Where Are All the Now Age Candle Shops?
The News letters page publishes a batch of some of the most hilarious letters on the Frieze that we’ve seen. Ann Arbor High memories not a convincing argument for keeping the structure? How about memories from “the short-lived Masters in Telecommunication Arts (1983) program”? “Like Rome, this building took on many roles in its time,” writes a graduate of this program. “Everything now must be new, expensive and exclusive.”
“Now” in general gets a rather poor reception here. A Pinckney woman blames some unspecified “derogatory remarks from students” on “what the Now Age is teaching.” She suggests building the new dorm on “the Diag that holds all the demonstrations and annual pot burning.” Sure, the rooms would be a little narrow, but that’s okay since “housing is not that hard to find. There are for-rent signs everywhere.”
“I’m surprised more of our famous alumni haven’t come to the defense of the Carnegie Library and this historic tragedy.” Well, we are neither famous nor an alum, but we’re more than willing to come to the defense of this historic tragedy.
I don’t get it. The Then Age teaches that dorms belong in the Arb?
posted by Anna on February 10th, 2005 at 1:08 pm eI had classes in the building from 85-88. It really is a piece of crap. I have been a facility manager since graduating and I know crappy from funtioning. Freize is somewhere in between. Burn it!
posted by yd on February 10th, 2005 at 1:57 pm eI’m ambivalent about the razing of the Frieze Building, however, I can’t get over some of these folks who wrap up their “memories” in a bunch of brick and mortar they probably have not stepped foot into for years. Ridiculous.
The reference to Rome is priceless.
posted by OFW insurgent on February 10th, 2005 at 3:29 pm eSomeone oughtta tell these people that nostalgia ain’t history.
posted by tom on February 10th, 2005 at 4:12 pm eWe can have our cake and eat it too. Adaptive-re-use of the front part of the building and retention of the Carnegie library with a new and attractive structure on the rest of the site. Everyone wins. This is what Norm Tyler, an EMU historic preservation professor and OFW resident (dig his sweet house at Ann & Division) proposed, and it makes a heck of a lot of sense. History, density, amenity, sustainability, aesthetics, memories, functionality, high-tech 21st century education jargon, whathaveyou. As I understand it it is typically cheaper to rehab an old structure than demolish and build anew, but of course the U won’t even consider it. We should expect better from a supposedly-progressive University. Yeah, the building sucks now due to dated and declining renovations and lack of maintenance, but that shell can serve a good purpose. I’m tired of this one-or-the-other thing– let’s have both. If we knock the building down and replace it with what will probably be a Haven Hall-eqsue run-of-the-mill “current” academic building, we’ll regret it in 50 years. Look at the current county building at Main & Huron, and then go up to those historic markers and look at the old courthouse and square that used to be on the site. You’ll be ashamed of our civilization.
Your crotchety proponent of both urban vibrancy and cultural preservation,
posted by Brandon on February 10th, 2005 at 7:16 pm eI have trouble believing someone with a masters in telecommunication arts has any money to withhold from the university.
posted by personality on February 10th, 2005 at 8:49 pm e(sentimentally) Ah, the Masters in Telecommunications Arts program. That rings a bell.
posted by Laura on February 10th, 2005 at 9:45 pm eI don’t know why all these people are so shocked and disgused at how they find the “Now.” It’s not so much different from the “Then,” except for the fact that all the bad parts of memories get lost over time. As if things like money and power and contention didn’t exist “Then.” As if every building that has ever been built or had importance for anyone has survived to the present. Whatever.
posted by meg on February 10th, 2005 at 11:01 pm eI see little doubt that most residents of A2 are looking for much more, or much less, than Celebration, FL. The little town planned by Disney (See recent SLATE mag. article: http://slate.msn.com/id/2113107/ ) We don’t like old because it’s old (read: falling apart, out-of-date, dysfunctional), we don’t like modern because it’s too…. modern. Really, are residents of today’s town much different than medieval European peasants who tore down Romanesque churches and even earlier Roman ruins to build fences around their sheep pens? Oh, excuse me, Universities.
posted by Heidi on February 10th, 2005 at 11:44 pm eDidn’t a recent study suggest that your memory of an event actually degrades the more you call it to mind?
I think I’m going to start a movement: “Save our memories of old Ann Arbor: Don’t think about it.”
BTW, why are we talking about the Frieze Building when there’s a guy in town who crafted a dulcimer out of LEGO blocks? That was in today’s paper too:
http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1108050010240140.xml
Now THAT’s what Ann Arbor is all about, Charlie Brown.
posted by Sam on February 10th, 2005 at 11:51 pm eThe memory effect is well known, first published by Bartlett in 1934 in a book called Remembering. I actually do research on that very same question - maybe it is my paper you read!
Other than that, I have to say that for everything there is a season. A time to live a time to die. A time for the Frieze Building to go up and a time for it to come down. A time for me to give a shit about some crusty old alumi’s memories and a time for me to laugh at these pathetic people who have nothing better to do than look into their pasts for meaningful memories because they no longer have anything worth living for and thus spend all their time thinking the university actually gives a shit about their 25 dollar donation, or their memories, or them, and write letters to the ann arbor paper, yada yada. You get the point. These people need to pipe down. It’s time for the building to retire into the sunset.
And have you ever seen a building implode? It is friggin awesome. I saw them do that to the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago a few years back - it was wicked. I just hope they do it before I leave stinktown because, man, I would have a mental orgasm watching part of Ann Arbor blow up - it would partially fulfill so many of my dreams!!!!!!
posted by DrMandrake on February 11th, 2005 at 8:49 am eYeah, those comments are pretty funny and misguided, not just on the demolition of the Frieze Building, but Michigan Stadium as well.
“That stadium is Fielding Yost’s baby”
Which is why there are footings on the east side of the stadium designed to increase capacity to 150K.
And where are you going to put a dorm in the Diag anyways? It’s not like there’s an abundance of space to begin with, like some of the common areas on UNC-CH’s campus, for example.
posted by HNG on February 11th, 2005 at 11:18 am eBrandon, when considering cost of new construction versus rehab, I think there’s a matter of building footprint to take into account. The front of Frieze is set back from State a little ways, and I expect they’ll want to pull a new building to the sidewalk. It’s not a *huge* setback, but it’s a significant amount of square footage when looking at the length of that space. The more you can put on each floor (spreading out your costs of land and machinery, higher ratio of usable area to stairwells/elevators, higher volume to skin ratio for more efficient heating), the more efficient your building. Plus, I prefer things to have a nice streetwall, rather than being pulled back and aloof, like so many of the University buildings are (pretty needlessly).
posted by Murph on February 11th, 2005 at 1:15 pm eHeck, the University of Oregon tore down the Delta House.
Now that was a tragedy.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on February 11th, 2005 at 1:21 pm eI still can’t get over the “Now Age” comment. The “Then Age” is the age that brought us Wonder Bread, strip malls, indoor malls, hour-long-commutes, global warming, etc. etc. etc. If the Then Age had its say, of course there would be no dorm space in downtown Ann Arbor. It would be built along Washtenaw Avenue in a sprawling single-story labyrinth, 1940-1970-style. Right, that would definitely be better than housing all those tacky students on State Street, where they might walk, rather than drive, to campus.
posted by Anna on February 11th, 2005 at 1:47 pm eThe historic district commission last night approved the addition of a 4th floor (set back) to the Wilkinson building (2 doors down from the hideous M-Den and Sunglass hut) and renovation and rehabilitation of the interior. This is an excellent example of how Ann Arbor needs to maintain urban vitality (insert big city joke here) while maintaining continuity of some essential character (insert NIMBY comment here). I hope the practice spreads.
Many historic preservationists recognize the importance of urbanism and development, while also understanding that many past attitudes and practices in transportation, architecture, and urban space are relevant (if not preferable) today.
In some ways I’m looking forward to seeing the reactions of the “tear it down” crowd when they see what the university puts up, particularly if the larger community has no role in the planning process. You won’t get what you expect, but you will get what you deserve.
If you want to see an old building really sing, go to the fourth floor of West Hall. Its renovation was money well spent.
posted by Dale on February 11th, 2005 at 2:20 pm eI like historic buildings, personally. I bought a house that is almost 100 years old. I sympathize with the sentiment behind not wanting to demolish historic buildings, or even ones that aren’t that old (say 100 years or younger) but that are attractive. Certainly I wouldn’t advocate destroying the Law Library, or the Grad Library or the Arcade. However, the Frieze just isn’t that great-looking. More importantly, its size and location on the plot make it unworkable; it would be very difficult to build a structure of the size the UM is planning while preserving the facade.
If the Frieze were truly a gem, I’d be the first to advocate for keeping it, but there are so many other buildings that are more attractive, the Frieze doesn’t have any major historical significance, and having a dorm would serve the greater good (by, for example, easing the housing crunch that Ann Arbor residents are always complaining about). It would be good for the students because it’s close to campus and would foster the kind of living experience that too few students have access to, it would help the businesses on State Street, and it would help ease the traffic problem because fewer students would have to (or be motivated to by a long walk) drive to classes.
Ann Arbor residents did have a say in the fate of the Frieze; they chose not to use local tax dollars to support the building and sold it to the University. They could have adaptively re-used it, building around the building to form a high school (as some have suggested should be done now for the dorm) — but decided not to. In selling the Frieze, Ann Arbor’s residents reliniquished their claim to the property and a say the its fate.
Ann Arbor needs to decide what it wants to be. It can either keep developing the way it has for the last 100 years, sprawling outward, swallowing up all the greenspace around, incorporating reluctant small communities like Dexter, continuing to encourage car dependence; or it can decide to move in a more urban direction, which is more environmentally friendly, and which offers the advantages that Ann Arborites say they so love about Ann Arbor.
It seems to me that there’s a delicate balance between wanting to stay grounded in the past and wanting to move sensibly into the future. On balance, the Frieze just doesn’t seem like a building worth saving.
posted by Anna on February 11th, 2005 at 3:50 pm ewww.freewebs.com/coolsite12412/cool.html for ann arbor pictures
posted by leckrone on February 11th, 2005 at 5:12 pm eo kkk
posted by lil scrappy on February 11th, 2005 at 5:13 pm eBTW, don’t click on that link from our friend Leckrone. It gives what I assume are 500 pop-up windows each requiring a click. As far as stupid web tricks go, it was pretty weak — I was able to stop it by quitting my browser, but I’m not sure people in PC can do that.
posted by Anna on February 11th, 2005 at 5:20 pm eI don’t trust anything that the only adjectives are “cool,” especially not if it’s repeated.
posted by js on February 11th, 2005 at 6:15 pm eyou people have way too much time to bitch about how another city is overated.If you live in it, fine,but if you don’t, just shutup and get off of your lazy ass and do someting productive. I’d like to know which city you live in. I could name a hundred things better in A2 then in your city i bet.
posted by Shaniqua on February 11th, 2005 at 9:09 pm eAnna, I don’t buy the idea that current members of the community should have no say in university activities that affect the larger Ann Arbor community. I can name several ways in which the North Quad project will impact municipal resources and community activities (some good, but many certainly bad), that require more cooperative planning than U-M has offered. (Traffic, water, sewer, to name three). The city has a stake in any campus project with such major potential off-campus consequences.
Thank God Ann Arbor relinquished its claim to the Frieze building. It was a good planning decision in the midst of a 50-year symphony of idiocy. I have no idea how you expect AAPS to have operated a fully functioning Division I high school on the campus of an expanding research university over the last 50 years, but I’d say we dodged a bullet there.
As for aesthetics, just because you don’t like the Beaux-Arts style doesn’t mean we should junk the building and put something crappy there, which, as I have said, is pretty much guaranteed based on the precedent of the last 30 years of new construction. There is a great deal that the current structure offers in addition to the facade (which I like) and which, if incorporated into the new building, could help improve it.
posted by Dale on February 12th, 2005 at 9:05 am eDale - I am a member of the tear it down crowd, and I really, honestly have to say that I don’t care one iota if the entire town was swept away in a tornado (assuming I’m not in it). The entire city is a menagerie of monstrosities. I mean - look at the Frieze building. It is across the street from an ass ugly parking structure, the hideous MLB, the banal bell tower…why the hell could you possibly care that an already ugly building is torn down and an even uglier building put in its place? STOP IMAGINING ANN ARBOR MATTERS. It doesn’t. And once I’m gone - starting in september, I will not look back and miss the historic buildings. I will remember Ann Arbor as the two most miserable years of my life in the most miserable ugly shithole in the midwest. Tear it down. No one cares about Ann Arbor.
posted by DrMandrake on February 12th, 2005 at 9:28 am eI’m with Shaniqua. I’ve checked this blog several times over the past few weeks and can only conclude that the host and regular contributers are a bunch of cynical, constipated losers who haven’t gotten laid in a very long time. Hurry up and leave. If you’re going to stay, then contribute something to the community that is more useful than your witless diatribes.
posted by Bob on February 12th, 2005 at 11:52 am eBut Dale, the problem is that Ann Arbor has already had too much say in where students are housed. They’ve made it perfectly clear that they think students living off-campus are “a burden on the community,” in Hieftje’s phrase, and opposed any building that might house students and any zoning laws that are favorable to students. So there’s a certain satisfaction in seeing what is apparently one of their landmarks torn down to build exactly what the town ostensibly wants.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 12th, 2005 at 12:42 pm eAnn Arbor, a multivocal community that can at times reach consensus, does not have too much say in where student housing goes. Certain interests within the community have too much say in where housing goes. Hieftje this fall made it clear that he is beholden to the neighborhood associations and they rewarded him for it. Any opportunity to unseat him was probably lost to straight-ticket voting (or mentality) by people who should know better.
I do not advocate taking an eye for an eye — I advocate consensus-building and participatory planning. If the community gets a crappy dorm because we were unwilling to provide for increased housing in the city, I will find it tragic, not just. I’m not trying to be holier than thou; it’s what I think.
And I say “we” because I am a member of the Ann Arbor community. Despite Mandrake’s obviously being a troll, I will state that Ann Arbor matters to me because it is where I live. It matters to me that (as Murph espouses) there’s room in Ann Arbor for multiple interests, from the fur-wearing OFW to the student hipsters shod in All-Stars. And these interests need not be oppositional — they need some communication to reconcile them.
Clearly, UM heavy-handedness strengthens Hieftje’s position because he gets to talk hard in support of the interest of permanent residents. When Hieftje wins, students lose. And the cycle repeats.
posted by Dale on February 12th, 2005 at 1:41 pm eI do not advocate taking an eye for an eye.
Oh, come on, that’s no fun. No, seriously, I agree that it’s not a good thing if a really crappy building goes up, even if the community “deserved” it in some way. I don’t like tearing down buildings. I grew up in an older Chicago suburb where century-old houses are often torn down to build seriously ugly McMansions.
I don’t think Mandrake’s a troll - I often feel the same way about A2.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 12th, 2005 at 1:51 pm eDale, I’d like to see your evidence that North Quad will *increase* traffic. Also, I’d like to see the figures on the sewers, because as far as I can tell, all having more dorm space will just move students out of existing apartments. So, if you could please produce those numbers, it would be enlightening for us all. Anna
posted by Anna on February 12th, 2005 at 1:52 pm eyou are a bunch of complaining losers. guess what?! We don’t want you here! We’re not begging you to like this town or to live here. didn’t your mom ever teach you that it is rude to go into someone else’s home and tell them how much it sucks??? you’re a guest. you’re probably the same types that goes overseas and then complains the whole time about the things you don’t like about the culture. get over yourselves!
posted by happytobehere on February 12th, 2005 at 2:50 pm eI just like the implication that, yes, those grand old Roman structures had hideous blue panelling on their fronts too.
Also, I think the Now Age (or at least the art and design curriculum) has been teaching me to appreciate good architecture and building design. Maybe that’s what she meant the problem was? Nothing like those Good Old Days when a poorly maintained building was properly admired by the youth…
posted by art student on February 12th, 2005 at 2:54 pm eAre Shaniqua, Bob, and HTBH all the same person? I’d like to be there when the Frieze goes down. It pleases me to blame it for the idiotic “Basement Arts” play (or fourth of it) that I saw there several months ago.
posted by Lazaro on February 12th, 2005 at 2:57 pm eHow can you possibly fail to understand that there WILL be an increase in traffic due to the construction of the North Quad? Additionally, this infrastructural burden (including sewer, water, etc) is certainly an issue for the city (and should be, seeing it is within the scope of public health, safety, and welfare). You obviously have little understanding of the built environment… In other words, stop bitching.
posted by Chachi on February 12th, 2005 at 3:25 pm eAre Shaniqua, Bob, and HTBH all the same person?
Possibly not, but HTBH and Chachi are. (Checking IP logs is fun!)
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 12th, 2005 at 3:29 pm eIncorrect. Same IP address, many different people.
posted by Anonymous on February 12th, 2005 at 3:35 pm eAnd to go a step further, HTBH is not the same as the two other individuals(?) mentioned above.
One can only wonder if HTBH ever leaves the county, much less the country.
Anyway, Chachi, please explain how the same number of people, living closer to campus (i.e., closer than many apartments, from which they sometimes drive to campus) will produce more traffic. Please explain that for those of us with a less grateful and cosmopolitan view of the workings of AA. Thanks.
posted by Anna on February 12th, 2005 at 3:45 pm efunny that you would make such assumptions about me not leaving the county or country. not only have i lived and worked overseas, but i make a regular habit out of getting out of my element. i’m not even from ann arbor, but i am from michigan. i don’t care if i was living in the most awful place, i still don’t appreciate people constantly bitching about how much the place i call home sucks. get a hobby that doesn’t include insulting people on a daily basis. and for the record, i think it’s healthy and desirable for people to have discourse on the ways in which they can improve their community and certainly criticisms are a part of that. BUT so many on this blog make statements that are just plain arrogant.
posted by happytobehere on February 12th, 2005 at 3:58 pm eoh, and p.s.—ever hear of a wireless router that allows several people in the same house to use the same internet connection??? stop trying to play investigator as you really suck at it
Okay, you got all your roommates to post here. That’s cool. I should have said, “Chachi and HTBH did not start posting here independently of each other.”
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 12th, 2005 at 4:05 pm eAnna –
For a quantitative response, I will await the university’s compliance with my FOIA request.
Qualitatively: however, NQ will draw increased service traffic (deliveries of food, maintenance and infrastructure people, etc.), and user traffic (students, faculty, staff) commensurate with the increase in the site’s utilization. One can come across evidence of these phenomena by observing the auto traffic around a large dorm and around an important instructional and administrative site and combining them together, then placing them conceptually in an already high traffic area (Huron and State) currently at local parking capacity. Additionally, the particular types of auto activity are significant — the stopping by the curb with the hazard lights on that pizza guys and people picking up friends do, for example. Even a little traffic obstructing an arterial street causes significant snarls, particularly when no additional measures for parking are introduced. This is simply based on observation and will be clarified when the university produces a study of the traffic impact (if they do). Until such documents are produced, human reason will have to do.
As for drawing on municipal resources, not only will this building and tech-heavy live/learn concept ATTRACT students to the University (as they intend: Improve facilities and programs -> increase demand for those facilities and programs in addition to the overall and consistent swelling of the undergraduate population), this should make the campus/city core MORE ATTRACTIVE to people on the periphery. There will be no downtown vacuum where students *used* to live. In cities like Ann Arbor with a vibrant core, people live as close to the center as possible (particularly students, for the sake of convenience). People who now have to live 4 miles out of town will move closer (or they won’t start out 4 miles out). In addition, city infrastructure systems like water and sewer do not have the same capacity across the whole system — there are local stresses increased and decreased in neighborhoods by changing demands on the local system. I’m sure you have read the articles in the Ann Arbor News over the last several months about terrible water pressure, sewer backups and broken lines that the city cannot keep up with.
While there are sprawl issues even here, a large impetus of sprawl is the unaffordability of in-town housing, which increased university housing capacity will help alleviate. (This is predicated upon an understanding of the existence of some rental units acceptable to both students and the not-ready-for-homeownership non-student. Again, I have observed these).
Now, if you don’t buy that, we don’t have much more to say. If you do, we can take the next step and say that this impact is in fact desireable, but that the university should engage the city in the planning process to rationally, sensitively, and cooperatively try to accommodate this dorm’s impact in all respects, which it currently is not doing.
posted by Dale on February 12th, 2005 at 4:17 pm eI assure you, HTBH has both lived and studied overseas numerous times. But that’s an entirely different (ridiculous) discussion.
Thanks Dale, you saved me a response.
posted by Chachi on February 12th, 2005 at 4:25 pm eBTW, it’s good to see a small “consensus” among planning/architecture graduate students!
posted by Chachi on February 12th, 2005 at 4:27 pm eI like living in Ann Arbor,but I would also love to go out drinking with Dr. Mandrake. Call me a midwestern contrarian.
Also, I have never seen someone wearing fur in the OFW, Dale.You must have us mixed up with Burns Park, ha-ha.
posted by OFWinsurgent on February 12th, 2005 at 5:01 pm eThere are easy ways to alleviate traffic problems related to deliveries. One is to have a circular driveway in front of the building made for specifically that purpose. My hometown required this of a large hotel and it worked quite nicely — people pull in for unloading and loading deliveries and passengers, and then pull back out into traffic. Incidentally, people were tearing their hair out at the idea of more traffic because of this (very large) hotel, and the increase in traffic never materialized. My town has almost exactly the same number of inhabitants as Ann Arbor, so it is a fair comparison.
As for increasing sewer and other problems with infastructure, if people move in toward the town center (as you predict), and people move into the outlying houses that they are leaving empty (seems a reasonable assumption), then the tax base for the city of Ann Arbor will increase. Plus, added people in the downtown area will lead to more businesses, and more successful businesses, also adding to the businesses paying taxes to the city.
If the city had been fore-thinking, as Todd has pointed out, the increase to the tax base would be even greater, since someone would long ago have built a facility that would have suited the needs of the students who will now choose to live in North Quad. But the city missed the boat on that one. Hopefully it will have learned its lesson.
Ann Arbor isn’t going to stop growing — it’s a question of whether it will grow in a way that prices out almost everyone who is not an MD, PHD or JD, or whether other folks will continue to be able to afford it (at least to the extent that they still can). The sewer, etc. will need to be upgraded at some point, no matter whether students live in dorms, or whether they, too, are forced further and further away from campus to find affordable housing (which will continue to increase traffic congestion).
And to Chachi, et al.: If hearing complaints about Ann Arbor hurts your sensibility, I believe that the domain name “annarborrules.com” is still up for grabs.
-Anna
posted by Anna on February 12th, 2005 at 5:04 pm eDale,
You obviously work in and around the field of Urban Planning….do you honestly think that the University could build a 500 bed facility anywhere on or near the central campus without public outcry?
posted by todd on February 12th, 2005 at 5:50 pm ewhoa, what’s with all the piss and vinegar Mandrake? somebody rain on your parade?
posted by Alex(andra) on February 12th, 2005 at 6:20 pm eSo I’ll tone down my shrillness since it seems we may be recognizing the difficulty of the whole project (or losing energy).
I’ll reiterate my main points, roughly stated in other discussions on this site and others.
1. UofM *should* build another dorm and the Frieze site is a good candidate. There is certainly a market for it (partially driven by high city rents), and it will contribute to urban development and the livability of Ann Arbor. If I may state clearly, however, the university is under no obligation to house its students, except insofar as it thinks it will contribute to their educational mission.
2. The resulting building will be much improved if it incorporates the facade and/or other aspects of the Frieze building. It will be much more street friendly than anything they have built in a long time, and there is a great value (in my opinion and others’), in preserving the material of the past and incorporating it into the ongoing modernization project of the university and higher education.
3. The university has made a very short-sighted and even hostile move in proceeding as it has. There clearly is little or no dialogue between the city and the university at the administrative levels (evidenced by Monday’s “face off” between the two). This is really both bodies’ fault. Some residents’ (and council members’) interest in keeping students out of the residential areas and the university’s apparent belief that it is not answerable to the community have cast these two in stark (but reconcilable) opposition.
4. There needs to be an ongoing partnership between the city and the university to manage the growth and development of each (in tandem). Again, cf Monday night, whatever they’re doing it ain’t working. When a university spokesman says that the university isn’t concerned with providing parking or otherwise handling traffic/ transportation issues on NQ, I suspect they’re a. not playing with full deck b. callously ignoring community concerns. As I mentioned, city voices saying “it’s UofM’s fault there’s a housing crunch” should be VOTED OUT. Attitudes like Mandrake’s of “I f-ing hate this town and won’t participate in its governance” are part of the problem and lend MORE power to anti-student interests. Todd — I don’t believe any building this close to campus would avoid some protest. However, given some sort of planning partnership (on this project or in general), I believe those protests would be mitigated and people who didn’t attempt to participate in some fashion wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. I see a direct parallel to your idea about how city planning should proceed. Seek organized and meaningful participation in a process setting out how city and university should grow together and the result will be rational, sensitive, and mutually beneficial. As this is not the case, many community complaints about NQ are legitimate and have not been dealt with.
As it stands, Hieftje, Greden, and [insert name here] get political points for sniping at the university and students, students (in general) aren’t involved in the process, we know the university’s position, and we end up either at loggerheads or with an increasingly hostile community and crappy buildings in an increasingly crappy town. Nobody learns a lesson unless they are forced to. Is this the event that does it?
Anna — I’d like it if there were no traffic impact; a semi-circle drive might do some good, but if the U. brings the building all the way out to Washington, Huron, and State (as they claim is necessary), it isn’t going to happen. Underground parking? If it’s been mentioned by the university, I haven’t heard it.
posted by Dale on February 12th, 2005 at 6:38 pm eAttitudes like Mandrake’s of “I f-ing hate this town and won’t participate in its governance” are part of the problem and lend MORE power to anti-student interests.
Maybe, but if I remember correctly he isn’t a student, so perhaps the city of Ann Arbor will consider what they’re doing to piss off the young professionals they want to attract to the point where it’s a no-brainer for them to side with the 18-year-old undergrads. Okay, who am I kidding? But I enjoy his posts; comments like that are rather cathartic for me sometimes.
There’s got to be some reason why they’re not incorporating the facade. I think, anyway. Anything other than wanting to build to the street?
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 12th, 2005 at 6:58 pm eIn defense of HTBH and the others that are posting their insults here, at least. They use. Complete. Sentences and know. How to formulate. Thoughts. Sort of. Which is more than can be said. For Lorna R. Hayes.
BTW, can someone work out a formal proof about how insulting people for complaining by complaining about their complaining in a forum that they complain is stupid actually makes them geometrically more pathetic than those they complain about? It’s so meta it’s making my head hurt. Hopefully they, like Sideshow Bob appearing on television to decry television, are aware of the irony.
posted by Dan on February 12th, 2005 at 7:13 pm eMandrake’s a post-doc. With a student attitude.
posted by Dale on February 12th, 2005 at 8:06 pm eWay to go, Dale! There is a third way!
posted by js on February 12th, 2005 at 9:04 pm eI think this place is a great forum for fascinating discussions on important topics relevant to Ann Arbor. Look at what has been going on - in depth discussions about the community that’s both constructive and enlightening. Whoever AAiO is - and man, I’d love to buy you a beer sometime - isn’t just saying “Ann Arbor Blows” but is actually looking in papers and blogs for interesting community topics to remark upon. But at least he or she is engaging community issues, whereas most of the people living in Ann Arbor - with the exception of those strange people on the historical district commission they show on local cable - probably don’t care about because their only reason for being here is to get their degree and be gone.
I like to bash Ann Arbor because unlike that guy at the Eight Ball three weeks ago - Ann Arbor can’t fight back. And it doesn’t hurt anyone, and it allows me to vent, and I end up going out into Ann Arbor with cathartic relief. I might be a troll, and I definitely am a post-doc with a student attitude, but I’m harming no one, so who cares?
posted by DrMandrake on February 13th, 2005 at 10:46 am e“Seek organized and meaningful participation in a process setting out how city and university should grow together and the result will be rational, sensitive, and mutually beneficial. As this is not the case, many community complaints about NQ are legitimate and have not been dealt with.”
I am in total agreement with this. However, Ann Arbor has shown zero interest in long term planning(yes, I know they have a series of plans, but they aren’t integrated, and they don’t actively work from the things…not practically at least). If I were a University official, I would certainly see the planning and building procedures in Ann Arbor as they currently operate as a complete waste of time and resources.
Here’s why: if the University went through the normal channels needed to secure approval from the various city departments, going through endless citizen input, how long would it take, and what would the added cost be to the Frieze project?
Answer: based on my experience and adding in the fact that this is a tall building (by Ann Arbor standards) that will house students, and there are parking issues involved, it would take 12 months and add 20-30% to the project cost. And it’s not like they don’t have their own bureaucrats to deal with to get this done.
Now if I were in charge of this project, and I had to answer to the Regents rather than the Mayor, there is NO question that I wouldn’t come within a mile of the City’s bureaucracy. They aren’t going to like anything that I would come up with, so what would be the point? That’s an awful lot of money wasted playing nicey-nice with the city.
…..now if you fix the process, and could show a long term plan by the city, that would be a different story completely.
posted by todd on February 13th, 2005 at 1:44 pm eIt seems so hopeless; no matter WHAT universities do, people in the host town get upset and they never feel like they have enough input. In my hometown, the university had few dorms until into the 1930s. Then they decided that they wanted people to live on campus and built a lot of them. People STILL complain about it because they feel that the dorms detract from the tax base and that the city would be better off if students lived in apartments and rooming houses around campus the way they used to. Restaurants and other businesses also claim that they would do much better if students lived off campus.
In the same place, getting back to an earlier comment of Dale’s, the town recently wanted to take half a retail block via emminent domain to build a high school. The argument? It would be good for the high school to be close to the ammenities offered by the university. In other words, they wanted the equivalent of the Frieze site for a high school.
posted by Anna on February 13th, 2005 at 2:48 pm eThey wanted a block ON campus for a high school? Where’s your old hometown? Is it more accurate to say they wanted a city block NEAR campus — close enough to offer access to amenities, but far enough so that traffic and pedestrian congestion was less of an issue? And was it executed?
posted by Dale on February 13th, 2005 at 6:05 pm e(One of the best things about Community High is that students can take classes at U of M if they’re not offered by the public schools, and it’s close enough to walk. I can definitely see the advantages…)
posted by js on February 14th, 2005 at 9:50 am eDale, I’d rather not say specifically which town, but let’s just say it’s a small city a bit more urban than AA (the population of Ann Arbor, but with a much greater sized population in the surrounding suburbs). The university campus is semi-urban and intermixed with the business district of the city. The block they wanted to take is in the heart of the campus and retail district on one of the busiest streets in town. Specifically they wanted the site because of its proximity to some of the university facilities including two of the university museums (which would have been effectively next door). There was a vacant lot the size of two city blocks available, but it was 3-4 blocks farther from campus (I would guess about the distance from State to 4th Street).
The plan was not executed because people freaked out and immediately wrote to and called the city council after the announcement (which the city attempted as a fait acompli). People felt it was unfair to the businesses, which had stuck it out through some very hard times in a district that has turned from very seedy to upscale over the last 15 years. People felt that it was the businesses that helped turn the district around and that it wasn’t fair to then boot them out once the area was desirable. They also felt that there was enough nonprofit stuff downtown and that continuing to put nonprofits in the middle of retail districts was going to hurt the tax base.
The compromise was that they took a parking lot a couple blocks away in the other direction, which was owned by a large local employer. They committed to build a parking garage for the employer. I am not sure the deal is final, but that’s the last I heard.
posted by Anna on February 14th, 2005 at 10:09 am eI can as well; I think the distance between community high and central campus is good — one doesn’t really interfere with the other. There is an important distinction between a small high school like community high and a monster hs like huron or pioneer, as well.
posted by Dale on February 14th, 2005 at 10:13 am eCurious … do CHS students and U of M students still party together?
posted by A Different Jon on February 15th, 2005 at 1:36 am eParty together? In my day, U-M students rarely partied with Commie High kids (at least ones they didn’t know/weren’t related to). Commie High kids would crash U-M parties all the time, but they never really partied together (even at the same place).
posted by js on February 15th, 2005 at 7:37 pm eOf course, I hung out with druggies and malcontents, so maybe I missed out…
I was thinking Drake’s, the Diag, the Halfass, Madrigal Lounge, house parties, shows, occasional trips to Detroit or New Orleans. Is there still currently now any of that interaction between the U of M and CHS students?
posted by A Different Jon on February 16th, 2005 at 4:52 am eWhen I was a student in the RC, we did have a little bit of interaction with CHS students, mostly because some were the siblings of current RC students.
posted by Anna on February 17th, 2005 at 2:43 pm eI just emailed an LA based artist — CHS grad — who got a drawing published in the Chicago Reader. I recall going with her and another fellow to see the Meatmen at St. Andrew’s. She was CHS underclass at the time, dating a RoKo guy (who of late was an Ann Arbor based chef).
For a while there was a surge of CHS people staying over at the dorm room next to an RC writing professor’s office. I think I recall there was some U of M /CHS dating. I am certain there was a bunch of drinking.
Do the student bodies still socialize? Or is the climate not right for it these days.
posted by A Different Jon on February 18th, 2005 at 4:42 am e