War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, NIMBYism Is Environmentalism
Murph gives a fascinating account of Doug Cowherd’s recent appearance at the Department of Urban Planning that explores the local Sierra Club bigwig’s “beyond smooth” rhetorical tactics for blunting criticism of his organization as an anti-density NIMBY lobby. At the event, Cowherd described “things people send me occasionally that they’ve found online” as “amazing, simply Orwellian.”
We have always been at war with the Old West Side. We have never been at war with the Old Fourth Ward.
I went to Leopold Bros this afternoon to get some change for laundry and a hefe and I saw Todd monkeying with the jukebox. Thank god - because Todd has good musical taste. I was going to ask you what ever happened to the Charette you were planning on holding, but you had to run off. So what’s the word, t?
posted by DrMandrake on April 28th, 2005 at 6:20 pmMake sure to also read Dale’s version of things.
posted by Murph on April 28th, 2005 at 6:27 pmTodd, last I heard, said it was going to be mid-to-late May. Maybe it was just his tactic for the urban planners meeting, but the guy likes to talk and doesn’t seem to want a real discussion.
posted by Dale on April 28th, 2005 at 6:39 pmTrying for the third sunday in May. Getting everyone to agree on a time is really hard. I’m trying to confirm Kiwanis and the DDA first before I move on to other parties.
Its been a pretty frustrating processs, and I have to say that my new focus is to get the Sierra Club and the various neighborhood groups to sign off on allowing 15 story buildings in the downtown area with no protest. Julie and others have convinced me that citizens either aren’t interested in, or don’t have the time to participate in, the adjustment of the Master Plans. This being the case, the most helpful thing that citizens can do is to lift their objection to tall buildings so that development can begin in earnest.
One of the things that I forgot to ask Doug when I spoke on the phone is the Sierra Club’s position on tall buildings. What he *did* say is that he, like Margaret Wong, is *for* density. Now if we can get these groups to say “by density, we mean you can build as tall as you want downtown”, then we are really getting somewhere, and the desire for more parks in Ann Arbor will become less of a problem. If, however, the groups maintain that “we need to evaluate that on a case by case basis”, then we are stuck in our current position where developers are sitting on land, and can’t build because of neighborhood opposition.
Yeah, Mandrake, I was putting in the Flaming Lips’ ‘Late Night’ compilation in….suggested by Alex here at AAIO. Surprised to hear you were drinking the hefeweizen?!
posted by todd on April 29th, 2005 at 9:50 amThe hefe is good. I am always debating whether yours or ABC is better. Well, Leopold Bros is closer to my apartment, so you win. But I do think it is a better beer - I had Bliss last night and it had no bite - I switched to Sacred Cow AKA my one way ticket to immediate drunkeness (6% alc?). I alternate between the Pilsner and the Hefe right now.
Good job on the Flaming Lips album. Next time I see you there I will say hi.
posted by DrMandrake on April 29th, 2005 at 10:15 amYou’ve got your work cut out for you, Todd. Cowherd told us he was pro-density, as well, but said we don’t need another Campus Inn type of tower to kill street life (intentionally replacing height for bad ground floor exterior). He also railed against Corner House Lofts and North Main condos as being insensitive to the community. Maybe it would be productive to call his bluff on the “200 sites” claim and see where HE thinks densification could happen.
posted by Dale on April 29th, 2005 at 10:33 amMurph–
“Neighorhood groups have never successfully opposed a development, and he dares us to name one.”
Dicken Woods?
From their own website:
“In November 2002, the Dicken neighborhood of Ann Arbor learned of an imminent threat to the nature area known as Dicken Woods: a Novi developer’s proposal would destroy the woods. The neighbors joined forces, and over the course of one year, In November 2002, the Dicken neighborhood of Ann Arbor learned of an imminent threat to the nature area known as Dicken Woods: a Novi developer’s proposal would destroy the woods. The neighbors joined forces, and over the course of one year”
And, of course, they have a Sierra Club “Conservation Activist Award” on their site, too.
http://www.dickenwoods.org/
posted by archipunk on April 29th, 2005 at 4:26 pmhee-this is a weird web-site. Are you really serious about this? An entire weblog dedicated to talking about how overrated ann arbor is?
Methinks you need a real crusade ;0..
Whats the deal with all the anti-enviro stuff here anyway bashing vegans, tree huggers etc? Are “we” a right wing blog? Is that why “we” hate ann arbor-too lefty for “our” taste?
Anyway speaking of overrated some other really overrated cities -New York City, Boston and LA.
They might suit you more though-you won’t find any of them damn trees, shrubs, wildlife etc.
Its all about malls, large crowds of people, big chains, pollution and all the cool stuff big cities should be about
.
I think most people are happier if they can forget about them wide outdoors, rare species of plants, birds, butterflies etc. and surround themselves with reality tv, the most current news about Brittany Spears and American Idol etc. and not be stuck in “hick” towns with birders, nature enthusiasts etc.
posted by Daria on April 29th, 2005 at 9:16 pmclick on link for “cool” pics of Big House.
posted by Ms. Leckrone on April 29th, 2005 at 9:28 pmDear Daria:
Breathe, then shush.
Love, Jen.
posted by Jen on April 29th, 2005 at 9:40 pmMan, Daria, you must be kidding. Ann Arbor, left wing? I mean, they talk the talk, but they never, ever implement it.
And I’ve been called pretty far right. I’m not some discontented liberal.
posted by RDS on April 30th, 2005 at 5:22 amI must be doing something wrong, because last time I was in nyc I saw a lot more parks than malls. Daria, can you tell me how to get the true big city experience??? If only new york had a briarwood or arborland…
posted by Anonymous on April 30th, 2005 at 12:35 pmDaria -
Knock off the fucking emoticons.
Mandrake
posted by DrMandrake on April 30th, 2005 at 1:07 pmHow old is the Daria in the cartoons? I think this one is younger. Actually, I think this is one of those times that you run into someone online that you could have legally concieved while legally drunk.
posted by A Different Jon on April 30th, 2005 at 9:57 pmwell she has a point. if you hate ann arbor so, why do you bother to follow the city council and like things that 99% of the population can’t be bothered to follow?
moving on
Why should there be tall buildings? What will they be used for? I’m not opposing you, i just haven’t heard anyone explain why we should have them.
posted by ed on May 1st, 2005 at 12:17 pm“Why should there be tall buildings? What will they be used for?”
I am assuming that this is a serious question.
1. better tax base
2. more walkable city
3. freeze the prop taxes where they are
4. more businesses downtown
5. contain sprawl
6. better use of land
7. hold rent costs down
8. make light rail feasable
9. make it so entrepreneurs stop converting homes into apartments.
etc. etc. etc………
posted by todd on May 1st, 2005 at 12:27 pmTodd,
I’ve heard these arguments before and some I agree with and some I don’t, but I certainly don’t understand the “more walkable city.” How can tall buildings make a more walkable city? The wind tunnels alone are enough in themselves to keep people off the street. Even Kunstler dislikes tall buildings. I agree with the six to seven stories, but if they are much taller they become a logistical nightmare with sewer, electrical, and fire fighting requirements that can overwhelm any density advantages they might bring.
posted by Juliew on May 1st, 2005 at 4:26 pmJust to add to the list of things the Sierra Club has fought: the Bluffs, a condo development on N. Main that is now essentially a private park for the neighborhood as there is limited public access, and, my favorite, a trail extension that will connect the Hudson Mills Metropark to the Village of Dexter. They were opposed to part of the trail that allowed for a pedestrian bridge across the Huron River, a trail that will play an important component of the Border to Border Trail which is an effort of the County Greenways Advisory committee. Guess they’re not so consistent when it comes to supporting greenway initiatives. You can see their opposition letter at: http://michigan.sierraclub.org/huron/hcma.htm
posted by Meg on May 1st, 2005 at 4:32 pmBully for Kunstler — he lives in Saratoga Springs, for pete’s sake. Taller buildings, by reorganizing residential and commercial space vertically, reduces the need to organize horizontally, beyond the limits of pedestrian travel. This is predicated on a few conditions, like a more or less continous streetscape (contiguous buildings) and an existing modest walkability (with regular block sizes).
posted by Dale on May 1st, 2005 at 5:39 pmQuestion(s) — wouldn’t Ann Arbor still need to build out from the 3 block wide downtown? If you built ten stories above Dinersty, the rest of the world would still have Dinersty. If you built 20 stories above Leopold Bros., todd might be able to turn half of his space into a grocery store. The rest of the world would still have Leopold Bros. — and a grocery store. From what I understand, the neighbors would still suck.
You guys need to mandate a red light district and catfish museum in Lowertown.
posted by A Different Jon on May 1st, 2005 at 10:42 pmAmen Juliew! The quality of the street level experience goes down appreciably when the building heights get far beyond 5 - 6 stories.
posted by Anonymous on May 2nd, 2005 at 1:12 amYou are both kidding, right?
First of all, A Different Jon, the idea is that more people could be housed above the businesses if the buildings were taller (plus more office space, etc.). Have you ever driven around Ann Arbor outside of the immediate downtown? Sprawl. Office Parks. Strip malls, McMansions. There’s no reason that the offices in those office parks couldn’t be housed in floors 2-15 of a multi-story building, rather than being out in the middle of nowhere land (and some businesses are out there simply because of the dearth of suitable office space).
Anonymous, I don’t know of any decent city in the US that limits itself to short buildings. DC does, but remember, I said “decent”. Certainly cities like Chicago, New York, London, etc. demonstrate how the quality of the street-level experience can exceed that found in Ann Arbor.
If I didn’t suspect otherwise, I’d think you two were just being ironic.
posted by Anna on May 2nd, 2005 at 8:30 amAnna,
Sorry, I disagree. I’ve spent quite a bit of time in DC and if you explore the city, it has a lot going for it including an excellent mass transit system and a street level experience that I think is enhanced by not being forced to walk through wind-swept canyons (except for the mess of offices built by lobbyists near the Capitol). I’ve been to Chicago and New York (can’t speak to London) and while both offer a lot to experience, can you seriously claim that you find walking down streets bereft of sunlight and in a constantly swirl of building-induced winds to be a pleasurable experience? I don’t.
posted by Anonymous on May 2nd, 2005 at 8:48 amSix and seven story buildings are pretty unusual in Ann Arbor as it is — and about as urban as it gets in most of the world. I’d gladly settle for more of those.
Washington DC (with 4-7 story buildings everywhere) may look sprawled in comparison to Manhattan, but it is wonderfully dense and efficient compared to any city in Michigan including Detroit.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on May 2nd, 2005 at 9:12 amFlaming Lips?! I asked for Joe Cocker!
posted by Alexandra S. on May 2nd, 2005 at 9:14 amWindswept canyons? Come on — this is not block after superblock of sheer towers, this is several larger buildings spread throughout downtown and other parts of the city.
And, if I may speak slowly and clearly — tall. buildings. do. not. detract. from. street. life. Bad buildings do. As it happens, most of the tall buildings in Ann Arbor have setbacks or those stupid arcades that were popular in the 60s and 70s — they don’t necessarily have to.
I do not enjoy the Corner House Lofts. I think that it is an unimaginative building and BW3 was a mediocre choice for its first floor. But they built to the sidewalk, they put in big windows, and a lot of people like the place — it has incontrovertibly improved street life there by being an attraction and by being an engaging presence for passersby. (Whenever I walk by I look through the windows to try to see if the Tigers or Pistons are on and what the score is).
It’s time for people to stop reiterating Cowherd’s talking points (which, after talking to him, I am sure they are doing), and start either developing their own arguments for NIMBYism, or start thinking broadly about the future of this town and the necessary actions that will make it more than another Petoskey.
posted by Dale on May 2nd, 2005 at 9:52 amA few points about tall buildings downtown:
(1) You can build tall buildings and lessen (or eliminate) the wind tunnel effect by setting back the building over successive stories, a la the old skyscrapers of New York. This also increases the amount of light that gets to the street. Ideally the majority of the mass of a building would be at the center of a city block.
(2) Quality of materials and the treatment of the facade below the third story are really all that matters to a pedestrian walking by the building. One of the tallest buildings downtown - the office building on the SE corner of Washington and Fourth - is deceptive to people , who hardly ever notice its height because the matierals are nice and the street-level storefront is full of interest.
These were the conclusions by members of the City Planning Commission and Planning Staff several years ago, when they studied the idea of limiting building height in the city by walking around the downtown and categorizing every single building taller than 4 stories, and discussing it at the yearly retreat. In sum, the QUALITY of the street face matters much, much more than any random building height limit the council might try to enforce.
posted by KGS on May 2nd, 2005 at 10:03 amDale,
1) I don’t speak from Cowherd’s talking points. Believe it or not, people of different backgrounds and experiences can reach the same conclusions without being part of some grand conspiracy.
2) My concerns about the street level experience in Ann Arbor have nothing to do with NIMBYism. I’m supportive of more development downtown. As Larry noted, even 4 - 7 story building are the exception. However, I’m against the scale of structures that “some” people have presented as the goal of downtown development.
3) Related to #2 is that no one has really articulated a vision of how larger buildings would be incorporated into the downtown. You state “this is not block after superblock of sheer towers, this is several larger buildings spread throughout downtown and other parts of the city”. But where has that vision been placed on paper? People aren’t going to buy into change if they can’t visualize how this change will affect the City.
4) I don’t disagree that the quality of the street experience is largely crafted by the ground-level uses, materials, architecture, etc. A block of 4 story parking garages isn’t much better than a superblock of a 20 story high structure. But to act as if the loss of sunlight, wind conditions, etc. generated by taller buildings is not even worthy of discussion seems to show a serious disconnect between theory and reality. If you can’t even acknowledge that these are legitimate problems, than this will be a pretty pointless discussion.
5) As Juliew stated, the problems with tall buildings can extend beyond just the street level experience. She raised several points that no one bothered to address.
posted by Anonymous on May 2nd, 2005 at 10:22 amThe First National Bank Building on the corner of S. Main and Washington is ten stories tall and is a lovely building, but I don’t see that sort of building with those details being built today. 202 E. Washington (on the SE corner of 4th and Washington) is seven stories tall. Corner House Lofts is eight stories tall. I think that is a decent maximum height for downtown Ann Arbor and no, I don’t mind Corner House Lofts. It is better than most that have been built downtown in the last forty years. Dale, I have heard Doug Cowherd speak exactly one time and I thought he was an ass. So don’t assume everyone else is parroting his talking points.
posted by Juliew on May 2nd, 2005 at 10:42 am“How can tall buildings make a more walkable city?”
Very simply put, it puts more people in a smaller area, making it much easier for businesses to exist in that area. This, in turn, makes it easier for businessess like groceries to exist, which in turn makes a city even more walkable.
Instead, we have chosen to nearly eliminate construction downtown……so guess where the new grocery store goes? The new Whole Foods is walking distance from a handful of residences, has another big impervious surface (parking lot and associated buildings), and a large portion of what used to be greenspace (which Ann Arborites purportedly value) is now paved over. Now I ask you, where were the “environmental” groups or greenway supporters when Whole Foods was proposed? It took away greenspace….where was the outcry?
As to your claims of infastructure nightmares…you may very well be correct since previous city councils have completely ignore routine maintenance and upgrades for decades (storm water handling comes to mind), so downtown may very well not be well suited for high rises. I honestly don’t know if this is the case or not. Developers I know think that it is fine for tall construction, but I don’t know for certain.
I will say this, though, that’s what engineers are for. No problem is unsolvable, but you have to have the $$ to do it (read: property taxes), which we don’t really have since we chose not to build for decades.
You know, the sad thing is that Julie’s 7 story buildings would have probably taken care of the problem if we had agressively built them over the past 20 years…..since we chose not to, we are now in a position where a 7 story building is forced to hand out rents that are so high that the buildings are no longer affordable for any but the wealthiest (read: corporate) of tenants. Taller buildings are pretty much financially mandated at this point.
All of my discussions of taller buildings are mute anyway…..citizens in downtown will fight them with their very last breath. They will never happen……
posted by todd on May 2nd, 2005 at 11:15 am“So don’t assume everyone else is parroting his talking points”
It’s a conclusion, not an assumption.
posted by Dale on May 2nd, 2005 at 12:13 pmJuliew, you say that ‘I don’t see that sort of building with those details being built today.’ What do you think, then, of the Ashley Mews office building? it is 9 stories, built of amazingly beautiful materials (real limestone, copper, bronze, and brick), and is new construction. But on the other hand, must all downtown buildings be historical rehash and made of brick? can’t we have modern, good-looking buildings??
Juliew: How can tall buildings make a more walkable city?
Todd answered this, and his point is exactly right: the more people who live downtown, work downtown, and do errands downtown, the more walkable this city will be. It’s that simple.
Juliew: The wind tunnels alone are enough in themselves to keep people off the street.
On the other hand, no matter WHAT building types will be built on Fifth or Division, they will be wind-tunnels in the winter, with fierce freezing winds blowing down them. Why? because they go north-south, and the winter winds come from the north! short of redirecting the wind or completely changing the grid structure of the streets of A2, I don’t see much that would change this.
Juliew: I agree with the six to seven stories, but if they are much taller they become a logistical nightmare with sewer, electrical, and fire fighting requirements that can overwhelm any density advantages they might bring.
These reasons are not really true. Tall buidings are expensive to build because they are (1) required to have sprinklers and (2) are required to have on-site generators that run those sprinklers. Once you get past those costs, there are no logistical difficulties. Also realize that any building taller than 5 stories will have these costs - so beyond 5 stories, the more stories you can build (up to a limit, obviously) the better you can absorb the costs of the generator and sprinklers. Fire-fighting isn’t much of an issue because those sprinklers are required, and the fire & saftey codes in buildings today are extremely high. The only logistical problem, realistically, with tall buildings in downtown Ann Arbor is that the sewer system is ancient. Many mains in this city are over a *century* old, and by all reasonable standards they shouldn’t be more than 50 years old. But that’s the city’s fault for not keeping up with their maintenance, and they are making plans to overhaul the system - plus the developers are chipping in on that cost, too.
posted by KGS on May 2nd, 2005 at 12:20 pmInstead, we have chosen to nearly eliminate construction downtown……so guess where the new grocery store goes? The new Whole Foods is walking distance from a handful of residences, has another big impervious surface (parking lot and associated buildings), and a large portion of what used to be greenspace (which Ann Arborites purportedly value) is now paved over. Now I ask you, where were the “environmental” groups or greenway supporters when Whole Foods was proposed? It took away greenspace….where was the outcry?
Under no circumstances was Whole Foods going to put their Ann Arbor store downtown in a downtown building without a parking lot.
People seem very deluded about what effects large residential buildings might have downtown. Except for students in the campus area, very few people are going to be willing to move downtown without a place to keep a car. Ann Arbor is not Mahattan. And if people have a car, they will use it–to drive to Whole Foods (and Best Buy and Home Depot, etc). Which is why no businesses like those would be willing to locate downtown (there are no advantages in it–only drawbacks).
posted by mw on May 2nd, 2005 at 1:31 pmThe Whole Foods in DC (actually, I think it’s in Maryland technically - by the American University campus) doesn’t have a huge parking lot. They have a small underground one, and it’s very walkable/bus-accessible. Not too shabby. Still, somehow, I can’t see that being proposed and accepted in Ann Arbor.
KGS - Nicely put.
posted by Jen on May 2nd, 2005 at 1:37 pmThere are plenty of whole foods/wild oats that don’t have huge parking lots, even in suburban areas out here on the East Coast. Why? Because land is prohibitively expensive. It doesn’t stop people from shopping at those places. At one in Westport, CT they have valet parking (which, they have at the new one in Ann Arbor, right? and, WTF is up with that given that there is a good-sized lot?! ), at another, they tunnelled below the store for parking.
Also, to say that nobody is going to move into downtown without a place to park 1) presuposes that new housing downtown won’t make any provisions for parking (does anyone know that to be the case?), and that 2) defies what we already know about the downtown market (e.g., the lofts above the stores on Main Street sold like hotcakes when they were first made available — and for prices that met or exceeded the cost of many single family homes in areas not too far from the central downtown area).
As for sewer, etc., if there’s a market for housing downtown, the market can support upgrades — and it is the responsibility of the city to make sure that sewers can handle it. The problem isn’t going to be made any better by spreading the housing all over the place, and by doing that, Ann Arbor’s downtown will get weaker and weaker as supply can’t meet demand to live there and fewer reasons to visit (because of ringing strip malls). Sewers are a weak excuse — people have managed to live in cities for centuries. New York managed to build up its infastructure, so did Chicago, so did London, so did all the other cities. No insurmountable problems, just people looking for excuses.
posted by Anna on May 2nd, 2005 at 2:08 pmKGS–
You are right, the tall tower of Ashley Mews is nice. It isn’t graceful like the First National Building but it does have interesting details. One North Main, the Galleria, Tally Hall, and Tower Plaza are examples of buildings that I would not want to see built again. I’m actually quite fond of Maynard House, which is an example of a more modern-looking mixed-use building that works well for the setting.
The prevailing winds in this part of the country are almost always from the west (even in the winter) so east-west roads are more susceptible to wind-tunnel effects. Stand on the northwest corner of Maynard and William and then stand on the northwest corner of State and William one block west and tell me tall buildings don’t create uncomfortable wind currents.
I’m well acquainted with the sewer system in downtown Ann Arbor–it belches raw sewage into my basement and onto city streets on a semi-annual basis and we are in a part of the city where the sewer was replaced within the last ten years. The city has acknowledged that it is a problem and the whole thing needs to be overhauled. It will be years before this project is even begun.
Evacuation of tall buildings is still a logistical difficulty. Sprinklers don’t solve all problems. I’ve also talked to electricians pulling electrical from the downtown grids and Ann Arbor is close to maxing out.
And MW is correct, how many people are actually going to live in high-rise apartments/condos downtown? Unless gas is $5/gallon, most people won’t leave their big houses in the suburbs or exurbs to live in a 900/sq ft 14th-floor apartment downtown.
posted by Juliew on May 2nd, 2005 at 2:15 pm“Which is why no businesses like those would be willing to locate downtown (there are no advantages in it–only drawbacks).”
Well, that’s certainly an appropriate comment. Question: at what point will it make no sense for a healthy business like, say, Main Street Ventures to operate downtown?
At what point will it make sense for Leopold Bros. to cease production and move away from downtown?
I can answer the second one for ya…… maybe you can take a stab at the first and you’ll understand why I’m concerned about these issues in the first place.
You are coming across as someone who believes that sprawl is an inevitable American condition…is this the case?
posted by todd on May 2nd, 2005 at 2:28 pmJulie, I think students are part of the solution. Students would certainly like to live in downtown apartments if they were more affordable than houses. They also have a reason to live there–school.
Why is this interplay of student and non-student residences not thought about as an interrelationship, rather than as opposing or mutually exclusive forces?
posted by Dale on May 2nd, 2005 at 2:31 pmJuliew: You are right, the tall tower of Ashley Mews is nice. It isn’t graceful like the First National Building but it does have interesting details.
Thanks. I had a hand in that project, and I like to think we did a fairly good job considering the location wasn’t quite right (a building like that should really be on the corner, but the gas station wouldn’t sell) and the client’s needs.
Juliew: One North Main, the Galleria, Tally Hall, and Tower Plaza are examples of buildings that I would not want to see built again.
Hear, hear. I don’t like them either. That’s why I’m for urban design guidelines rather than strict building height limits; we can build short ugly buildings too easily. The trick is to design buildings - short or tall - that are pleasing to the pedestrian experience.
Juliew: The prevailing winds in this part of the country are almost always from the west (even in the winter) so east-west roads are more susceptible to wind-tunnel effects.
I thought so too, until I stood on the corner of Liberty and Fifth - man that’s a COLD wind coming down that street in the winter! it sure doesn’t come from the west, it comes from the north. Obviously not all the time though. I think the wind shifts from SW to NW going from summer to winter.
Juliew: Stand on the northwest corner of Maynard and William and then stand on the northwest corner of State and William one block west and tell me tall buildings don’t create uncomfortable wind currents.
Yes, Tower Plaza does have a wind-tunnel problem, because it is stick-straight with no setbacks at all; other buildings that have setbacks and taller buildings around them (like the First National building) don’t have the same problem.
Juliew: I’ve also talked to electricians pulling electrical from the downtown grids and Ann Arbor is close to maxing out.
…which is why new buildings in the downtown often have to give space to DTE to provide more power substations to provide the necessary power.
Juliew: how many people are actually going to live in high-rise apartments/condos downtown?
Oh let’s ask the dozens (hundreds?) of people who were turned away from Liberty Lofts after it sold out after just two days.
Seriously, if I could afford it, I would live downtown in a heartbeat. I’m in a house because there wasn’t any other choice.
posted by KGS on May 2nd, 2005 at 2:51 pmWind? Sewers? These are reasons not to have modestly tall buildings? Honestly, do you really believe that suburban sprawl is better than wind and the need for sewer upgrades? And do you think sewers magically appear in new housing developments?
posted by Anna on May 2nd, 2005 at 2:57 pmWell, that’s certainly an appropriate comment. Question: at what point will it make no sense for a healthy business like, say, Main Street Ventures to operate downtown?
Restaurants, bars, theaters, and gallerys are NOT like Home Depot, Best Buy, and Whole Foods. When you return from ‘Real Seafood’ the most you have to worry about hauling home is a doggie bag — no 2×4s or plywood, no TV or computer boxes, no trunkful of grocieries. And, obviously, being part of the crowd is part of the appeal of Main Street–not so at Home Depot or Best Buy where the goal is to get in and out as expeditiously as possible.
The existence of the downtown restaurants, bars, clubs, gallerys and little shops is, of course, the reason why people may be interested to live downtown–but they’re still going to drive to the grocery store. And all the other big box stores.
In the past when there were neighborhood grocery stores, the critical factor was that cars (not gas, *cars*) were very expensive–many families had no car and the vast majority had only the one that went with Dad to work, so there was a critical mass of people who needed a nearby grocery store and were willing (or had little choice) to trade proximity for higher prices and reduced variety. But those days are just not coming back.
posted by mw on May 2nd, 2005 at 3:03 pmMW — I honestly wouldn’t be so sure of that. Gas prices are going to keep rising. That’s not a guess, that’s a fact. New technologies that will significantly and practically reduce our dependence on gas for cars is still a way (some say a long way) off (and we can have a conversation offline about why the prius isn’t the answer). Furthermore, urban centers have been regrowing for over ten years now, with no sign of stopping — there is a sizeable portion of the population that realizes that suburbs simply aren’t for everyone. Sprawl is getting worse not because fewer people are living in city centers, it’s because peoples’ idea of what a reasonable sized suburban house/lot is has changed a lot in the last thirty years (new houses are on average double in square footage compared with those built in the 60s and 70s). If there is demand for housing in downtown Ann Arbor, which there is (see above), then there is no reason not to supply it — it’s better for the people who would like to live in town, and it’s better for the environment.
posted by Anna on May 2nd, 2005 at 3:23 pmI don’t think that you understood that nature of my question. I know this because you didn’t try and answer my question at all.
“Which is why no businesses like those would be willing to locate downtown (there are no advantages in it–only drawbacks).” From this statement I gather that you understand that something isn’t right downtown for Whole Foods to come in. I ask you to extend the same logic to the decision process for a local chain business owner.
“Restaurants, bars, theaters, and gallerys are NOT like Home Depot, Best Buy, and Whole Foods.”
Really? So bars, theaters, and restaurants are immune to market forces and don’t need parking? My brother will be thrilled to hear this!
In all seriousness, local businesses are failing and/or moving all over town for the exact same reason that Whole Foods isn’t coming in in the first place: high taxes, insane rent, not enough access to customers, and doubtful access to parking (in the consumer’s mind).
That’s the point I was trying to get to you. At what point to the above factors make it impossible for either Main St. Ventures or Leopold Bros. to continue operation downtown?
posted by todd on May 2nd, 2005 at 3:36 pm“Wind? Sewers? These are reasons not to have modestly tall buildings?”
No, they are problems that need to be addressed and not dismissed by a “bigger is better” mantra that ignores those concerns or paints them as a NIMBY attitude. As just one example for you Anna, since you raised the point, NYC’s way of handling storm water runoff is to dump that runoff into the Hudson and East Rivers - that’s why the water quality of those bodies of water is akin to an open sewer. But I guess those of us with concerns are just supposed to keep our mouths shut and embrace the idea that Ann Arbor streets will be a better place when they are in a perpetual shadow from the glorious new skyline.
posted by Anonymous on May 2nd, 2005 at 3:37 pmWow, a lot of good points, but also a lot to respond to here.
One aspect of walkable downtowns which has barely been touched on is the sense of enclosure provided by a continuous street wall, uninterrupted by gas stations and parking lots.
I do want to see much taller height limits, but I think creating a lot of seven story buildings is likely to be more workable, in all the ways discussed already.
20-story buildings should be permitted, but don’t forget that they are MORE expensive per square foot than 7-story buildings, not cheaper, and the unit cost rises with each added story. The only two forces which support buildings that tall are (1) extremely high land costs, which we don’t have, and (2) corporate or builder vanity.
(As a general rule, contrary to what many assume, the cost per square foot of a building rises with its size. Larger buildings need more space for hallways and elevators, more elaborate services, etc. Economies of scale in construction apply to Levittown style projects, when thousands of identical houses are built the same way.)
Basically all ground-floor space in new construction downtown, regardless of number of stories or zoning restrictions, will be for corporate chain businesses. That’s economic reality. Replacing a block of funky local stores with a 20-story mixed-use structure may be a win for density and people living downtown, but it is never going to be a win for low-rent retail.
It probably won’t be a win for street life unless what was there before wasn’t very good, and/or stringent zoning rules mandate street wall articulation and other necessary features which are otherwise extremely low priority for developers who really prefer reliable tenants like bank branches. Again, economic reality.
To maintain the viability and appeal of downtown, yes, we need more and taller buildings, but we don’t want to have them show up all at once, replacing everything with chain stores. Rather, they should arrive gradually one by one. And indeed, this is likely to be the way it happens.
Responding to some points above: no one has “chosen to eliminate construction downtown”. It seems to me that quite a few projects have taken place over the last 30 years. But Ann Arbor is a small island in the midst of Detroit exurbia, with most of the local consumers living in detached single family homes on large lots, and it is totally unrealistic to expect out-of-town chains to apply Boston or New York rules to projects here. It’s not the land use rules that drive this, it’s the dominant form of transportation in the region.
“But on the other hand, must all downtown buildings be historical rehash and made of brick? can’t we have modern, good-looking buildings??”
“Modern” buildings, constructed according to the rigid Stalinist moralism which has dominated architecture since World War II, are precisely the enemy here. It is Modernism which demonized concepts like fitting buildings into a context (Saarinen was nearly read out of the profession for Yale dorms which echoed the texture of nearby Gothic buildings), supporting street life, and so on.
As several pro-density bloggers commented, that 300-block North Main tower might be under construction by now if it had not been an awful Modernist design with blank street walls. Much as I want to see more stuff downtown, I wouldn’t have welcomed such a deadly addition.
Modernism in architecture was a brief and brutal failure, like Communism. Let it go.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on May 2nd, 2005 at 3:50 pmThat’s the point I was trying to get to you. At what point to the above factors make it impossible for either Main St. Ventures or Leopold Bros. to continue operation downtown?
Sorry–I thought you were suggesting that because the restaurants were succeeding downtown that any business might. My sense–there is a lot of value in downtown locations for restaurants, bars, etc. The urban atmosphere is a big part of the appeal. Having a lot of options and being able to pick one at the last minute based on a whim (or the length of the wait) is a plus. And parking is needed, but it doesn’t have to be at the front door because you’re not hauling anything. We live over by the Arb and drive downtown for dinner when the weather’s crummy. We’re not put off by parking, really–finding a place to park seems to be less of a problem on Friday or Saturday nights than finding a place to *sit* in a reasonable amount of time.
If the rent is ‘insane’ it is because the location is valuable. If that changes and businesses can’t make a go of it at the going rates, then rents will have to come down, but that doesn’t seem to be happening so far–not in the Mainstreet area, at any rate.
posted by mw on May 2nd, 2005 at 4:07 pmMW — I honestly wouldn’t be so sure of that. Gas prices are going to keep rising. That’s not a guess, that’s a fact.
Doesn’t really matter–there’s no forseeable increase that is going to make driving a couple of miles to the grocery store in, say, a 2010 era hybrid vehicle unaffordable. In another decade, people may be using rechargeable electric ‘city cars’ to make that grocery store or appliance store run, but they’ll be making it just the same.
posted by mw on May 2nd, 2005 at 4:12 pmMay 2-
“As just one example for you Anna, since you raised the point, NYC’s way of handling storm water runoff is to dump that runoff into the Hudson and East Rivers - that’s why the water quality of those bodies of water is akin to an open sewer.”
OK. For the sake of engineering accuracy, NYC has what is called a combined sewer overflow (CSO) system, just like many eastcoast and midwest towns. This can mean one of two things: 1) that the city uses many of the same pipes for both stormwater and sewer water or 2)the stormwater treatment basin for the city is either undersized or non-existent and thus the excess stormwater is routed through the wastewater treatment system.
Eastcoast and midwest towns decided to do this to save money by not building separate, appropriately-sized stormwater treatment basins. Unfortunately, most wastewater treatment systems are not sized properly to handle the hyraulic load from a big storm. So, the stormwater overwhelms the wastewater treatment system and, since they are combined at the treatment plant, both stormwater and partially treated (or at worst untreated) domestic sewage flows out into the river (which is where all treated sewage flows).
Now just so you do not get the wrong idea, it is relatively straightforward to size a treatment plant based upon the number of people you need it to serve. The problem is when you connect the stormwater system to it, you automatically cut the plant’s capacity in half. So, the reason why NYC has sewage flowing into the river is not because of tall buildings or density. It is because a city leader wanted to save money in the short-term and made a lousy planning decision. Now it will take millions or dollars to fix the problem, not mention all of the streets they will have to dig up to lay new stormwater pipe…..More than you want to know, but there you go.
So, to sum up (for Princess Bride fans), where NYC puts its water has nothing to do with density or tall buildings.
If I am not mistaken (I do not know for certain, though) Ann Arbor also has a combined sewer overflow system. I will ask one of of the Env. Eng. Professors who frequents our little place and find out for certain.
posted by todd on May 2nd, 2005 at 4:26 pmLarry said: (As a general rule, contrary to what many assume, the cost per square foot of a building rises with its size.
Not exactly true. There’s gradual change in cost per sq. ft., not a distinct line; a 5-story building is not much cheaper to build per sq. ft. than a 10-story building. Same is true for a 15 story to 10 story comparison. Beyond 20 stories is where you hit the point of rapidly increasing costs. Again, it depends highly on the floorplate in question. I haven’t heard anyone seriously want 20-story buildings downtown, but 15 stories do make a lot of financial sense. I’ve seen the numbers, they DO work, even with our supposedly low land costs.
LK: Basically all ground-floor space in new construction downtown, regardless of number of stories or zoning restrictions, will be for corporate chain businesses.
Unfortunately I’m inclined to agree. But should we stop building downtown in order to save local businesses? what about the chains that move into existing buildings, that *haven’t* been upgraded??
LK: Rather, they should arrive gradually one by one. And indeed, this is likely to be the way it happens.
Very true. It’s weird, people have this idea that 12-story huildings are all going to appear overnight, but with so many small lots in downtown A2, it isn’t feasible to do it in very many places. And there’s the costs of consolidating lots, making a proposal at Planning Commission, City Council approval, etc. It just isn’t very quick.
LK: Responding to some points above: no one has “chosen to eliminate construction downtown”. It seems to me that quite a few projects have taken place over the last 30 years.
Not true. Ashley Mews was the first sizable building in the previous 20 years to be built in the DDA. (This factoid brought to you from the former head of the Planning Dept.)
LK: It’s not the land use rules that drive this, it’s the dominant form of transportation in the region.
I agree, much as I would wish it otherwise. How can we change this, or is this even something we can change in our little neck of the woods without a significant increase in population?
LK: “Modern” buildings, constructed according to the rigid Stalinist moralism which has dominated architecture since World War II, are precisely the enemy here.
And that is precisely what I am *not* talking about. I said modern, not Modern or International Style. By modern I mean materials other than brick, with windows that are other than tiny little panes of glass, without Corinthian columns and fake cornices. It is possible to have nicely designed buildings that are mostly glass and steel, not brick. It may not be to everyone’s taste, but personally I would much rather live in a city that allowed and even encouraged buildings of many different styles rather than an over-stringent process that permits only historic kitsch and watered down designs that trumpet the use of brick at the expense of any good design (i.e. Corner House apts).
I am a modern architect. I believe in contextual buildings when appropriate (The Collegian), and non-contectual when not (the Power Center). I believe that you can have well-designed, well-made buildings that don’t have to be Gothic or 100 years old. There’s more, but I won’t address it all here. Suffice to say, I personally wouldn’t design crap like 101 N. Main, but then I think most architects wouldn’t mimic something that was built 20 years ago anyway.
posted by KGS on May 2nd, 2005 at 4:35 pm“We’re not put off by parking, really–finding a place to park seems to be less of a problem on Friday or Saturday nights than finding a place to *sit* in a reasonable amount of time.”
I know that many of the local residents aren’t put off by a lack of parking. The problem is that there aren’t enough of you. I love people who walk and ride their bikes to our place. It’s just that there are too many people who are unwilling to come downtown because of a perceived lack of parking. We’re lucky in that many of our customers walk, and we have our own parking. Many businesses aren’t as lucky as we are. I’d like to help those other downtown businesses to get business over those that are in the strip mall across from I-94.
“If the rent is ‘insane’ it is because the location is valuable.”
Yes, it is valuable, but the *reason* that it is valuable is that there has been so little construction downtown, that there is an imbalance between supply and demand. Remove the restrictions on new construction and building heights that were in place for decades, and you would have seen a different marketplace….and lower rents. That’s all I’m gettin at: you can’t ingnore the context.
To sum up, the local downtown businesses are hangin’ on by a thread, and we need to help them in any way that we can. These businesses are what make Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor.
posted by todd on May 2nd, 2005 at 4:38 pmTodd - Ann Arbor doesn’t have a combined sewer overflow system. However, many houses were built so that the storm runoff from their roof goes into their sanitary pipes. Since the sanitary pipes are already getting very full, a heavy rainfall can push them to the brink. That’s why people get sewage backing up in their pipes during heavy rainfalls, and why the city is going through the disconnect process in residential neighborhoods all over town.
posted by KGS on May 2nd, 2005 at 4:39 pm“Unfortunately I’m inclined to agree. But should we stop building downtown in order to save local businesses?”—KGS
Good Lord, NO! It’s the lack of new buildings downtown that put us in this predicament in the first place. I know you know that, KGS, but I just needed to vent….
It’s *too late* for new local businesses downtown. We should focus on walkability, density, and increasing the tax base.
posted by todd on May 2nd, 2005 at 4:42 pmTodd,
I’m not questioning your explanation but it’s not the whole picture. I wasn’t specifially speaking to the impact of the overflow from the sewage side of the system. Even if NYC completely separated the storm water runoff from the sewers, the runoff from the streets of NYC to the storm water system would still be a toxic brew and that stuff gets dumped right into the rivers. Back in the day, cities thought nothing of dumping storm water directly into the closest waterway (and sewerage too!) We now realize that storm water runoff needs to be managed in a way similar to how we handle sewerage. You need to try and separate out the debris, gas and oil, reduce the flow of the runoff, cool the water, etc. all before dumping that into the Huron River, Allen Creek, etc. This isn’t a pitch for the Greenway plan, etc. but when you pave over downtown, all of that runoff needs to go somewhere and it needs to be managed, not just dumped directly in the Huron River.
posted by Anonymous on May 2nd, 2005 at 4:43 pmKGS: A diversity of architectural styles is precisely what Modern architectural doctrine absolutely forbids, and they enforce this doctrine on non-architects with precisely the sort of sneering condescension that you’re using on me. So pardon me for being very skeptical that you’re not still captive of the old dogma.
Of course buildings built with modern materials can be well-designed and attractive — and slapdash use of traditional decoration can indeed be awful. But the classical rules of form endured for centuries because they work. The Modernist notion that every building should be a prima donna, defying history, has been destructive to our cities and landscape.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on May 2nd, 2005 at 5:00 pmKGS: Not just the storm runoff from roofs, but the footing drains. Hence the notion of city-installed sump pumps for houses in the southwest part of town.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on May 2nd, 2005 at 5:06 pm“If the rent is ‘insane’ it is because the location is valuable. If that changes and businesses can’t make a go of it at the going rates, then rents will have to come down, but that doesn’t seem to be happening so far–not in the Mainstreet area, at any rate.”
Oh, you mean the Invisible Hand of the market will produce rational and agreeable outcomes? WHEW! I thought I was overpaying for my rent and dinner downtown was too expensive for me even to consider because of a bunch of shortsighted idiots and greedy landowners were acting in cooperation to keep Ann Arbor from being a town where things COST what they were WORTH.
posted by Dale on May 2nd, 2005 at 5:08 pmI understand what you are saying but…
A true stormwater system (which is separate from the city’s wastwater system) does exactly what you are saying: it holds and then treats the stormwater before releasing it to the watershed. Most cities out west have these types of systems, and they do not simply dump untreated stormwater into a watershed.
Of course, most stormwater systems do not treat petroleum-based run-off, nor nitrates. Guess what is the largest contributor of the latter two?: Suburban homes, not city dwellings; primarily from insecticide and fertilizer run-off (not found as often in cities with pavement), paint dumped into stormdrains, and home-based oil changes. As a sidenote, most forward-thinking cities address at least part of this with a household hazardous waste drop-off program (we have this here in Wash County).
Further, the types of treatment techniques for stormwater are completely different than those for domestic wastewater. The former is much more geared to a higher hydraulic load which spikes. The former is more driven by organic load which does not vary as much from week to week as stormwater.
A dense city isn’t more likely to create problems than suburbs are….it’s the other way around, at least for the runoff that you are talking about here. It’s not like you have the choice between urban runoff or no runoff. What you get instead of urban runoff is suburban runoff, and this is not necessarily a good thing.
Sorry for the long winded responses, but you have to understand that Scott has a M.S. in Env. Eng. from Stanford, and has designed several stretches of the treatment systems for the L.A. basin….this is what he did before we got into brewing, so we can tend to run on about this stuff since I can’t get him to shut up when I ask him a somewhat simple question…..
posted by todd on May 2nd, 2005 at 5:10 pmLarry said “…they enforce this doctrine on non-architects with precisely the sort of sneering condescension that you’re using on me.”
Excuse me?!? you’re the one who started with the comparison with Communism and how I should just ‘let it go’. Be skeptical all you want, I’ll continue to believe that modern is not anathema and that historical design isn’t the end-all-be-all you think it is.
Larry said: The Modernist notion that every building should be a prima donna, defying history, has been destructive to our cities and landscape.
To some degree that’s true. And as someone who has one foot in architecture, and one foot in planning, I encounter the egoist problem a lot in architects who want their building to be the one that says ‘look at ME! look at ME!’ when it really shouldn’t be. But please, don’t lump all architects in as evil egotistical bastards, and I promise not to do the same for lawyers or county clerks.
posted by KGS on May 2nd, 2005 at 5:17 pmYeah, footing drains! I was trying to remember that term and failing. Thanks, Larry.
posted by KGS on May 2nd, 2005 at 5:18 pmThanks Todd, while I was out you said most of what I was going to say. To ___ : just pick a handle — it’s not like you have to use your real name.
And ___ read the New Yorker article from a couple months ago for other reasons why urban is green and suburban is not.
posted by Anna on May 2nd, 2005 at 9:38 pmAnna –
I was under the impression that the density issue was about getting the downtown area to be as urban and cosmopolitan as the Observer portrays it. But people here have beefs with the existing downtown shops, restaurants, etc. Increasing density would be a boon to the existing businesses. However, if density didn’t inspire all the existing, overrated businesses to close and be replaced with new non-overrated ones, where would the new businesses go?
I have been outside of downtown. The neighborhoods are mostly bland. I find it hard to believe that they couldn’t support A local pub or A small restaurant or AN independent coffe shop. Something that would add character all over town.
From what I have read here about Lowertown, I am glad that someone is leapfrogging the endless bickering about the three blocks between William and Huron and just is putting sommeting new up.
posted by A Different Jon on May 3rd, 2005 at 4:06 amADJ — I think the planning students are interested in density because of the health of cities and surrounding communities. Personally, I don’t care if AA is cosmopolitan or not; what really bothers me is undeveloped or semi-rural land everywhere (the midwest, but also both the East and West Coasts) getting gobbled up for McMansions, which is the inevitable result when people keep increasing their home sizes and insist on 2 acre lots. Each time we lose a former farmer’s field, it’s land we’re never getting back and worse, the stress on the environment (including pollution from ever longer commutes) is much more than building taller buildings where they already exist.
I don’t follow your point at all about the increased density causing current businesses to close. A number of the proposed buildings are for lots now empty or used for parking, which would mean more retail space in addition to increased density. More people in the existing business, and less pressure on rents for those businesses.
posted by Anna on May 3rd, 2005 at 8:05 amOh, you mean the Invisible Hand of the market will produce rational and agreeable outcomes? WHEW! I thought I was overpaying for my rent and dinner downtown was too expensive for me even to consider because of a bunch of shortsighted idiots and greedy landowners were acting in cooperation to keep Ann Arbor from being a town where things COST what they were WORTH.
The alternative being what–pricing rents, real-estate, and restaurant meals according to Dale’s personal bang-for-the-buck ratings?
posted by mw on May 3rd, 2005 at 8:38 amSomething else to throw into the mix here:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050502&s=easterbrook050205
posted by mw on May 3rd, 2005 at 8:42 amJuliew: how many people are actually going to live in high-rise apartments/condos downtown? Unless gas is $5/gallon, most people won’t leave their big houses in the suburbs or exurbs to live in a 900/sq ft 14th-floor apartment downtown.
MW: Except for students in the campus area, very few people are going to be willing to move downtown without a place to keep a car.
Do you two have data that say there is no such market? I find that hard to believe. I know it’s anecdotal, but I know many young professionals, myself included, who would choose to live in a downtown condo/apartment/house if they could. As it is, I bought an overpriced 900 sq-ft home on the edge of town because that’s all I could afford - I’d be much happier downtown without a yard to fuss with at this stage in my life, without touching my car for weeks, etc, but couldn’t afford to even attend an Open House for anything closer than where I ended up.
But, maybe there aren’t enough of us…?
posted by Karl on May 3rd, 2005 at 4:29 pmKarl, maybe (to use mw’s logic) the city should DO SOMETHING to make living in Ann Arbor more affordable for people like YOU? And ME?
Wait, that started out as sarcasm but it actually makes sense.
posted by Dale on May 3rd, 2005 at 5:25 pmKGS and Larry–
Larry wrote: A diversity of architectural styles is precisely what Modern architectural doctrine absolutely forbids, and they enforce this doctrine on non-architects with precisely the sort of sneering condescension that you’re using on me. So pardon me for being very skeptical that you’re not still captive of the old dogma
Maybe you’d get past the disagreement if you used a different word. KGS is a modern - meaning contemporary - architect, but not a Modernist.
Contemporary architectural practitioners are not (with a few exceptions, probably out there somewhere) Modernists (or captive of the old dogma, as Larry would have it). KGS is certainly not one; look at some of the earlier postings in this thread.
posted by archipunk on May 3rd, 2005 at 5:27 pmKarl–I can show you about 30 apartments in my small neighborhood (close to downtown, close to campus, close to the bus line, inexpensive but not scary) that have been empty for going on two years now. Ashley Mews took three years to sell their brownstones even when $400,000 houses were selling all over the area. I do think there is some market for $200,000-$300,000 condos downtown but not much interest in building those. If Eaton and LoFT 322 actually sell as fast as they were reserved, then you might be able to convince me that a large group of people are interested in moving downtown. I haven’t seen it so far.
posted by Juliew on May 4th, 2005 at 12:25 amJulie — what do you mean by “inexpensive”? 500 dollars a bedroom (unless it’s a one-bedroom with standard features like its own thermostat) is not inexpensive.
posted by Dale on May 4th, 2005 at 9:39 am“….then you might be able to convince me that a large group of people are interested in moving downtown. I haven’t seen it so far.”
I have had a difficult following your line of logic for the past few weeks, Julie. If there isn’t a demand for housing, as you believe, then why are you worried about the height of new buildings or the design of the lower floors? Why are you and others concerned about having greenspace for the new residents who will never show up? It doesn’t make any sense.
Either the demand is there, or it isn’t. You are saying that there is no demand, but that runs counter to what I and the developers are saying. Why wouldn’t you believe the developers? The small guys aren’t going to build something that they think they can’t sell….
posted by todd on May 4th, 2005 at 10:40 amBecause developers have never overbuilt a market…
posted by Anonymous on May 4th, 2005 at 11:42 amBack to the previous discussion: if Ashley Mews is the “first sizable” new construction in the DDA district in 20 years, that’s based on a very large definition for “sizable” and/or a very small definition of “20 years”.
Even so, the colossal financial flop of One North Main probably has more to do with developers’ reluctance to build big projects in downtown Ann Arbor than any alleged city “decision” to “eliminate” new construction downtown.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on May 4th, 2005 at 11:56 amDale–about $375-450/bedroom for two-bedroom apartments. All include water and parking and some include heat. Those are for the bigger management companies. I can’t give you an exact figure for apartments in the smaller buildings. When I last checked, they were somewhat less/bedroom than the bigger apartments.
Todd, I care because I live here. I want to keep existing locally-owned stores while encouraging new ones. I want the city to thrive but not be turned into some developer’s idea of “great” (Tally Hall, Galleria, One North Main). I have to walk by empty apartment buildings and empty retail shops every day. You seem to think that building more, more, more will fix everything. I don’t think it is that simple. I would love to see more people live downtown–it would make my life a lot easier. When I first moved into my neighborhood eight years ago, there was a drug store, a meat market, a grocer all within a few blocks. Now those have all moved out because people have moved out. People want affordable, but no one wants to live in the affordable buildings that exist–they want new affordable housing which developers are not building. People want local retail, but acknowledge that new buildings will be too expensive for local retail. So where is the line? How do you keep what is good and move forward?
posted by Juliew on May 4th, 2005 at 12:49 pm“You seem to think that building more, more, more will fix everything. I don’t think it is that simple.”
No, you’re putting words into my mouth. You are making it sound like they are proposing to build like crazy in Ann Arbor. Never happen.
I’ve said this 1,000 times, but I’ll say it again for your benefit….if you start with the idea that there is absolutely nothing wrong in Ann Arbor, and that there isn’t a severe imbalance between supply and demand for housing, and that the budget is in perfect working order, and the local businesses are perfectly healthy….then you and I have nothing to talk about. I cannot argue with someone who is perfectly happy with the state of affairs. If things are fine, then let’s continue the path that we are on…..
I’m all for steady planned growth. Ann Arbor residents have shown time and again that they have no interest in this. They would rather evaluate each individual project if it appears in their neighborhood. Developers have been trying to build in this town for years, and apparently you simply don’t believe me when I tell you this.
Let me reverse the question, you have acknowledged the following:
1. Local businesses are leaving in droves
2. Cost of living and rent/purchase prices going
up (way up) in downtown.
3. You have personally seen many vacancies
throughout town.
4. Working class cannot afford to live near
downtown.
Now I ask you, what caused the above conditions? You don’t think that it’s an imbalance in supply and demand, so what has happened here?
You told me that you don’t think that building more in the downtown area will solve the problem, so tell me—-what will?
Do you think, as some do, that the problem is that we don’t have enough parks downtown? What’s the problem in your mind?
posted by todd on May 4th, 2005 at 1:19 pm“So where is the line? How do you keep what is good and move forward?”
I forgot to answer your questions. The answer is, the line passed us by 20 years ago. We had a chance to build many 7-10 story buildings with adequate parking garages years ago and we didn’t. We can’t keep what is good. It’s too late for that.
My contention is that that boat left the dock years ago, and we are left with the mandate to keep the tax base downtown in a state of good health. That’s all that I envision.
We can make Ann Arbor walkable, but it will only be walkable for the very wealthy. We can make it a better place for businesses, but those businesses will be chains or part of a corporation. It’s better than the alternative of *no* business, I suppose, but there you go. Downtown Ann Arbor will look like every other American suburb in a few years, and it’s really a shame, but I personally believe that it’s too late to keep this from happening.
posted by todd on May 4th, 2005 at 1:44 pmLarry, I don’t have the ability to find out about every building built in the last 20 years, do you? if so, please share.
The only thing I do know is that One North Main was built in 1987, and Ashley Mews was built in 2001. Okay so that’s 14 years, not 20 (a mistake on my part, my memory is awful), but it’s still 14 years of no new buildings downtown. I call that a pretty significant gap, when we could have been building the 7-10 story buildings Todd keeps calling for.
posted by KGS on May 4th, 2005 at 4:10 pmAnother question–why the downtown fixation when there are neighborhoods in Ann Arbor that have the kinds of amenities that people are asking about and are neither unsafe nor terribly expensive. Before we had the money for a house, we rented half a duplex in the Packard-Stadium area. Within walking distance (or at least short biking distance) there are, off the top of my head, two grocery stores (until recently there were three, but Food & Drug Mart is now gone), a wine/gourmet food shop, a video store, an ice cream shop, a couple neighborhood bars, a bowling alley, and a pharmacy. And downtown is a mile or so by bike (and Packard has a bike lane all the way).
A hip spot for singles? No. But if you want to be able to walk to the grocery store, you’re better off looking for neighborhoods outside downtown. Somewhat lower density seems to be more compatible with a walkable lifestyle because it means rents that neighborhood businesses can afford and land costs that allow the parking that those businesses need to survive.
posted by mw on May 5th, 2005 at 9:44 ammw, I don’t think anyone is against developing neighborhood centers. However, there is a special responsibility to develop the CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT for several reasons. One particular factor is the location of the university, a major people magnet more or less right next door to the downtown. Additionally, the city has finite resources and can’t really do both in equal measure.
Now, if the city and its people didn’t seem to have a commitment to cut down on commuting, I’d say developing neighborhoods more distant from what is and will remain the CENTER of Ann Arbor is fine. However, we’re trying to reduce that, and developing the downtown area for more and mixed use seems an efficient way to go about it.
However, to bring up one of Todd’s regularly made points, if the city had a cohesive master plan and devoted some planning resources to it, I’d wager the development of neighborhood centers in parallel with the downtown would make Ann Arbor a better place to live (particularly if it enabled the city to take its fair share of countywide growth).
posted by Dale on May 5th, 2005 at 10:43 ammw - I’d happily live in the Packard/Stadium area. As it is, I’m several miles further away from downtown. Since I was intent on buying, not renting, I couldn’t get closer. Even across Stadium, housing prices are nuts. More downtown housing, whether or not I could afford to buy it, would reduce the pressure that’s keeping prices so high and make a neighborhood like the one you’re talking about more affordable.
But, that’s the rub, right? People don’t want something that slows their house appreciation, regardless of the impact on the greater good… So, the anti-build forces march on…
posted by Karl on May 5th, 2005 at 11:47 amBut, sorry… that wasn’t the point. The point was about demand for housing downtown. Juliew and mw claim there is none. Anecdotally, at least, I would believe there is. Sounds like neither of us have real data, though.
It was, however, another argument for more downtown housing.
posted by Karl on May 5th, 2005 at 12:01 pmMW, you certainly bring up a good point, but here’s part of the smoking gun that I am talking about: The new mall going in near Brighton:
“The 550,000-square-foot Green Oak Village Place, is expected to be open for business by October of next year, near the COSTO-KOHL’s development.”
In this first paragraph, you see the demographic formula that all National/Regional developers use. They start with new strip malls, put in new housing and apartment/condos; then the big box stores roll in, followed by more aggressive housing tracts that will be built out over ten years or so; then the Regional Mall comes in.
Ann Arbor/Dexter/Saline already has the strip malls (south of 94), already has the newer big box stores—with more in the works, and there are two enormous (2,000+ units) housing tracts being proposed in the area.
The Mall will follow soon after. If the City and the DDA doesn’t get it in gear, downtown is totally screwed.
You’ll note the reason that a township representative wanted this mall is pretty clear:
“Township Supervisor Mark St. Charles said the development will provide MUCH NEEDED TAX REVENUE, jobs, and greater shopping options for area residents. “The township will certainly be a magnet, and it will raise the bar for (retail) developments in the area,” he said.”
Now can you think of a city in Wash County that is starved for revenue? I sure can. Developers COUNT on financially starved townships to pitch their develpments to.
I think that if a plan for a mall of the size of GreenOaks was put before the city council of this city (not to mention the school board), the response would be something along the lines of “thank ****ing God! Tax revenue!”.
Stick a mega-mall near Ann Arbor, and where do you think student are going to, say, take their parents for a nice dinner? A well-known upscale chain like PF Chang’s? Or downtown where they don’t think that they can find a parking space? Where are all the nearby diners going to visit in the summer? Downtown, or the mall where they can shop AND eat in one trip? I think that you know the answer.
This mall will cripple this town if we don’t prepare for it. That’s why fixing downtown is so important. Although many like to think that Ann Arbor’s economy is made of teflon (just as Boulder did), it has enjoyed ZERO competition for years now (just like Boulder). Those days are coming to a close.
Here’s the link to the Mall article that appeared in today’s Ann Arbor news:
http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1115304033310781.xml
posted by todd on May 5th, 2005 at 12:11 pmHow is this Mall any more competition than the regional retail in Brighton? This isn’t much closer distance-wise and I don’t see it as much easier a drive, especially with the state of US-23 these days.
posted by Anonymous on May 5th, 2005 at 12:52 pm“But, that’s the rub, right? People don’t want something that slows their house appreciation, regardless of the impact on the greater good… So, the anti-build forces march on…”
Thomas Sowell anyone?
Seriously, do you think people are opposed to more housing downtown because it might possibly slow housing appreciation in the neighborhoods? It may be on their lists but I think it’s pretty far down those list. And I still think that the number of units that would have to be built downtown to acually affect home prices in the ‘hoods is so beyond what will ever practically be built that it’s not a serious consideration. It’s a nice thought that building downtown will lead to lower prices outside of the downtown area but I don’t see it ever happening.
posted by Anonymous on May 5th, 2005 at 1:03 pm“How is this Mall any more competition than the regional retail in Brighton?”
If you are asking how is this Mall any more competition for Ann Arbor….it isn’t (directly at least) competing with downtown.
I was only using Green Oaks to illustrate a point. Ann Arbor won’t be hurt (materially, at least) by Green Oaks per se. My point is that the timing is ripe for a Green Oaks TYPE of Mall to come in near Ann Arbor. I was only using the article on Green Oaks to show how Malls wait for the proper demographics before building. Wash County is building those demographics.
….or maybe I didn’t understand your question.
posted by todd on May 5th, 2005 at 1:03 pmTodd - I thought you were specifically referencing the Green Oak Mall.
I don’t think we have any financially starving Townships. As for location, where would it go? Taubman looked at Salem Township/Gotfredson but that’s at least 15 minutes from downtown and would serve more of Western Wayne County. Northfield Township had plans for US-23/N. Territorial but that seems to be less likely with the change in the Township Board. I think you have a point but you can’t build a Mall without an interchange, the land and a local gov’t. on board with the idea.
posted by Anonymous on May 5th, 2005 at 1:06 pm“I think you have a point but you can’t build a Mall without an interchange, the land and a local gov’t. on board with the idea.”
They can BUILD an interchange, and it doesn’t have to always be the Mall developer. It’s not hard to get council approval when millions of dollars are at stake.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not sure where this Mall would go, but there’s an awful lot of land in Wash County along some pretty well-travelled roads….
…and I was thinking of Ypsi when I was talking about cash poor governments.
posted by todd on May 5th, 2005 at 1:18 pm“Seriously, do you think people are opposed to more housing downtown because it might possibly slow housing appreciation in the neighborhoods?”
Well, you may have a point here, but I will say that it is pretty clear to me that those who are hoping to get a greenway in their backyard are at least glancing at their bottom line. In their minds, they can’t have a greenway if the DDA puts in their parking structure, and it is the opinion of many that that parking structure is a pretty important step towards density.
So I would say, yes, a downtown homeowners perception of property appreciation is a factor. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that…but it’s in play.
posted by todd on May 5th, 2005 at 1:23 pmI don’t think we have any financially starving Townships.”
wha-? wow. Go read any article on the state of the economy in MI these days. Everyone is starving - the schools, transportation (roads), social services, benefits… they are all getting hacked to pieces. Even the UM is cutting staff because of lack of money, and raising tuition to boot (again). The idea that there aren’t any townships around here who would say no to millions in tax revenue is just ridiculous.
posted by KGS on May 5th, 2005 at 1:24 pm“The idea that there aren’t any townships around here who would say no to millions in tax revenue is just ridiculous.”
Just because a Township would take on a mall for the tax revenue doesn’t mean they are financially starving. Greedy? Yes. In a dire financial position? No. I’m well acquainted with the financial situation of our various local governments and in the grand scheme of things, most of our local townships are much better off than many other municipalities in MI.
posted by Anonymous on May 5th, 2005 at 1:30 pmSome of the townships are very much anti-development. I can’t imagine a mall going in Ann Arbor Twp or Superior Twp given the attitudes of the residents and respective Boards of Supervisors in them. Look at Northfield Twp, where the board members who approved a large housing development were thrown out by the voters in the last election.
posted by tom on May 5th, 2005 at 1:37 pmThe college of arch and urban planning is talking to a guy named christopher leinberger about heading up the real estate certificate program. he gave a lecture about 2 or 3 weeks ago on typical real estate development vs. “progressive real estate development,” his term for new urbanist, walkable kinds of development. It was really remarkable how clear and simple real estate development is. He described most types of development and its location in ann arbor without having seen it simply because its done the same way everywhere (real estate developers make a flock of sheep look like radicals, he said). the location of new development, according to him, can be determined by knowing about 3 factors — where do the poor people live, where do the rich people live, and where are the highways. it was particularly interesting to hear him talk with Alfred Taubman, who came to listen.
I’m sure several developers already know where the mega-mall is going to go, as you say, Todd. It’s just a matter of when the numbers in the equation yield whatever the profit number that the developers want.
The point is, that we as a city have to make sure that either the numbers don’t hit, or that the other profit equations for downtown DO hit by promoting downtown development.
As for the idea that increasing downtown units won’t ease the cost of housing in the neighborhoods. That, as I have said before, is stupid — students will predominate the market for downtown housing (if it is rental), with singles and young professionals thrown in, slackening demand for single family residences in the neighborhoods that are currently chopped up (except those very close to campus). Also, it is unlikely that costs will EVER go down; it is more a matter of keeping them level until such time as that number ($275,000 for a 1200 sf house) is moderately affordable.
posted by Dale on May 5th, 2005 at 1:39 pm“as for the idea that increasing downtown units won’t ease the cost of housing in the neighborhoods. That, as I have said before, is stupid”
Sorry Dale but I think you’re stuck in a world where demand is static. But it’s not. Do you really think that there’s not going to be a rush to fill those units in the neighborhoods as students move downtown? It’s either going to be working-class people who are currently priced out of Ann Arbor or wanna-be single-family homeowners who will be willing to take on the costs of reconverting those units as the price for getting into the City. Maybe if you build 5,000 units downtown, you’ll have an effect on demand. Maybe. I don’t even think it will level the demand beyond a short-term period.
posted by Anonymous on May 5th, 2005 at 1:50 pm“The point is, that we as a city have to make sure that either the numbers don’t hit, or that the other profit equations for downtown DO hit by promoting downtown development.”
THIS is the entire point to my broken record. Thank you for stating it much more clearly than I have.
And I agree that the developers already know where to put the thing. Just because I don’t, doesn’t mean a thing.
Tom, a township may put up a fight, but you know as well as I do that if a Mall wants to come in, their lawyers will find a way to make it happen. Protest can SLOW development, but we’ve seen time and again that it is pretty hard to stop it. Particularly when so much $$ is at stake. All the developer has to do is pick the township/city that needs the money the most. That’s what I’d do……
posted by todd on May 5th, 2005 at 1:51 pmTodd,
The lawyers don’t always win. For example, a developer wants to put in a large housing development in Ann Arbor Twp on land it has optioned west of Whitmore Lake Road near Warren Rd. The development would have included several hundred single-family homes and an area for manufactured housing. I have forgotten how many manufactured housing units, but it was substantial. The township refused to rezone the property to let this happen. The developer and the family owning the land sued, and lost. I think (my memory is a bit fuzzy) they lost the appeal too.
You are right, though, other twps may not fight so hard, or may welcome it.
posted by tom on May 5th, 2005 at 2:24 pmI hear what you’re saying Tom, but there’s a material difference between say, a few hundred homes, and a regionally sized mall. Not only is the $$ at stake higher, but I think you’d be surprised at how many American consumers are thrilled to hear that a new Upscale Mall is proposed for their immediate area. No one ever wants more homes in their area if they already own one….High-end upscale malls are a different story. Different even from strip malls or big box stores…..
posted by todd on May 5th, 2005 at 2:33 pm“Sorry Dale but I think you’re stuck in a world where demand is static. But it’s not. Do you really think that there’s not going to be a rush to fill those units in the neighborhoods as students move downtown? It’s either going to be working-class people who are currently priced out of Ann Arbor or wanna-be single-family homeowners who will be willing to take on the costs of reconverting those units as the price for getting into the City. Maybe if you build 5,000 units downtown, you’ll have an effect on demand. Maybe. I don’t even think it will level the demand beyond a short-term period.”
You’re arguing my point for me again (and I’m not arguing that demand is static; in fact, i have stated in several ways that demand is locational and multifaceted). The only way working class or singles affect near downtown housing demand is if prices become reasonable. Most families have the detached single family residence with a yard idea ingrained; working class and professional class alike. Working class families are not going to live in student rentals.
Now, for your implication that external pressure from township residents will maintain housing demand near downtown, I say, you’re nearly right — if we don’t alter supply (aka develop some new units) to meet demand (which, as you say, is surely coming), housing will be just as overpriced in 20 years or moreso, than it is now.
This is why Ann Arbor has to provide for city-wide residential growth of 25 percent over the next 20 or so years (to match the countywide forecasts). This has to be done downtown, this has to be done on the OWS, Lower Town, and in the Northeast Area. Indeed, what we should be doing is planning for a city of 150,000 in 20 years and 200,000 in 40 years to stay ahead of demand. It will make this a better city, make it more affordable (or at least make cost commensurate with value), AND will promote economic development (more people = more retail, financial, and wholesale needs, PLUS it will make the university and the region more attractive. Hell, isn’t that called synergy, when one good thing, the university, combines with another good thing, Ann Arbor of 2030, to make something even better?).
Anyway, I’m actually glad to see we’re on the same side of the issue; I don’t know why our debate has been so acrimonious when we clearly see eye to eye.
posted by Dale on May 5th, 2005 at 2:35 pmOr, we could stop looking at things piecemeal, and some forward thinking-county folks could do what other communities have done: Require a comprehensive economic and community impact review before approving any new retail construction exceeding a certain size (e.g., a retail store larger than 20,000 square feet or that will generate more than 500 vehicle trips per day). (Courtesy of http://www.newrules.org/retail/impact.html)
Do I think that’s likely? No, but we need to start thinking outside the box about public policies that can create a community that is viable long-term, instead of having to fight the same bad developments in multiple places. If development is going to happen (which it is, obviously), then it should be development that is a net positive for the region, not a net positive for the developer and nobody else.
posted by Lisa on May 5th, 2005 at 2:42 pmTodd,
I understand the differences between a housing development and a mall, but my point was that these lawsuits don’t always succeed.
I live in Ann Arbor Twp, and I know from living in it and talking with my neighbors and other twp residents that a large mall will never fly. You may be right about other areas, though.
posted by tom on May 5th, 2005 at 2:43 pmAh, gotcha tom.
Sometimes I’m slow on the uptake.
posted by todd on May 5th, 2005 at 2:48 pm100th comment!
(it’s the small things, sometimes)
posted by KGS on May 5th, 2005 at 3:10 pmA megamall and its lawyers are pretty powerful, but they often have less appetite for a fight than you might think. I have seen Dayton-Hudson strut into town with a megamall proposal, greeted with hosannas by local leaders, only to be beaten back by granola eaters with referendum petitions and persistence. A Meijer’s ended up on the site.
If an interchange has to be created to make a megamall possible, it would be a pretty significant hindrance, let alone the expense. The process for making structural modifications to an expressway involves a lot of steps and many opportunities to get hung up by opponents and bureaucrats. If it were easy to buy interchanges, you’d see it happening all over the place.
Back in my other hometown, Dayton-Hudson chose a site and assembled land next to an interchange over a 20 year period (starting before the interchange was opened). Everybody knew what they had in mind. Given the huge and exacting requirements to site a megamall, I can’t imagine that developers would be able to keep it secret for long.
With the growth of population outcounty, and the constant expansion of strip retail and big box stores, it’s possible that downtown Ann Arbor will end up getting pecked to death by ducks rather than beaten over the head by a giant megamall.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on May 5th, 2005 at 3:51 pmKarl said: More downtown housing, whether or not I could afford to buy it, would reduce the pressure that’s keeping prices so high and make a neighborhood like the one you’re talking about more affordable.
Maybe, but maybe not. As far as I know, the increasingly supply of $400K McMansions in the townships has not resulted in reduced prices out there or in the city either. Ann Arbor is not a ‘closed system’–it is one small part of a much larger area, so increases in housing supply in Ann Arbor don’t necessarily have much effect on prices.
Juliew and mw claim there is none.
No–I claim there is not much demand for downtown housing that does not provide the resident a place to keep a car and that, therefore, even if more people move downtown, they’ll still drive to Whole Foods, Best Buy, etc.
Dale said: I don’t think anyone is against developing neighborhood centers. However, there is a special responsibility to develop the CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT for several reasons. One particular factor is the location of the university, a major people magnet more or less right next door to the downtown. Additionally, the city has finite resources and can’t really do both in equal measure.
Sure, but developing a central business district doesn’t necessarily trying to force it to become a residential neighborhood. There are business districts in many big cities that are full of office buildings, restaurants, shops, etc, but have few local residents, and their success doesn’t (and isn’t intended to) depend much on foot traffic from people who live right in the vicinity. If you want to live in an affordable, walkable neighborhood in Chicago, you generally don’t look to live a block off Michigan Avenue. In other words–IMHO, it’s OK to have a central business district that is a mostly a business rather than residentail district, and this is especially the case in a city as compact as Ann Arbor, where there are many residential neighborhoods very close to said business district.
Ann Arbor/Dexter/Saline already has the strip malls (south of 94), already has the newer big box stores—with more in the works, and there are two enormous (2,000+ units) housing tracts being proposed in the area.
The Mall will follow soon after. If the City and the DDA doesn’t get it in gear, downtown is totally screwed.
Malls and tract developments in Livingston County and in the townships are nothing new. But I don’t see that downtown Ann Arbor really competes with malls anymore–Klines and Goodyears are long gone. People who live in the townships and the ‘burbs come to downtown Ann Arbor for a taste of the urban ambiance that is missing out in sprawl land. Seems to me that 2000+ units of new housing means more potential customers for downtown businesses.
posted by mw on May 5th, 2005 at 3:59 pm“Back in my other hometown, Dayton-Hudson chose a site and assembled land next to an interchange over a 20 year period (starting before the interchange was opened). Everybody knew what they had in mind. Given the huge and exacting requirements to site a megamall, I can’t imagine that developers would be able to keep it secret for long.”
This is what has been going on at Gotfredson in Salem Township. Schostak is the latest developer taking a crack at that location.
posted by Anonymous on May 5th, 2005 at 4:05 pm“But I don’t see that downtown Ann Arbor really competes with malls anymore–Klines and Goodyears are long gone.”
That’s true enough…but they don’t compete with the malls anymore because they already competed with malls in the 80’s and 90’s and lost horribly.
You have to remember that all the upscale chain restaurants that pepper the landscape around the malls is the real killer here….at least for Ann Arbor. And, believe it or not, there are a few retail shops left in Ann Arbor.
And Larry may very well be correct about the duck pecking analogy. My entire argument is centered around the fact that the pecking started about 20 years ago (my whole local business diatribe addresses this issue), and we as a city have done very little about kicking the hell out of the ducks…..
posted by todd on May 5th, 2005 at 4:45 pmProblem is, MW, that there _is_ a demand for housing downtown. You aren’t allowed to provide housing downtown unless you have 1 pkg space/unit by the current ordinance, so people will drive, yes. But right now there aren’t services downtown either. As you point out, the Klines and drugstores and hardware stores are all gone. Until they come back, people must have a space for a car.
Besides which, what is so bad about people living downtown and having a car? if all goes well, they won’t use it as much as those in the single-family housing neighborhoods that surround the city. But we have