My Little Greenway
The greenway debate (here’s the Arbor Update post) takes a fantastical turn, with Friend of the Ann Arbor Greenway Margaret Wong describing her plans to transform downtown into “Margaret’s happy world” and DDA member Rene Greff comparing the greenway proposal to both ponies and puppies. Greff, who also owns Arbor Brewing Company, supports increased density downtown that might eventually lead to a grocery store within walking distance, but not every local business owner feels that way; Joe O’Neal supports a greenway that would involve turning 100 residences into parkland. Somehow, it makes more sense when you consider what business he owns: Kerrytown Market.
I posted this on Arbor Update too:
I just got off the phone with Rene Greff.
The most telling part of our conversation, was that Rene told me that she wanted to go over the DDA plan with Cowherd and the executive commitee. Cowherd refused. That speaks volumes to me.
If the OFW wants more parks, terrific. It is time for the them to refute the accusations of NIMBYism.
If anyone from the OFW is reading this, if you push for the installation of a park (in the place of the William lot) in any of the 200+ other lots that Mr. Cowherd was kind enough to indentify as ripe for development, I will back you 100%. I am willing to quid pro quo if it means more tall buildings.
If the problem is that Ann Arbor is desperate for more parks, then lets put together a comprehensive plan that identifies and purchases local land using greenbelt funds. My father was the President of the American Society of Landscape Architects, and has designed over 15 Federal and State parks in his career, including several in urban areas. I offer his services gratis. He will help with everything from site selection to the maintenance of the new parks. We will put in native plants and the whole nine yards.
If the “Friends of the Greenway” reject this proposal, then I must come to the conclusion that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with sustainable development or the “greening of our city”, and has everything to do with taking care of your own neighborhood at the expense of both density and affordable housing throughout the entire city.
I am hoping that you will show your true colors, and prove to all of us that you have the interest of the entire city—-your community—-at heart when you make your proposal.
…and to AAIO and others: I told you Rene Greff was a rockstar. A grocery store! She knows full well, as I do, that Ann Arbor is sorely lacking in several areas (no laughing, please). If we keep building downtown, sooner or later the prices will go down, and hopefully the taxes will hold firm since we will have a greater pool of property taxes to draw from.
Oh, and as to Mr. O’neal…he is proposing the greenways because these local developers actually believe in sustainable design. Tall buildings and dense housing with green areas that have been set aside. I hope that the irony that this concept comes from a developer, not a self-described environmentalist, isn’t lost on everyone.
posted by todd on March 20th, 2005 at 2:51 pmWell, once I start climbing back into the 12k income bracket, I am definitely going to start patronizing ABC (and Todd, your jukebox alone warrants more visits). It’s good to know that there are people willing to stand against this thing. Fortunately, my own councilwoman, Joan Lowenstein, is against the greenway proposal. Who else, I wonder?
posted by Lazaro on March 20th, 2005 at 3:39 pmBoth fourth ward reps were against it earlier this week.
posted by Anonymous on March 20th, 2005 at 3:55 pmWait, so you actually agree with O’Neal’s proposal? I’m confused then.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on March 20th, 2005 at 4:08 pmDo I agree with O’Neals specific proposal? Not on it’s face. It’s too big. I would like to point out to those of you who don’t know, it is very expensive to build structures in a flood plain. Out of all of the places to build parks in Ann Arbor, it makes the most sense to build them in the floodplain as it is next to impossible to build large buildings in a floodplain. The land is essentially useless from the perspective of urban density. The areas that O’Neal was referring to are, to my knowledge, in the floodplain.
My stance, as you know, is that I believe that there is more than adequate parkland in central Ann Arbor and that it is high time that the pendulum swung in favor of density and those of us who aren’t multi-millionaires. Do I think that valuable dollars should go to put in a park/greenway of that magnitude in Ann Arbor? No. But installing parks in those areas will not in any way interfere with the ability of developers to build densely as the land is essentially unbuildable. For that reason, I like the direction that O’Neal is headed.
That said, if I had to concede the construction of a greenway to get my desire for a twenty story limit on buildings and a free market for developers downtown…..where do I sign?
It is also important to note that the location of the floodplain in and around the proposed William street parking structure explains not only the structure’s expense, but also it’s location. In other words, it is a good place for parking because it doesn’t take away valuable buildable land from downtown. Who cares if a parking lot gets flooded? As long as the foundations are handled properly….which they will be as it is mandated by law….it’s the perfect site for parking.
IMHO, the DDA is correct in locating the lot there. Yes, it is more expensive, but it does not use valuable buildable land, and therefore from the city’s pespective the added expense is warranted. In addition, of course, a parking structure can actually break even on its ROI in time. It may take a while, but it will get there.
posted by todd on March 20th, 2005 at 4:42 pmTodd, I want to reread your posts, but in the mean time, I think you may be confusing OFW (Kerrytown/Med campus area) with OWS (Old West Side).
posted by OFWinsurgent on March 20th, 2005 at 5:06 pmYeah, the OFW - NoHu, that is - has been surprisingly silent on this one. They’re really falling down on the evilness job.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on March 20th, 2005 at 5:17 pmI am confusing them. I also screwed up the old ‘it’s’ or ‘its’ thing a few time. I was a lit major for crying out loud. Lame.
I’m just happy that half of what I write is
posted by todd on March 20th, 2005 at 6:07 pmsemi-readable.
The acronyms are going to get really confusing if the homeowner associations in the OFW and the OWS take turns being parochial liberal posers (sorry OFW Insurgent) instead of just validating our stereotypes by joining together to be NIMBYs on every case.
On second thought the very definition of NIMBY-ness is that the OFW couldn’t care less about a parking garage down off Ashley while the OWS doesn’t give a damn about some historic preservationist baloney about the Frieze building, but reverse these threats and the sky is falling. Maybe the ADUs will rear their scary head to join these two pseudo-neighborhoods together again as it should be.
posted by Matt on March 21st, 2005 at 12:59 amHa, ha, ha I live in Austin now and all you poor people are stuck in hell!! Sometimes I think that maybe I really didn’t have a good reason to hate Ann Arbor but thanks for putting together a blog that reminds me. Over time the beautiful sunny weather, low cost of living and friendly people are erasing the painful memories. Plus the beautiful dog parks, clubs, music, real diversity, hippies who aren’t rich, parking in downtown for two hours past the meter time and not getting a ticket …. I could go on and on. Have fun in hell!
posted by Anonymous on March 21st, 2005 at 9:39 amYou BASTARD. Why must you taunt us?
posted by Dr.Mandrake on March 21st, 2005 at 9:41 amYeah, but you live in *TEXAS*. Do I really need to elaborate?
posted by Alex(andra) on March 21st, 2005 at 9:44 amWho gives a damn, Alex(andra) - all I know for sure is Texas is NOT Ann Arbor, and Austin HAS to be better than here.
posted by Dr.Mandrake on March 21st, 2005 at 10:17 amYou forgot to mention that South by Southwest just rolled through town. French Kicks, American Analog Set, Ambulance Ltd., The Go! Team, Pretty Girls Make Graves, The Futureheads….It’s like my jukebox, only live. Man, that hurts.
My only consolation is that the sets are only 45 minutes long.
posted by todd on March 21st, 2005 at 10:23 amAustin has a lower cost of living? That’s news to me.
I can’t argue with your other taunts, however. Austin’s a great city.
posted by James on March 21st, 2005 at 11:45 am“hippies who aren’t rich”? …damn, I’m missing out.
I also think dog parks are a poor use of public resources. Park are for people, not their pooches. Look at the maintenance, environmental concerns, conflicts with other users, etc… it’s a mess. Why do dog-owning yuppies now feel entitled to their very own playgrounds? You choose to have a dog instead of a kid, but I don’t think the public is responsible for providing playgrounds for animals.
I do love Austin, though. SXSW might just help me fail-out of every Winter semester, however.
posted by Brandon on March 21st, 2005 at 11:51 amEh. I can see the need for dog parks, simply because so many people have dogs, and they shouldn’t be encouraged to let them off the leash in people parks.
posted by js on March 21st, 2005 at 2:13 pmMan, this city is so clueless about development issues, it’s funny (and would be even funnier if I didn’t live here). First of all, a ‘greenway’ right through downtown?!? DUMB. We have no shortage of parks in the city, and the downtown is already very walkable and bikeable (I bike down there all the time and bike right through on my way to Huron River Drive for long rides)–we don’t need to set aside parcels inside the main business district for more parks.
BUT…it doesn’t matter how friggin’ dense the residental development gets, NOBODY is going to build and open a grocery store there. Why? Becuase hardly anybody who moves downtown is going to do so without a car, and if they have a car, it’s only a couple of miles from downtown to, say, Bush’s on South Main, Kroger on South Industrial (not to mention that these downtown types are probably going to be more Whole Foods that Kroger shoppers). But in any case, few people who have cars are going to want to walk to the grocery store and lug the stuff home. Ann Arbor is not, and is never going to be, a little bit of Manhattan.
As for thinking about density–more stupidity! There is no fixed-size ‘lump of future development’ that can be divided between downtown and outlying areas according to some city council 5-year-plan. More development downtown does not in any way imply less elsewhere–in fact, I think the reverse is more likely. Suppose dense downtown high-rise development makes Ann Arbor a more vibrant, attractive, exciting city. Wouldn’t that tend to INCREASE the desirability of living in the surrounding countryside so as to have both a nice yard AND access to all those exciting new amenities? Of course it would.
I hope the greenway proposal is turned down, but I am sure this is not going to be the last of the dumb development ideas we’ll see…
posted by mw on March 21st, 2005 at 3:36 pm(1) No place in Texas is better than… well… virtually anywhere. Austin, TX, can fit in somewhere below Ann Arbor but above East Lansing.
(2) I think development issues aren’t just endemic to Ann Arbor. As I understand it, there are a lot of state laws (or lack thereof) that basically allow unchecked development from cities and other municipalities that think they know what they’re doing, something not nearly as common in other states. The lack of regulation in that depeartment are responsible for allowing this type of lack of foresight in A2 — and I’m talking at least a little out of my ass here — as well as sprawl in the greater Detroit area.
posted by Evan on March 21st, 2005 at 4:03 pmPS - With all the Urban Planning grads coming out of this place, you’d think 2-3 of them could stick around and help out.
posted by Evan on March 21st, 2005 at 4:04 pm“More development downtown does not in any way imply less elsewhere–in fact, I think the reverse is more likely. Suppose dense downtown high-rise development makes Ann Arbor a more vibrant, attractive, exciting city. Wouldn’t that tend to INCREASE the desirability of living in the surrounding countryside so as to have both a nice yard AND access to all those exciting new amenities? Of course it would.”
So your genius solution would be to make Ann Arbor as crappy and unattractive as possible? You mean like Flint? No threat of sprawl there, I suppose. Good idea.
posted by todd on March 21st, 2005 at 4:12 pmSo your genius solution would be to make Ann Arbor as crappy and unattractive as possible? You mean like Flint? No threat of sprawl there, I suppose. Good idea.
Not at all–my solution would be to consider what sort of city and what sort of downtown we want independent of the issue of surrounding sprawl, which is largely beyond the city’s control (with the exception of the limited impact of the greenbelt purchases–which may be decidedly mixed as developers may race to grab land first).
Your reference to Flint is apt–the only way Ann Arbor has to end the sprawl development is to make the city (or school district) sufficiently unattractive that fewer people want to move into the areas than out.
My own sense of Ann Arbor is that it is kind of a miracle compared to all other mid-sized Michigan cities–in having a lively, prosperous downtown, successful schools (and the high property values to go with it). Look at Kalamazoo–also a university town with Pfizer as the main secondary employer, and yet its downtown, neighborhoods, and schools don’t begin to compare. People with means look to live outside that city, not in it. Our first charge in managing the city should be NOT TO SCREW IT UP. Are the citizens of Ann Arbor really clamoring for high-rises and high-density? I’m not hearing that.
posted by mw on March 21st, 2005 at 4:35 pmDid you read the article about the desirablity of downtown lofts that ran in the business section of the News on Sunday? It seems to indicate that enough folks are willing to pay to live in high rise type condos downtown.
And as for the grocery store issue - enough development would certainly support a grocery downtown. Sure, people might drive in their cars to Meier on the weekend - but they’d stop for milk, or eggs, or fresh veggies on foot or bike on their way home from work. And I’d bet you’d see some more UM students using AATA to get downtown and to the grocery store. It beats the time it takes to get out to Meiers or Hillers on the bus.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on March 21st, 2005 at 5:18 pmAs for UM Urban Planners sticking around… who the hell would want to work for a city whose Council, Mayor, and Planning Commission regularly shoot down projects that fit the master plan? Who would want to work for a city that consistently fails to walk the walk in terms of sustainable development? Who in their right mind could stand watching hours and hours of work get tossed b/c of a few whiney OWS boomers?
There’s a reason the best City Planner (and UM grad) in the area runs the Ypsi planning dept. and not Ann Arbor’s.
posted by KBlow on March 21st, 2005 at 5:53 pmOne of the reasons I like living in the Kerrytown neighborhood is that I do 95% of all my grocery shopping without a car (K-Town and the PFC). I think many of my neighbors do as well. I only go to Busch’s or Kroger if I need to get cleaning supplies or catfood.
I agree about the “it’s never going to be like Manhattan” (in terms of walking to the grocery store comment) simply because most people around here are so programmed to drive to the store they buy a shitload of groceries. When you can walk, you don’t need to buy as much, but you go more often.
posted by OFWinsurgent on March 21st, 2005 at 6:46 pmWhile Ypsi’s Megan Gibb is awesome, Ann Arbor has some great city planners (and UM grads), too, even with all the political BS. Every now and then they make real change, as well.
posted by Brandon on March 21st, 2005 at 6:47 pmOFW Insurgent, the problem with Kerrytown is that they are bloody expensive places to shop compared to Kroger, Meijer, and Busch’s. Your average joe just wants/can only afford to buy some store brand mac and cheese, nothing artisanal, upscale, or (unfortunately) organic, which is most of what you’ll get in Kerrytown.
posted by Brandon on March 21st, 2005 at 6:50 pmAnd as for the grocery store issue - enough development would certainly support a grocery downtown. Sure, people might drive in their cars to Meier on the weekend - but they’d stop for milk, or eggs, or fresh veggies on foot or bike on their way home from work. And I’d bet you’d see some more UM students using AATA to get downtown and to the grocery store. It beats the time it takes to get out to Meiers or Hillers on the bus.
Well, you might get a VC or Campus Corners sized market–maybe something like the Big Ten Party Store, but not a supermarket down there. You’re just not going to get anything much larger if people can’t drive and park (but CAN drive and park at a store a couple miles away).
Look at Chicago (which I know reasonably well). There are small neighborhood kinds of places with limited selection and high prices (and ‘White Hens’ and little wine shops) and then there are Jewell and Dominicks supermarkets in the city–but they have parking lots, and there aren’t that many of them–chances are you’ll have to drive a mile or two to get to a supermarket (just about as if you lived in downtown Ann Arbor and had to drive to Bush’s).
I’m not saying lofts in downtown are a bad idea–but huge developments in the neighborhoods of the type that was (appropriately) shot down recently worry me.
posted by mw on March 21st, 2005 at 7:06 pmBrandon, I don’t know the last time you were in K-Town (or what your diet consists of
but their prices on veg, rice, etc is pretty comparable to many of the big box stores. They just don’t have tons of junk food, crappy baked goods and pop. They simply don’t have the space for the inventory of a big box store.
Seriously, check them out. Many of their items are cheaper than Busch’s. They are CERTAINLY less expensive than Whole Foods. (Kroger is a shithole, so I don’t compare there).
posted by OFWinsurgent on March 21st, 2005 at 7:45 pmI just shopped at Sparrow’s and Meijer’s today. Corned beef at Meijer is about 30% less expensive; apples were comparable; bananas were comparable; cereal (or breakfast food) Meijer won by a mile; Sparrow’s wins in the whole bean coffee category by 2 dollars a pound.
The problem with shopping in Ann Arbor is the combination of paying a premium (which I’m generally willing to do within reason) for comparable merchandise and not being able to get the things I want within a reasonable geographic area. It’s not as bad as AAIO’s “three-trip, three-item lists,” but it’s really a choice between high prices or total inconvenience.
posted by Dale on March 21st, 2005 at 10:09 pmI feel badly for Ann Arbor planners. I think they are really good–I thought the NE area plan was excellent given the political pressures, and they are regularly dissed by city council.
posted by Anonymous on March 21st, 2005 at 11:44 pmI feel bad for planners almost everywhere in the US… planners generally function as mere advisors in this country, and it is rare when there is the political will to have their recommendations consistently implemented. In theory, one would think liberal Ann Arbor with its Democratic supermajority would take leadership on this front, but as we have seen over and over again the influence of homeowner politics has always held sway over progressive planning policy, even if planners have successfully lobbied on a few fronts (i.e. the updated parking ordinance, non-motorized transportation plan, passably dense NE Area (draft still, though) Plan, etc). In contrast, planners were not even consulted regarding large-scale initiatives such as the Greenbelt. And where’s the form-based zoning, minimum densities, maximum setbacks, mixed-use/form-based zoning, ADUs, or almost anything else remotely visionary re: planning policy. Where’s the political will, People’s Republic? Grand Rapids, whom Ann Arborites love to characterize as backward and conservative, is currently in the process of writing a form-based zoning ordinance, and I believe will be the largest city in the nation to have done so when adopted. Moreover, (gritty!), affordable arts districts and large-scale downtown residential development are booming with strong encouragement and support from city leaders. The mayor is currently framing all city policy in terms of sustainability. Metro Grand Rapids is even home to 12% of all LEED-certified buildings. The public transit system just won transit system of the year from the APTA, and has nearly doubled ridership in the past few years. Oh, and one can live there for half the cost of living in Ann Arbor. Yeah, Ann Arbor sure is a progressive paradise. In many ways, I’d rather be in Grand Rapids.
posted by Brandon on March 22nd, 2005 at 12:59 amI’ve found the big chains, as far as food goes, to be definitely cheaper than places like the Kerrytown Kolkhoz and Sparrow’s, but not so much cheaper as to justify the bus trip out to someplace like Meijer or Hiller’s (total agreement about Kroger, OFWi). The vegetables are certainly comparable–spinach and tomatoes are fairly inexpensive. It’s when you hit the meats that the crunch comes for some reason. In my experience, it’s not the small grocery stores that are so expensive as it is the restaurants. And, at the risk of not sounding like an “average Joe,” I can’t stand mac and cheese (although I work in a restaurant, so I’m probably spoiled).
posted by Lazaro on March 22nd, 2005 at 3:51 pm