedestrian-friendly spot for the residents, too. Have you ever seen the mass vehicle/pedestrian demolition derby on Thayer between classes? Best part is you wouldn’t have to endure the time and expense involved in tearing down a massive structure before starting to work on the new.
The most frustrating part of the Frieze location is the lack of planning (actually it goes against the U’s master plan) and the blinders-on mentality that is being utilized to justify it. Meanwhile, the Walgreen Center is being pushed into construction too fast and the UM is going to toss up another clap-trap building for several current Frieze occupants at Thayer and Washington in a big rush to get Frieze torn down. You’ve got to wonder why, if housing suddenly such a big priority, why UM is tearing down houses and apartment buildings all over town to build new parking structures.
Frieze is indeed historic. At almost 100 years old, it predates every UM building on the north end of Central Campus (including Hill by 6 years) and is a great example of the Beaux-Arts style. Most of the year it is invisible behind over-planted trees which hide the years of neglect it has suffered. One really needs to stand on State Street in front of the Methodist Church and take a good long look to appreciate what it has to offer the community.
posted by Preacher on February 7th, 2005 at 8:54 pm
Preacher, Although lengthy, your post was not particularly convincing. 100 years is not particularly old. The Frieze is not particularly attractive. My friend, a city planner in a good-sized city with a degree from Penn and a committment to preserving downtown centers says, “where’s Ann Arbor again and who cares about what the AIA?” — this from someone who devotes a good portion of his time working to preserving and readapting buildings that are worthwhile. And where are you getting the information that says that the Frieze could realistically be turned into dorm space? And who says that the UM did not consult architects or specialists in “reservation architecture”? And do you even know the folks at Zingerman’s? I do. They only restored rather than rebuilt the building because the city forced them to — otherwise they would have duplicated it detail for detail for less money. Or so they say. Oh, and if you could cite specific studies rather than a general source, that would be very helpful. I’d be interested in looking them up.

Anna
posted by Anna on February 7th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Two more questions for Preacher:

Where the heck on Thompson Street is the University supposed to put a project the size of the proposed North Quad? And wouldn’t this also involve tearing down existing houses?

As for your insistence that the exisiting Frieze building could be used as residential space, and your continued reference to “the Central High Apartments in South Bend, IN–some of the most-sought-after lofts in town, converted from the old high school…”

- there’s a big, huge difference between converting a former high school to luxury lofts and making a building function as a modern dormitory. For one thing, you’re housing lots more folks (and lots more bathrooms) in the space. I guess you could just stack a bunch of beds up in the gym prison-style, but the current U student requires a bit more privacy. And the whole “former school building as apartment” idea is certainly nothing new - they’re scattered all over eastern PA.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on February 8th, 2005 at 9:35 am
“I don’t think it is right to pay $5 million of taxpayer money to take a building down without spending a nickel to have the architects and engineers take the first few weeks of programming to look at the possibilities of incorporating it into the UM’s needs.”

And I don’t think that it is right that taxpayers in Ann Arbor chose not to build tall apartment buildings in downtown Ann Arbor over the past two decades. We have now lost the property tax revenue from the 500 units, and have justifiably lost the right to dicate where this mixed use building is located. It is Urban Planning justice at it’s best, but I can assure you that I am the only one who feels the irony here. This building, sans classrooms, could have been built ten times over in the downtown area in the last 25 years. Ask yourself why this didn’t happen? I can tell you that it wasn’t because of a lack of desire on local developer’s part.

Question for you Preacher: where were these “world renowned” preservationists when they saw the city shoot down and delay project after project in downtown Ann Arbor? Where were they when city council kept lopping off stories on proposed projects? What do these preservationist think about spiralling rent and rising taxes for the downtown area? What do these experts think about the rapid replacement of local businesses with national chains?

Preacher, while I agree with nearly all of what you are saying (having refurbished a beautiful old building for a new use), I am wondering why these experts didn’t take it upon themselves help to push projects like these into the private sector. Or did this already happen, and I have just missed it?
posted by Anonymous on February 8th, 2005 at 11:35 am
This is my last post on the subject and only to answer the direct questions posed:
To no name:
Yes, apparently you have missed it. Many of Ann Arbor’s pres. architects serve on boards, committees and commissions as well as teaching classes and otherwise sharing their wisdom and valuable time. One prime example is the street displays downtown that show Ann Arbor’s history on wonderful glass kiosks. You won’t find these people chained to doors in front of the bulldozers, but they are out there helping the community deal with many issues, both professionally and personally.
As I wrote in my previous post, the location on Thompson Street is behind the Student Publications and Student Activities Building–a very large surface parking lot. No need to tear down houses.
Correction to your post: The new “north quad” proposed is not going to be 500 units, but rather 500 beds. The private development originally dubbed “north quad” is nearing its final approval and will have 240 units and 960 beds. Broadway Village, another private development will also provide much additional housing, but I don’t have figures. Clearly, despite all of the perceived hardships, there is still a profit to be made in high density housing in Ann Arbor.
To Lehigh:
I don’t recall using the term luxury and I don’t think it applies to any of the examples given, except the Armory, which I simply tossed out to demonstrate that buildings put up for entirely different uses can be adapted effectively and profitably (even in Ann Arbor) to quality housing.
I’m glad you pointed out that converting old school buildings is nothing new and I hope you share specific examples to help open up people’s minds to the concept. Some people seem to be stuck in the thinking that you have to keep the corridor/classroom layout currently in Frieze and this is simply not the case. There are many options from a complete gut and replacement with a new steel skeleton to selective demolition and resupporting as necessary. Most options, if not all, are cheaper than the $5 million to tear it down and another $15 million to build a brand new foundation, steel structure and masonry envelope.
UM wants an apartment concept. I don’t understand where anything I’ve said or the examples I have given provide any compromise to privacy.
P.S. - Do you know Anna’s friend from Penn?
Anna:
100 years is definitely historic by any definition I’ve ever found but attractive will always be in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I just think it is a shame when a building is seen as expendable simply because the style may not be in fashion at a particular moment in time or it is dirty, or the paint has peeled.
A great Ann Arbor example is the new vs. old train stations. I’m sure there are many who find the heavy stone Romanesque old station to be dark and forboding, but thank goodness it wasn’t torn down for the brick box Amtrak built next door. Come on, you gotta agree with me there. And I’m sure the Gandy Dancer’s owners would be happy to accompany Ari and his gang from Zingerman’s in celebrating over twenty years of success in their respective historic settings. And apparently they didn’t find their previous experience downtown so awful that they shied away from re-use of the old Bill Knapps building for the Roadhouse. They are model corporate (and private) citizens by any number of standards if you ask me!

Here are some links for studies and other scholarly writings on the topic of rehab vs. new:
Thomas D. Bever, “Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation”, from Readings in Hist. Pres…., Center for Urban Policy Research, 1983.

Donovan Rypkema, The Economics of Rehabilitation [and other works by this author], National Trust. (Check his bibliographies for additional studies.)

http://www.nationaltrust.org/news/docs/20010112_new_study.html

https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ES-Programs/Conservation/Benefits/one.html

http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_0903_listokin.pdf

That’s it. You guys can go on with this forever, but the Preacher has left the building.
Amen.
posted by Preacher on February 9th, 2005 at 12:33 am