More Greenway Hyperbole
More Greenway hyperbole: without the Greenway, writes architect Martin Schwartz in an “Other Voices” piece in the News, “the dense downtown we envision will be uncivilized, even oppressive.”
More Greenway hyperbole: without the Greenway, writes architect Martin Schwartz in an “Other Voices” piece in the News, “the dense downtown we envision will be uncivilized, even oppressive.”
I love how he threw in “The Nation” to appeal to ostensibly leftist sensibilities, but he, like all Ann Arbourites, neglects the most important issue in terms of equity — the decreasing affordability of Ann Arbor. Olmsted again, for christ’s sake.
posted by Dale on June 13th, 2005 at 1:06 pmOh, for poop’s sake. I’ll refrain from a sentence-by-sentence rebuttal, and just ask, who’s going to be at the public hearing / circus tonight? js? I know _I_ would appreciate your, ah, unique style of exposition.
posted by Murph on June 13th, 2005 at 1:16 pmAnn Arbor unaffordable? Gee wiz, why would that ever matter…
(my attempt at sarcasm)
posted by Mike on June 13th, 2005 at 1:44 pmI might, if I have time…
“uncivilized, even oppressive…”
Yea, certainly, without the mews of greenery that this metro-polis so desperately needs, the alleys will become an Eden for footpads, highwaymen and blackguards! Why, a gentlemen shall not even be able to perambulate the distance from First Street to Main in search of a bicarbonate beverage or a middling quantity of laudenum without fearing for his very safety (or the virtue of his companion)! If Anne Arbour continues this growth apace, it will be as if we never constructed the Old West Side Wall to keep the Chinee out!
BARBARISM!
(I think he mentioned The Nation because Olmsted co-founded it. But a crucial difference between New York and Ann Arbor: Manhattan is a heavily-developed island, and was pretty well filled in by the time Olmsted did his work to ensure that the poor would be able to access the park. In Ann Arbor, anyone can hop on a bus or take a bike to green space within ten minutes. And he ignores the Arb pretty thoroughly… Of course, The Arb simply isn’t civilized…)
posted by js on June 13th, 2005 at 2:09 pmYes, the Arb and the rest of the river park system. You can go the entire width of the City along the Huron River without ever leaving parkland (except to, say, cross streets).
posted by Murph on June 13th, 2005 at 2:12 pmI’m in Chicago…let me know how it goes tonight.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on June 13th, 2005 at 2:27 pmAAiO, does this mean you will be missing the OFW potluck on Thursday? I will be making octopus.
posted by OFWinsurgent on June 13th, 2005 at 2:45 pmDoes anyone else find it strange that locals never seem to mention central campus when they are talking about greenspace or community space? I am sure that the walkways/greenways/parks in and around campus get used by more citizens than any other public space in town, and yet everyone pretends it’s not there.
It’s where I go for walks, and I’ve used the library quite a bit (more public space)….and it’s right in the middle of downtown.
Weird.
posted by Anonymous on June 13th, 2005 at 2:50 pmMurph–I don’t know if that’s TECHINCALLY true (does Mitchell Field count as parkland?), but it’s close enough. I’ve done it myself, walking from Gallup Walkway to Argo only last Saturday. As I wrote in my email to the mayor and my councilmembers, I live by the Arb, I don’t have a car and I work downtown, so if anybody’s an expert on “needing” greenspace and knowing what it’s like to walk through downtown (and that there are few intrinsic problems with it), it’s me, and I say screw the greenway (not that I put it like that…)!
posted by Lazaro on June 13th, 2005 at 4:08 pmSorry, that’s TECHNICALLY.
posted by Lazaro on June 13th, 2005 at 4:09 pmMore to the point, AAIO, does this mean you’re entering a Mitch-Albom-like phase of writing posts about AA when you’re in another city?
That potluck sounds badass, though, Insurgent. I was wondering if people in AA did block-party kinds of things in the summer. Seems like a lost concept in my neighborhood.
posted by Nick on June 13th, 2005 at 10:51 pmLaz,
What many folks seem to want for the greenway is large, flat, grassy, “recreational” areas. So, yes, I count Mitchell Field. Not to say that the Argo-Gallup traverse couldn’t be improved (and one of the speakers last night before Council blasted the very idea of an Allen Creek Greenway for distracting energy and money from the Huron River corridor), but it’s there.
posted by Murph on June 14th, 2005 at 9:40 amNick, you are welcome to come on along if you like. Send me an e-mail for details. I hope you’ll be there too Murph. It starts at 6:30, but I’ll probably go closer to 7.
posted by OFWinsurgent on June 14th, 2005 at 6:30 pmI used take my kids for vendor-dogs and a picnic on the Diag till my 4-year old found a cache of used needles stashed under a tree. We don’t go there for greenspace anymore.
posted by BlogLurker on June 14th, 2005 at 9:03 pmOFWI, I’ll be by for a little while, but can’t stay for too long. I’ve got cars to count for the DDA.
posted by Murph on June 15th, 2005 at 8:56 amWow. It sounds like a lot of people on this board would be much happier in Novi, Farmington Hills, or Canton, wallowing through dung-brown stip malls in search of some form of temporary shopping bliss. The greenbelt is an excellent idea! More cities should have them.
posted by blogsy mcblog on June 15th, 2005 at 10:15 amDo you mean “greenbelt” around the city or “greenway” along the polluted Allen creek?
We have PLENTY of green space in Ann Arbor. Heck, the city doesn’t even have the money to keep up with existing park space - notice the lack of mowing and upkeep in some of the lesser parks. And every time infill development is proposed on a patch of land in a wealthy neighborhood, we get a new park instead.
We need smart development, not more backyard parks for NIMBY’s . I also agree that we should focus on the Huron river corridor - there’s a chance for a regional greenbelt.
And the greenbelt idea in itself is fine - but only if it’s coupled with urban development within the city limits. Which is apparently not the goal of the “greenway” supporters.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on June 15th, 2005 at 10:52 amOne of the reasons those neighborhoods are as wealthy as they are is because of the lack of development. Why is it simply a given that Ann Arbor has to expand? It seems like it is the correct size right now; it might even be a little too big. The greenbelt is excellent, as well as the greenway. Generally, people in the US have an insidious “pro-development” bias that permeates their opinions on almost all city planning. It seems like the pro-development people are simply acting on the assumption that if Ann Arbor doesn’t keep building more things and adding more stuff, it will spontanesously become downtown Detroit in 2010. Why can’t Ann Arbor simply say “no more room” to developers?
posted by Blogsy McBlog on June 15th, 2005 at 5:04 pmBecause that’s really saying “no more room” to future residents and anyone unable to keep up with the rising cost of living in Ann Arbor.
posted by Dale on June 15th, 2005 at 5:38 pmAwww. They won’t be future residents if they can’t live in Ann Arbor, but that’s beside the point. There will always be future residents, because there will be future emigrants. People will leave the city. Why Ann Arbor’s current residents have an obligation to open the city up to more people that it needs is going to be difficult for you to explain. The people who can’t afford to live in Ann Arbor now are unlikely to be the benficiaries of any private development in the near future. If they can’t afford to live in Ann Arbor, they should find places in Ypsi.
posted by blogsy mcblog on June 15th, 2005 at 6:28 pmOr they can find places in Boston, Pittsburgh, Austin, LA, etc. You know, the kinds of places where one can get a good-enough job to afford the cost of living.
Ann Arbor’s current residents don’t have an obligation to open up the city to anyone. If they like things like tax revenue, though, they might want to consider it. I was tempted to suggest that the current residents might also consider it in order to promote the existence of a dynamic community full of people with different interests and backgrounds. But I think the current residents have been quite clear how much they dislike that idea.
posted by Nick on June 15th, 2005 at 6:50 pmAww, Blogsy McBlogblog, you really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? If you’re not smart enough to post on the internet, maybe you should unplug your computer.
posted by js on June 15th, 2005 at 7:21 pmYeah, Ann Arbor isn’t diverse at all, because the only diversity that matters is economic diversity (which Ann Arbor actually has, BTW). Ethnic diversity? Pshaw, that’s for commies, hippies, and Volvo drivers! Power to the rest of us!!! It sounds like there may a confusion of complaints; are people complaining because there isn’t anywhere to live that’s cheap, or because the places that are cheap just aren’t nice enough for you? If “different backgrounds and interests” means that we bring tons of GOP Livonia “big-ass yard” suburbanites onto the fringe of the city with new “deluxe” mcmansion developments, count me out. The long-term cost of the new residents will probably be higher than the tax revenue.
posted by blogsy mcblog on June 15th, 2005 at 7:25 pmActually, JS, my laptop is operating on batteries right now. I’m not even truly in favor of the greenway, as long as it has eminant domain delusions. I do think that the US pro-development bias is pretty funny, though.
posted by Blogsy mcblog on June 15th, 2005 at 7:29 pmHo-hum. Why do we always have to keep re-inventing the wheel for luddite ann-arBOREites? Read my lips: Ann Arbor needs more downtown density to get better, to keep rents from going even higher, to be more interesting, to counter sould-destroying suburban sprawl development that will choke out any character a2 has left. It’s all agreed on by every sensible urban planner since Jane Jacobs, just not knee-jerk Ann Arbor anti-development heads.
posted by Buzz on June 15th, 2005 at 7:43 pmBTW, and needless to say, I am very pro-parkspace but not sure we need a continuous line of them right through the heart of downtown!! Anyone got a good argument for it?
Buzz, “Well, you see, the free market in development will cause all of downtown to be 20 stories high in a few years, so we need to protect every scrap of land we have left in order to shelter historic neighborhoods from the pervading character of downtown development. Building a moat of parks between downtown and those neighborhoods is the very best way to do this.”
I think that’s how it goes.
posted by Murph on June 15th, 2005 at 8:07 pmWill it be filled with the blood of the workers?
posted by Jen on June 15th, 2005 at 9:20 pmJen,
Only if we construct a native blood garden in the park-moat to retain said blood. Otherwise, it will all rush downstream into the Huron immediately upon being released. This has several unfortunate consequences:
1. Unretained blood will fail to make the grass grow.
2. Aquatic life in the Huron will suffer from the temperature and macronutrient spikes. (Side benefit: the Gandy Dancer will have several new specials, including a delightful leech mousse, made from local ingredients.)
3. It will be just plain icky.
However! We can assume that this will still be a substantial improvement over the current state of the Allen Creek bloodway. It is estimated that the drain in place now cannot even handle a 1.5 year sacrifice, let alone the required 100 year sacrificial event.
(Jeez…What kind of mood am I in?)
posted by Murph on June 15th, 2005 at 10:54 pmJen,
Only if we construct a native blood garden in the park-moat to retain said blood. Otherwise, it will all rush downstream into the Huron immediately upon being released. This has several unfortunate consequences:
1. Unretained blood will fail to make the grass grow.
2. Aquatic life in the Huron will suffer from the temperature and macronutrient spikes. (Side benefit: the Gandy Dancer will have several new specials, including a delightful leech mousse, made from local ingredients.)
3. It will be just plain icky.
However! We can assume that this will still be a substantial improvement over the current state of the Allen Creek bloodway. It is estimated that the drain in place now cannot even handle a 1.5 year sacrifice, let alone the required 100 year sacrificial event.
(Jeez…What kind of mood am I in?)
posted by Murph on June 15th, 2005 at 10:54 pmCareful with that axe, Murph!
posted by Dave on June 15th, 2005 at 11:04 pmBuzz, appealling to authority can simply be countered by appealing to counter-authority. I’ll give you this; no greenway plan that requires eminant domain should be enacted. I think that most people can agree upon that. However, you are still assuming some form of development. Countering soul destroying suburban with soul-destroying “engineered quirkiness” doesn’t seem like the best option, or even a very good option.
posted by blogsy mcblog on June 16th, 2005 at 1:31 amBlogsy: Thank God that your false dichotomy doesn’t represent the entire range of possible outcomes. But now who’s exhibiting their bias?
posted by js on June 16th, 2005 at 2:10 am(Careful with that submit button, you mean, Dave.)
Blogsy,
Which greenway plans currently on the table require eminent domain? Joe O’Neal’s is the only one I know of that actually plans to buy land (rather than wheedle it away from the railroad).
The best way I can think of to make the greenway happen is to take everything on the east side of the railroad and upzone it, at the same time requiring that a suitable strip of land be dedicated to the greenway during the development and instituting a design requirement that all development must address the greenway - no blank walls or loading docks. (Probably more clearly legal and more controllable - and less arguably an exaction - would be to create an overlay zoning, “Greenway Project” or some such, that allowed lots of bonuses over the existing zoning, but rezoning would require greenway dedication and design review to ensure that the project activated and did not deaden the greenway. Yes, a PUD by another name, but one that’s very clear ahead of time what it’s aiming at.)
I’m all for a greenway - I just think it’s a 100-year-plan. Perhaps even seek to daylight Allen’s Creek by 100 years from now, presuming we can get everybody in the watershed to install cisterns and replace all of their grass with rain gardens, and find a better way to retain the water hitting streets. A daylighted Allen’s Creek now would be a very unpleasant place in heavy rains. And after heavy rains.
posted by Murph. on June 16th, 2005 at 8:38 am“It seems like the pro-development people are simply acting on the assumption that if Ann Arbor doesn’t keep building more things and adding more stuff, it will spontanesously become downtown Detroit in 2010. Why can’t Ann Arbor simply say “no more room” to developers?”
Wow. You know, I’d actually formulate a response if I thought that you really believed this. No one is this stupid.
posted by Anonymous on June 16th, 2005 at 10:17 amIn the interests of full disclosure, I just read some old posts on this site about the DDA plan, and the plan itself, and I think that I was presuaded.
posted by Blogsy mcblog on June 16th, 2005 at 10:20 am