ann arbor is overrated. » Blog Archive » Can We Be an Accidental Blogger?

Can We Be an Accidental Blogger?

The News trots out the well-worn “accidental activist” label to describe Friend of the Ann Arbor Greenway Margaret Wong, who’s “upset about some comments on Web sites portraying her organization as a collection of ‘Not-In-My-Back-Yard’ residents.” We have to say that Wong was the most polite, least strident pro-greenway speaker at last week’s Council meeting, and we’d be extremely surprised to find out that she had participated in the booing and other hijinks that other greenway supporters engaged in that night.

Wong even says she’ll stop pushing for the greenway if “there isn’t public support for it.” But, the News editorializes, “there are no signs of that as of yet,” justifying this claim by pointing out that “earlier this month, more than a hundred people showed up to a town forum and City Council meetings.” Including us, Murph and a list of public speakers that split almost evenly on the Friends-supported Easthope-Johnson resolution, which was eventually voted down by everyone except Easthope and Johnson. More evidence: “As of last week, 600 people had signed a petition on the group’s Web site.” All right, who told them about our sophisticated technology?

62 Responses to “Can We Be an Accidental Blogger?”

Anybody got a petition going to show absolutely no support for the Greenway Proposal? I’d like to sign that one.
posted by Thomas Cook on March 28th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
interesting portrayal of ms. wong in the newspaper today.

In light of all this publicity, I wonder if the rest of the city will see the greenbelt proposal for the parochial power-grab it is.

no neighbor of the sites in question can be an “accidental activist,” least of all ms. wong. the choice to mobilize against downtown development was deliberate. the process by which the greenway advocates have pressed their issue has been methodical and characterized by self-interest.
posted by dan f on March 29th, 2005 at 12:12 am
I’m with Thomas, where’s the anti-greenway petition I can sign?
posted by JennyD on March 29th, 2005 at 7:06 am
I found the most notable part of the article the part where it said she attended a DDA meeting discussing the First and William project IN DECEMBER 2003, indicating how slow and open the DDA process actually has been. It’s also telling that her response was not to get involved in the process as part of the established citizen’s advisory committee. But it has more to do with her work on behalf of affordable housing, I’m sure.
posted by Dale on March 29th, 2005 at 9:34 am
Did the 600 people who signed the Greenway petition realize that they’re signing themselves up to walk through Ann Arbor along a railroad track? How scary is that? Besides the possible contaminents and pollution spread alongside train tracks, what happens to the park when a kid gets hit by a train? I was told as a kid to stay away from train tracks - but the Greenway supporters seem to imply that it’s “safe” to play around train tracks?

I checked the Greenway website and didn’t see this issue addressed. Actually, I found next to no information about the greenway, other than a spray-painted green line on a map of Ann Arbor, and a chance to sign the petition. “Questions and Answers” are “coming soon”. And this plan has been gestating for over a year?
posted by Peter on March 29th, 2005 at 10:13 am
PS: I do think, however, Ms.Wong’s toaster collection is pretty cool.
posted by Peter on March 29th, 2005 at 10:17 am
As best I can tell, the Greenway folks really think the railroad is just going to go away sometime soon, which is inaccurate and foolish. I talked to a landscape architecture student whose class worked on a greenway design for First and William (someone has really been infiltrating the School of Natural Resources!) last fall, and they assumed-away the rail line.
posted by Brandon on March 29th, 2005 at 10:22 am
As far as petitions… what average Joe is going to be against more parkland? Without analyzing the issues more carefully (which I assume is the case with the vast majority of greenway supporters), who wouldn’t sign that petition? Parks, puppies, and apple pie.
posted by Brandon on March 29th, 2005 at 10:24 am
Actually, Peter,

If you go to the Sierra Club website, you’ll find the letter that they sent to the DDA where they explained the problems that they had with the DDA plan.

You can see from this quote that they are well aware of railroad safety issues:

” The site is adjacent to the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks. Additional traffic from the structure may pose a safety issue, requiring crossing gates at intersections and increasing traffic congestion. ”

I am having a hard time understanding how having a park next to railroad tracks is safe, yet having a parking structure next to the same tracks is not. Maybe kids are tougher than cars.
posted by todd on March 29th, 2005 at 10:47 am
In the two years since I’ve moved to Ann Arbor, I’ve only seen a train on those tracks during the daytime once - and I live right by Madison and Main and can see the tracks from my apartment. At night, of course, I hear at least one or two trains pass by - but at 3:00 AM, there aren’t many people either walking or driving. Hence, I think the Sierra Club’s concern is a weak and flimsy attempt at rhetoric. Not that I think the Sierra Club is bad, but they better come up with some cogent arguments before trying to sell us the bullshit ones.
posted by DrMandrake on March 29th, 2005 at 10:51 am
Mandrake, it’s probably important to differentiate the national Sierra Club from the controversial Huron Valley chapter of the Sierra Club, which has often ignored the national platform’s support of urban density.
posted by Brandon on March 29th, 2005 at 10:54 am
Brandon - I agree. I’m a member of the national organization (at least I give them money whenever they send me pretty pictures) but the local chapter seems like a joke.
posted by DrMandrake on March 29th, 2005 at 11:17 am
I’ve walked along those railroad tracks, and I’d say that the bigger danger is from the other folks you meet there. I’ve never heard anyone speculate about the safety (or not) of an isolated path (which is what the greenway sounds like to me), but as a woman, I wouldn’t walk alone on such a path at any time of the day or night. I’d feel much safer walking to, for instance, the Arb, on the sidewalks through town. I think that safety concerns like mine will limit the usefulness of the path, at least for women.
posted by Anna on March 29th, 2005 at 11:58 am
not to mention, anna, the fact that rising rents and property assessments could force more people out of their homes over time. who knows, the greenway might become affordable housing after all - at least if benches count as housing.
posted by dan f on March 29th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
My office overlooks the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks and it has definitely been used more than once during the day in the past two years. I don’t know how its usage is determined but there have been stretches of time when the train comes through in the afternoon daily. In fact, last week I watched it pass through about 3:00 PM. However, I do think it is more heavily used in the early morning hours.
posted by Anonymous on March 29th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
wtf…one could get hit by a garbage truck by crossing the street.

Sorry Peter, I am SO SICK of the “save the tiny tots” mentality that has permiated our society….for the record, I am against the last proposed greenway, but not because of any “safety” issues.

I think it is somewhat unlikely that A2 parents are going to let their kids out of “playdate” obligations to play alone near the tracks. In 17 years in Ann Arbor, I have seen less than 10 trains on the N/S tracks through town.

…and The “creasote in the ties” (in another thread) argument is nearly as lame as the “couches are a fire hazard” crap trotted out by the OFW.

(The crime issue Anna, is real though, especially in the summer. I have seen/heard of some pretty horrific incidents along the railroad/river area).
posted by OFWinsurgent on March 29th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Have you ever been to Gallup Park? How about Bandemer Park? Both nice parks. Both next to railroad tracks.
posted by Chris on March 29th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
At Gallup Park the bigger danger is from the people on roller blades.
posted by Anna on March 29th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
This average Joe is against more parks, or at least this greenway nonsense, because I want to live in a city. If I loved trees and shit that much, I wouldn’t live in a city. And I’ve stumbled home drunk across those tracks several times a week for the past six months, and I saw a train once — if you can call just the engine and caboose with nothing in between them a train.

Maybe all the FoGs need to do is buy more plants for their houses.
posted by Dave on March 29th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Wow! I am appalled at the limited vision of you younguns. And the catty, sarcastic and foolish comments regarding Ms Wong. It’s been my belief all along that the minions of AAIO and those smarty pants college kids who don’t give a flying fig about Ann Arbor except to imagine it becoming some kind of mini Chicago with kewl clubs and 24 hr. restaurants.

If you think that Greenway vs parking structure is the issue, you’re incredibly shortsighted. It’s about politicians kowtowing to developers and business people praying at the altar of profit (and real estate price gouging) at the expense of liveability. If the DDA gets its way they will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Beware the DDA and any other private/public group that gets to play with tax dollars and little public oversight.

Why do I bother to write to a bunch of punks who think they know everything? Maybe the steel plate in my head is rusting.

AAIO, just graduate and move on, ok? You promised us months ago you’d leave this burg as soon as you could. Go take another urban planning course somewhere else. Leave Ann Arbor to folks who live here and really care about the city. You don’t have a stake here, I do.
posted by mucho gusto on March 29th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
I got a feeling mucho gusto wants you young punks off his/her lawn.
posted by Some Arab Guy on March 29th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
I love people who criticize the young punks here. If it wern’t for the young punks who bring in mommy and daddy’s dollars to Ann Arbor businesses, or the childless citizen whose taxes support your miserable schools, the town would be the kind of suburban nightmare of Canton. It’s my Ann Arbor to bitch about too, and I’m not gonna stop because mucho gusto ate too many tacos with hot sauce last night and is shitting hell fire today.
posted by DrMandrake on March 29th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
“Leave Ann Arbor to folks who live here and really care about the city”

The old you’re a college student so you don’t really live here and don’t care about the city line. Classic stuff.
posted by Walter on March 29th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
“It’s about politicians kowtowing to developers and business people praying at the altar of profit (and real estate price gouging) at the expense of liveability.”

It’s about politicians kowtowing to powerful neighborhood organizations that shout down any attempt at infill development and veil it in the imagery of “environmentalism.” Mucho, where were you when Dicken Woods and the Bluffs fiascos happened? The ones in power in this town are the so-called environmentalists in the local Sierra Club chapter and neighborhood organizations such as the Old West Side, Old Fourth Ward, and Burns Park. How can you not see this? The developers, those who would live in the units they build, and added acres of developed farmland on the urban fringe are the ones getting the shaft over and over again in this town, not the NIMBYs. We are just trying to counterbalance an extremely vocal and politically-influential anti-density coalition who likes to imagine themselves as Davids against some powerful big-bad developers and businessmen coming to destroy their precious “quality of life.” Quintessential suburban-style affluent homeowner politics… where’s your progressive, forward-thinking, revolutionary generation now, Mucho?
posted by Brandon on March 29th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
Well, I’m not a college student (and depending on your age, perhaps not a “youngun” either) and–I’ll come out of the closet here–I do actually enjoy living in Ann Arbor. But I see no point in putting some strips of grass alongside those tracks. I live near them. I walk by and along them almost every day. I honestly just don’t see the point. And, really, is there some shortage of parks in this town? I missed that. I don’t like tacky McMansion/strip mall development either, but I think at this point even a stinkin’ Walgreen’s nearby would do a lot more for my “quality of life” than some more grass. And to be honest, as a renter, I don’t particularly have any desire for property values in the neighborhood to rise even higher than they already are. Just my two cents.
posted by Dave on March 29th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Anybody have any idea what the trains are hauling in the middle of the night right thru the middle of town? I heard that they come from Midland. The big thing up there is Dow Chemical Co. Something to think about. The environmentalists are going to have a field day with this one. Maybe the RR will go away sooner then anyone thinks. Such a shame too as I kind of like the old trains in the middle of the night blowing the horn at every crossing all the way through town. The people that are buying into the new condo’s at the Eaton building will be in for a big surprise right away and to think that they will pay anywhere from 200 to 600k for that! Who knows what the old RR tanker cars have leaked onto the ground over the years. If I was going to walk the new green way before anything happens I think I might get a gas mask and one of those chem suits you see on those guys wearing on TV. To Bad Harrys Army Surplus just left town as they could of made some big bucks off of selling shit like that. Lets Check off one more business that failed to make it in town. By the time we lose the rest of the good stuff in the downtown and the Chains take over it will be Canton Michigan for sure. Did you guys know that Canton tried to put in a downtown a couple of years ago? The best they came up with were side walks one either side of Ford Road and a bunch of new street lights. They wanted to be just like Ann Arbor. The only other thing that was missing in Canton was a University. Go Blue
posted by The Canary on March 29th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
“It’s about politicians kowtowing to developers and business people praying at the altar of profit (and real estate price gouging) at the expense of liveability.”

This comment is pathetic for two primary reasons.

First, those who make comments like this assume that Ann Arbor residents are too stupid to understand and debate the issues. Rather than have a good debate on the merits — like AAiO is doing — this comment strives to stick the simplistic (and presumably evil) label of “developer” on it in hopes that people will criticize anything supported by developers. Please give people a little more credit.

Second, the statement is just plain inaccurate. Under the plan being floated by the DDA, downtown merchants, affordable housing activists, and non-profit arts supporters, the three parcels of land identified in Margaret Wong’s resolution would be used as follows:

First & William- It would become a publcly-owned parking garage, plus park space. Construction of this garage is supported by the by the locally-owned merchants who help make downtown unique.

415 W. Washington- This land is being actively sought by the Kiwanis and by a non-profit group that would renovate the on-site building and lease the space to artists (similar to Ypsilanti’s project). Again, there would also be park space. Non-profit arts space– yeah, that sure sound like a price gouging scheme being promoted by greedy developers.

N. Main lot- It’s currently a wasteland of pavement and City vehicles. Under the visionary plan promoted by many, the “higher” lands would be used to construct “workforce” housing, and the floodplain would become open space. (Not much else you can put there). Again, where are the developers who will reap huge profits?

So to the “mucho gustos” of the world, I say this: (1) Get your facts straight, and (2) stop trying to dumb-down the issue by sticking the word “developer” onto any plan you don’t like in an effort to get people to turn off their brains and assume the worst.
posted by Lifelong Ann Arborite on March 29th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
“Canary”,

I think you are being a bit dramatic about the dangers/nuisance of the AA Railroad. A couple trains a day, whether hauling chemicals or not, has a lot smaller environmental impact than any highway, major urban street, or even a busier railroad like the Norfolk Southern. I’m pretty sure you’ll breathe in worse stuff walking down Huron Street, and as far as dangers of chemical spills, truck tankers driving down our streets are in a far better position to crash and burn than a railcar. And I live right next to the tracks and have yet to be awakened by the nighttime trains… I think their rumble and low horns must have a lulling effect.

P.S. Canton has been building a “downtown,” at Cherry Hill Village. It’s a New Urbanist development, and not bad for a suburb. Which isn’t saying a lot, but it’s better than sidewalks and streetlights on Ford Road.
posted by Brandon on March 29th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
I think it is ironic that the two co-chairs for the Greenway are active supporters of low-income housing and historic preservation. Both of these worthy agendas are trampled by this pipe-dream of a Greenway, the ultimate expression of which, in Joe O’Neal’s twinkling eyes, is the destruction of 100 downtown residences–most of which are probably old enough to be considered historic and probably as low-income as Ann Arbor gets these days.
If the City Council goes this direction, I will never again feel the least bit of sympathy when they whine about how little the UM contributes to City services and I will never again support another parks millage. Here is a golden opportunity to produce some real income from City-owned property, returning much of it to the tax roles instead of more maintenance-requiring, non-income producing grassy spots. Christ. The City can’t even make money on it’s golf courses (which by the way were full of golfers today–a 60 degree day in March with muddy fairways and dead grass).
When the City garage and other facilities are eventually vacated downtown, these should also be sold to private tax-paying hands. We have a structural deficit, folks.
I agree that the co-chairs seem to be good people at heart and the toasters are really cool, and you won’t find a nicer guy than Joe O’Neal, but boy have they jumped on the wrong side of this issue! You can’t have a Greenbelt and a Greenway, and low-income housing, and historic preservation and low density.
P.S. - I also work right next to the tracks and they do get used a fair amount, but mostly to connect deliveries of cars to somewhat local destinations. Most of the cars appear to be bulk containers–not liquid. The biggest contamination is probably from the herbacides the railroad douses everything with, 30 feet on either side of the tracks at least once a year. Not to mention the illegal dumping that goes on wherever the tracks are accessible by car. They are really nasty–saw a rat in a brush pile the other day on my way to lunch.
Better to save the tracks for eventual use by light rail commuter trains to connect Ann Arbor to the tens of thousands of houses that are going to be built to the north and south along US 23 from Toledo to Flint. Or at least to park-and-ride lots at the City’s north and south boundries….
posted by Delgado on March 29th, 2005 at 11:57 pm
I’m a persistent critic of NIMBYism, but I also think that the reaction of many of us who are skeptical of the parks-everywhere crowd shouldn’t go all the way to the other direction. I think a modest greenway could work–I’m not convinced it ought to run in the direction south of the First and William site through the lots identified by the DDA, but instead I think it should run from downtown north to the river. I also wish that the Huron River corridor had a long linear path going both ways, all the way through Ypsi and all the way up to Hudson Mills Metropark at least. A linear path like this is not incompatible with artist space or affordable housing or even parking lots. This would probably mean the O’Neal plan wouldn’t work and the Friends of the Greenway would have to stop the false arguments that a parking lot on that site would kill the greenway, but sustainable development downtown and in surrounding neighborhoods such as Lower Town and elsewhere doesn’t mean a no-more-parks pendulum swing and these new projects could really be enhanced by a narrow, linear pathway that followed natural networks and railroad tracks in the storm basin to the river and then along the river
posted by Matt on March 30th, 2005 at 1:25 am
* I used to bake with a lady whose car got totalled on those tracks. She escaped with a concussion and it was her fault for ignoring the signal.

* As for the Chicago analogy — the businesses that are downtown in Ann Arbor are a lot the businesses that line the larger streets that pass through the residential neighborhoods. If you took the couple-story brick buildings and the businesses in them near Main and Liberty and replicated them along the entire lengths of Main, Liberty, State, Packard, Huron, and Stadium, you would have something like the residential neighborhoods of Chicago. There are also high rise apartments near the lake. And there’s a giant downtown with giant buildings. And giant parks. Parking structures under the parks. Parking structures with facades that match the neighboring buildings. And lots of ‘M’ sweatshirts.
posted by A Different Jon on March 30th, 2005 at 7:57 am
Jeez, if this silly greenway plan also calls for knocking down old houses, I’m definitely against it. Old houses and other buildings constructed before architecture died as an art form are one of the things that make Ann Arbor interesting. Not to mention the injustice of telling people who live in those houses that they have to leave their homes so the city can plant some more grass.
posted by Dave on March 30th, 2005 at 8:54 am
That was one of the things that sucked most about Chicago - you’d go to Duffy’s bar on Diversy and be surrounded by Michigan frat boys named Chad with beer paunches five years out, and sorositutes trying to hide the fact that 4 years of Michigan Tanfastic sessions fucked their skin so bad that they look like latter day whores with the surface of mars etched into their faces. Certainly within a few minutes of being there you would have to hear Hail to the Victors - it’s in the fucking jukebox - and want to vomit. I go to Chicago to get the hell away from these people! And I’m all for knocking down houses in Ann Arbor. Raze the entire place. Don’t let the NIMBYs know until you barrel into their living room with a wrecking ball. Then laugh like a pirate.

But seriously, I think the Chicago analogy is a good one. There are a lot of empty spaces in Ann Arbor that could be filled with residences that increase density. I wince when I see ads for housing in the sprawling subdivisions - “Start building your equity - just ten minutes from Downtown Ann Arbor” Downtown Ann Arbor needs to draw people in so that these people will have something worth driving ten minutes to see. There needs to be at least some degree of density to sustain businesses that don’t simply go under. I think people like mucho fuckhead don’t realize that a city can be vibrant, that just because 66 percent of the store fronts in detroit are closed, that Ann Arbor doesn’t need to be the same way. Just last night I noticed three recently closed businesses on Main that now have for lease signs.
posted by DrMandrake on March 30th, 2005 at 9:19 am
Dave, I think the plan was to acquire those houses through attrition… though in my opinion the only thing small houses should be knocked down for is more downtown housing.

I, too, think “linear parks” (trails) can be a great idea. I’d love to see Ypsi and AA better connected for cyclists (for example), but I think that could be done without bringing the AA downtown into things.

In Connecticut, they are working to connect all the parks/beaches that are on the ocean so that someday you might be able to walk from one end of the state to the other along the waterfront. But the reason it’s necessary is that currently, you simply cannot walk because of private property, major highways (I-95), and unrehabbed, abandoned industrial sites in some of the harbors. And CT also has a series of trails that criss-cross almost the entire state from East to West and North to South (away from the water, mostly on forested ridges) called the Blue Trail system — these trails connect with the East Coast’s Appalachain Trail (which extends from Georgia to Maine). As an avid hiker, I am thrilled that people generations ago were forward-thinking enough to preserve and acquire public right-of-ways that make these trails possible (and the generousity of the private property owners who allow the trails to remain on their property). But the thing is that you can walk almost everywhere in Ann Arbor — you can walk from the Arb to Gallup park, you can walk along sidewalks to get from West Park to the arb — or to Burns park, or whatever; there isn’t intervening 8-lane highway or private property, or lack of right-of-way that prevents the parks from being connected to one another. I just don’t understand why such a “greenway” is necessary — it’s not going to turn into the kind trail system where you could hike and camp, it’s just basically going to be a long sidewalk surrounded by trees — or that’s the way it sounds.

Am I missing something here? I’m interested because I can’t imagine the position of people who think it’s a good idea and can’t glean that from any of the articles — all I’m hearing from them is “green = good” — but if these are reasonable people, there *must* be something more to it than that (not that I would necessarily agree, but I’d at least like to understand). Can anyone who is pro-greenway tell me why?

Anna
posted by Anna on March 30th, 2005 at 9:26 am
Just a question: Do you think increasing the number of residents who live downtown will really work in Ann Arbor? Are the public services necessary going to be able to find space to come back?

It seems I’ve heard people talking about the need for a light rail system, more comprehensive public trans. Increasing density downtown without, say, a place for those people to buy groceries, or a pharmacy nearby, is just asking for more people who will have to continue to use their cars as if they’d moved to within 10 minutes of Ann Arbor.

The Lower Town development includes space for (and retains) the small shops and service industry businesses. That’s why I think it will work (though I’m a bit concerned about the boutique hotel part of it).

Lifer
posted by Anonymous on March 30th, 2005 at 9:31 am
I used to get loaded with my college buddy and we would jump on the train around Fingerme Lumber. Then ride till we were at the Huron and jump off. Remeber Lansky’s? I guess I’m too old for this blog but I know the sevret; sophisticated technology.
posted by Ypsidweller on March 30th, 2005 at 9:32 am
Has anyone read a cost estimate for the Greenway project?

Chad
posted by Anonymous on March 30th, 2005 at 9:36 am
This isn’t the real Mucho Gusto. The real Mucho Gusto came out *against* the NIMBY tactics of the city last year, and bemoaned the loss of local businesses.

We’d all be wise to just ignore this.
posted by todd on March 30th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Am I missing something here?

Yes, The complete irony of Ann Arbor. A conundrum, wrapped in a riddle, with a dash of no common sense.
posted by Bobo on March 30th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Chad,

To clarify again, the Greenway proposal doesn’t exist, except to say that two groups have said that “they want a greenway running through town”.

There are very few details in either the Friends or Joe O’Neal’s vision of the Greenway. Neither group knows how much their visions will cost. O’Neal has come the closest with a guesstimation of $75 million, although there isn’t much to base this price on.

One thing that I can say after speaking with Mr. O’Neal is that he has no interest in knocking houses down, and he didn’t know where that rumor started.
posted by todd on March 30th, 2005 at 10:34 am
I’ve walked the tracks on football Saturdays thru all of downtown where it crosses streets at grade and I just don’t see all that much room to have a safe, separated walking path.

I also don’t think the Ann Arbor Railroad is going anywhere either - they may share some of their right of way but they’re pretty profitable. A lot of the stuff they haul thru town (just south of 6 mile road all the way down to Toledo) is sand and grain. Granted, they go thru town mostly in the early AM but they’re going thru town during mid afternoon a lot lately too. Point is, trains are on unpredictable schedules, esp a shortline like the Annie, and they’re deceptively quiet at times. I just don’t see the sense in people walking along side a working rail line unless it can be made safe. Then there’s the aesthetic question - it’s pretty ugly thru there!
posted by Thomas Cook on March 30th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Todd:
Here is where the loss of 100 residences “rumour” came from:
“…And the owner of Kerrytown Market and O’Neal Construction isn’t shy about his plans. O’Neal said about half of the land for the greenway would involve buying about 100 residences and some businesses, if the sellers were willing, over the next 50 years. The rest of the land would come from the city and the University of Michigan….”
(Ann Arbor News, March 20, 2005)

If Joe didn’t say this, he should get a hold of the Ann Arbor News and request a correction.

Cost estimate of $75 million was in the same article and came from Fred Beal of the DDA, president of JC Beal Construction. Probably just a wild ass guess on his part.
posted by Delgado on March 30th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Wow… they plan to take land away from UM? Or is UM expected to happily hand it over?
posted by Anna on March 30th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
Anna: It will be occupied by the sitters of the Green Revolution.
(And why do you care if Ypsi and Ann Arbor are connected via a better bike route? I mean, I care because I’d love to bike to Ypsi, but you moved!)

Something that I think is going on here, at least in part, is that a lot of the Greenway folks seem to have started off with an outright rejection of the ’50s ideal of development, that modernist trope about how science will create cities of the future. I think that they’ve swung entirely back to the other side, with an odd reactionary Idyllism, which envisions bare feet on rolling hills somehow supporting a functional urban environment.
I’d like to see more work done on showing people that development can have huge benefits if done well (and try to assure them that the pro-development folks are both a little more savy and a little less arrogant than the modernist antecedents). I think that might be able to soften the blow, at least a little…
posted by js on March 30th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
JS — I just care because I like the idea of people being able to actually transport themselves from one place to another (rather than just biking or walking around in a circle or on a path that doesn’t really go anywhere), and Ypsi-Ann Arbor seems like as good a place to start as any. I am jealous of the opportunity, because to bike to my office from my neighborhood, I’d need a bullet-proof vest.
posted by Anna on March 30th, 2005 at 6:32 pm
Anna,

When I was attending some of the earlier meetings about Lowertown development, the U and the planning folks from the City were hashing out lots of cooperative ideas. I found that to be really great, and said so to the university representatives who attended…so there is a precident to cooperation between the U and Ann Arbor, not simply antagonism all the time. I think there is a lot of room for common ground. I’m sick of all the Town vs. Gown attitudes.

I like living in Ann Arbor BEACAUSE it’s a university town.
posted by OFWinsurgent on March 30th, 2005 at 6:37 pm
BTW, If anyone is going to any of these meetings, it might be worthwhile to distribute the New Yorker article from a couple months ago about how living in cities is the most efficient, greenest thing you can do. It was a great article.
posted by Anna on March 30th, 2005 at 6:37 pm
OFW Insurgent — That was a serious question, however flippantly phrased. I think it’s reasonable to wonder if a university or any other business or nonprofit would want to hand land over for that sort of use. If the town/gown antagonism implied by my comment ruffles your feathers, substitute any other organization in town. Anyway, if the UM truly is interested in seeing a greenway, I wonder what they think the merits are.
posted by Anna on March 30th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
I don’t know that they are specifically for a greenway, but I think there are some people there who would like to placate the town a bit now and then. Hell, they own everything anyway and actually have to sell stuff off now and again since they are bequeathed so much real estate. It certainly wouldn’t hurt them from a PR standpoint.
posted by OFWinsurgent on March 30th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Be that as it may, I guess my real question was about how much of the greenway plan/idea is wishful (unrealistic?) thinking (people will leave their houses, the city can buy the houses, the houses can be torn down, the University of Michigan could lend some land to the effort, $75M to support the project will be attained, the tracks will be wide enough, the trains will stop running). I guess the subjunctive mood is a perfectly fine one for this project, but maybe it’s not worth sweating.
posted by Anna on March 30th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
I think Joe’s plan is pretty long-term (50+ years). I have talked to him at some length about Kerrytown and some of his other historical property, and he is a very thoughtful and visionary person who has a lot of respect for history and also for this city.
I trust that if his idea is good, he could find a way of making it happen, whether or not he spearheads the entire thing or if it works its way into the City’s master plan in some form.

I just think it’s fascinating and encouraging so many people are interested. I’m so looking forward to the thing at Leopold’s. (I’ll even bring some artisinal cheese, ha-ha.)
posted by OFWinsurgent on March 30th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
I think there actually is a county task force working on a path/greenway/whatever you want to call it along the Huron River, although it seems to be getting little attention amid the current debates. Generally I think waterways are the best places for linear parks/paths and I think it could be more than just a sidewalk and less controversial, expensive, and intrusive than some of the downtown proposals.

It would be nice to be able to cycle from Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti on a pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle only path. Huron River Road heading west also gets really crowded with bikes and cars when the weather is decent (in fact I was hit by a truck last fall while cycling and minding my own business and following all the laws), and though I would probably stay on the road I can imagine a lot of people out for a nice ride rather than a fast workout might like a river path. I also see people strolling on the road sometimes and I feel bad for them because there is not much of a shoulder and it is pretty dangerous.

Anyone who has been in Cambridge Mass on a nice spring weekend day when they close down the road by the Charles should be able to attest to how nice it can be to have a road by the river without cars. A lot of the problems facing this are simply easements to connect public lands through private lands and I hope the downtown anti-density crowd doesn’t damage the concept of the Huron River greenway by association. Running such a linear park through the city seems much harder–ideally for a greenway this would be some sort of rails-to-trails endeavor, but this doesn’t seem like a good idea since that railroad could have some really important uses (in addition to the current one) if we ever get some mass transit around here.

Why not good development in the city and a linear park along the Huron?
posted by Matt on March 30th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
Matt,

I heard tell you were drunk when you finally made it to the ER after your accident…or maybe it was your friends.

Anyway, great idea about the county Greenway Advisory group. I know they’ve been working on a possible river greenway for a while but have faced opposition from “environmental” groups. Seems these groups (and yes, they are the usual anti-development suspects) don’t even want them to put a footbridge in as a part of the plan! God forbid area residents actually interact with the river on a walk other than just seeing it from the banks.
posted by KBlow on March 31st, 2005 at 9:29 am
What land does the U have that would be useful to any of the suggested greenways? (Unless folks are thinking of a 20-foot-wide ROW through the athletic campus?)

Personally, I think that if we (the city) are going to be going to the U, hat in hand, for anything, we ought to be looking at some of the vast seas of parking in Lower Town, rather than strips of the athletic campus . . .
posted by Murph on March 31st, 2005 at 10:30 am
Lowertown is what I was thinking. There is a lot of potential there. I haven’t been following the process down there too much recently, however.
posted by OFWinsurgent on March 31st, 2005 at 12:36 pm
OFWi, re Lower Town progress: they’ve started knocking down buildings for the Broadway Village project. Apparently they’re at 65% or so pre-leased; when they hit 75%, DDA will release money for infrastructure improvements. At that point, the bulldozers rampage through the old Kroger (I sooooo want to watch), level the site, haul off the contaminated soil, and start building. That’s apparently about 3-4 months off.

Also, Ed Schaffran bought the old Suzuki tech center (on the hill behind northside) and is going to be breaking it into condos. Too much more change beyond that will start to require the University letting go of some parking.
posted by Murph on April 1st, 2005 at 4:42 pm
I remember the initial meetings…Peter Allen was going to build an Italian-style piazza where the Kroger lot is…fountain and everything. They were even talking about a bar on the river. Even the old MichCon/Edison property was in play at the time.

I too want to see the old Kroger bulldozed. Sounds like a party opportunity to me.
posted by OFWinsurgent on April 1st, 2005 at 8:54 pm
Since the old Kroger was the only one I could walk to for a time, I think it’s too bad that it was such a gross store. Hopefully at least one of the grocery store proposals will come through.
posted by Anna on April 2nd, 2005 at 10:37 am
So much for the old Suzuki Tech Center being turned into cheap artists live-work space and a theater. Oh well.
posted by Brandon on April 2nd, 2005 at 1:56 pm
I remember the ghetto Kroger too…it was the closest “big box” store to my house, so I would go there when I had to get stuff I couldn’t get in town (cleaning supplies, pet food, etc.) The produce and meat was hideous…the lines leading up to each scarce and surly cashier reminded me of the Soviet Union.

The sad thing was, it was a GREAT place for a grocery store. Ample parking, not a huge behemouth super-center. The problem is that any of the chains wouldn’t open there because their profit profiile relies now on having a mega-mall size operation with aisles and aisles of junk food and pop, as well as a skeevy salad and “hot” bar. Yetch. Too bad people buy that crap (at huge mark-up) because it just encourages them.
posted by OFWinsurgent on April 3rd, 2005 at 10:14 am
I agree it’s a great spot for a grocery store, and the scale was good for efficient shopping. I grew up in NY where somehow we escaped the whole grocery store mega-mall phenomenon (untl recently, anyway). They are a pain in the ass to shop in — I wish more people felt that way because it would drive the Meijers of the world out of business.
posted by Anna on April 4th, 2005 at 11:02 am
In the town where I grew up, there was a Kroger, but it was pretty small. I think the whole giganto concept was pretty much lauched in the late 80s, except for Meijer, which has been around a while. I don’t think they were known for “freshness” and good variety, just cheap. I am often surprised when I go into one of those giant places (maybe once or twice a year) at how much their quality has improved. Still, I am philisophically opposed to supporting businesses like that. It’s amazing to me how many people are so wired to save a freaking dime that they will drive to one of those places, endure the crowds and support such a conglomerate. This goes triple for Walmart.
posted by OFWinsurgent on April 4th, 2005 at 4:15 pm