But Who Controls South America?
Hilarious News story about a planning workshop at which “full-scale” greenway proponents, given maps of A2 with chits to represent developments and green space, appeared to think that they were playing a game of Risk to decide the future of downtown. “I think we used all of them,” said a Friend of the Ann Arbor Greenway proudly of her group’s green markers. But not every small group ran so smoothly. “Adrian Iraola, retired project manager for the DDA…said as soon as his group started, the greenway fans rushed to put green chits all over their map. ‘What gives them the right?’ Iraola asked. ‘And they are all over the place.’”
And the News continues to try to prop up the greenway idea. The newspaper deserves all the criticism it gets.
posted by Dale on July 29th, 2005 at 1:21 pmI can’t believe that I am referencing a Disney movie but:
When I think of the behavior of the Friends, I get an image of the seagulls in Finding Nemo that keep saying “Mine” “Mine” “Mine”.
Hey, how are we going to come up with the $1 Million to clean up the site on 1st and William for your park?
Answer: “Mine”
Hey, how are we going to come up with the money to clean up the rest of the railroad right of way for the Greenway path?
Answer: “Mine”
Hey, how the heck are we going to keep citizens who make less than $75K per year downtown from leaving in droves?
Answer: “More parks”, oh, and “Mine”.
Sorry, but I’m kinda at the end of my rope here. Maybe the Friends spent the rest of their time placing really tall buildings all over town to pay for their parks, and I’m just acting like a jerk…….
posted by todd on July 29th, 2005 at 1:24 pmWell, really, I think every single table (or almost every single) had _a_ greenway. Some more or less ambitious than others, but Allen Creek got green at every table. The interesting thing, though, is that almost every table also ended up with the bulk of development along the greenway - a nice wall to go with the moat.
Poor Adrian. He’s going to be so unhappy about that quote.
posted by Murph. on July 29th, 2005 at 1:34 pmOh, and there was a group of Friends who tried to cheat, and totally failed. Nametags were handed out with table numbers, so that people could be randomly assigned to groups. A batch of Friends got smart, brought their own nametags, and assigned themselves all to table 2, apparently in an attempt to stack the process and look like there was total, obvious consensus around their position.
Only there was no table 2. For some reason, the tables were numbered “1, 3-21″ rather than 1-20, so these folks were busted when they went back out to the registration table and said they couldn’t find their table.
posted by Murph. on July 29th, 2005 at 1:38 pmMurph,
You and I both know there’s a big, big difference between putting in a greenway and a bunch of development on a make-believe board, and demanding a greenway in real time without a peep about how to pay for it or giving support to serious density in order to get their park/greenway.
Like I said, maybe the Friends spent the rest of the excercise putting 14 story buildings all over town and I’m just being an ass.
posted by todd on July 29th, 2005 at 1:40 pmDon’t know how many of you commenters actually bothered to show up last night, but remember that, for better or for worse, Calthorpe presented it as a Blue Sky exercise. That being the case, how many of you would *not* want more green space in town?
The problem last night wasn’t with Greenway participants (though, occasionally following this blog, I’m guessing that many of you would gladly stand them up against a wall and fire away). The real problem was with a poorly designed and somewhat rigged (toward density) exercise (or “game,” as it was portrayed), too many people, and too much passion. On the other hand, too many people and too much passion are, in the long run, very good things.
posted by Lou on July 29th, 2005 at 1:54 pmDiagonally…mighty sneaky, sis!
Seriously, Lou, I like green as much as anyone, and I never saw the need for more greenspace downtown. I would have liked some better greenspaces for woods hiking and “mountain” biking within easy distance of Ann Arbor, but that would require hundreds of acres that aren’t already developed, and would have nothing to do with a couple acres here and there downtown. For just walking, I always found walking through town to get to the Arb to be perfectly fine, and for sitting around outside, the diag and various existing parks, like the one near 7th and Huron and Burns Park always filled my need.
posted by Anna on July 29th, 2005 at 2:20 pmLou, I would have loved to have been at last night’s game… But my notice about it from the city came alongside my tax bill which was purposefully neglected until today. Assuming that in paying this bill I’m also funding these “Interactive Public Design Workshops”, you’ll definitely see me at the next one in September. I hope we play A2 development Stratego then, though, as Risk was never really my strongest game.
posted by FAA on July 29th, 2005 at 2:23 pmYeah, the greenway sucks! So do old-fashioned downtown buildings! Tear them down! We need more buildings like City Hall downtown! That’ll make our kids grow up tough and avoid Priussies.
posted by Disgruntled Dad on July 29th, 2005 at 4:00 pmI didn’t see the game as being “rigged” toward density, since Option 1 was a no-change situation. There are plenty of places in downtown Ann Arbor that are not dense at all and that many people find unattractive (the Firestone and Papa John’s at Division and Huron, for example). IMHO, that area would be greatly improved by taller buidlings that would provide edges for the street. Stopping growth or trying to reduce growth would harm the city not only financially, but also environmentally. I don’t see Calthorpe as some giant imposing “density,” whatever people perceive that to mean, on droves of cowering residents. Density can mean a lot of things, and even taller buildings can be built without the “concrete jungle” effect by providing a pedestrian-friendly streetscape and tapering them for height. Although “high rise” meant 8 stories, it seemed like people thought we’d be building Tower Plazas everywhere.
posted by Another student on July 29th, 2005 at 4:23 pmDisgruntled Dad: um, what? Are you a bit out of your depth here? Maybe it’s time to go change a nappy or something.
posted by sea eagle on July 29th, 2005 at 7:33 pmI for one, am totally into the diversity of opinion that DD represents on this increasingly shrill blog…and he’s funny.
posted by OFWinsurgent on July 29th, 2005 at 9:35 pmWhen did everything get so shrill. Once upon a time, AAiO was well reasoned.
I like the story of this democratic process. The passionate citizens, if they are many, may provide the random seed for development that isn’t steeped in one or anohter school of architectural thought. Blue Sky is fine, since it will always be temepered by the reality of financing.
Anyone here talking about the Kelo ruling? That’s the only aspect of Risk, Ann Arbor edition that has me concerned.
posted by Alan Gutierrez on July 30th, 2005 at 12:09 amThe Kelo ruling? You have to be kidding. As it stands, City Council won’t stand up and stop letting a minority of downtown residents get exactly what they want in each and every case.
Problem with parking? No problem. We’ll make it so each and every property owner gets not two, not three, but FOUR spaces for every lot they own. What about business owners? Don’t they get spaces? No. They don’t need them. Neither do area workers. Or local religious groups. Oh, and by the way. If you want to give these displaced people a place to park and build a multi-tiered parking structure, you better check with residents first, because now that “their” parking problems are solved, they coincidentally don’t see the need for a parking structure, so you can’t build one.
Local businesses having trouble because rents are so high because downtown residents refuse to build up, increasing the available commercial space and help the rents hold fast? Is a lack of taxable buildings raising fees and taxes and cutting basic services? Sh*t, we don’t care. We don’t like tall buildings or new construction because they make us dizzy when we look up. Besides, it’s not our fault that local businesses can’t make it in this town……they must just be bad at it.
Like Metzger’s. Those idiots. Must’ve been their business plan. Oh, wait, they just moved outside of Ann Arbor after being in continual operatation for a bizillion years. No sweat. We didn’t like those guys anyways.
Or Arbor Brewing. Those idiots. When they look to build a new production brewery, they fail to build it in Ann Arbor because they don’t understand business like us smart people do. Oh, wait, they’re building their new plant in Ypsi. Must be because they’re dumb.
Or the Leopold Bros. Now THOSE are some idiots. When they are looking to expand their distilling operation, they aren’t looking at Ann Arbor because they are bad businessmen. It’s not because rents, taxes, and fees in Ann Arbor are out of control. It’s not because they can’t find a lot that has access to parking, or a plot of land where they can finally build their completely zero waste factory, knowing full well that it takes just one neighbor to complain in the planning stage and either add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the project or simply kill it outright. Nope. They’re just dumb, and that’s the real problem here. We don’t need local businesses like these. It’s survival of the fittest after all.
Besides, we’re not really SURE that more parking or more buildings are needed downtown. We need studies. Unless, of course, it’s the downtown residents who are having difficulty finding parking, in which case we don’t need a study. We’ll just IMMEDIATELY pass a law while the students are away that says these owners automatically get four spaces. Isn’t that great? Studies are for ninnies anyways. Unless it benefits us. Then we want lots of ‘em.
Kelo? Please. Eminent Domain will never be used here.
The sad thing is that 90% of downtown residents are very much interested in true density, and helping local businesses and those who don’t make $70K+ per year…..it’s just that the 10% who don’t care (or, worse, pretend to care) that make for one hell of a loud squeeky wheel that, unfortunately, Council has always listened to.
And if anyone actually believes that this vocal minority will give any credence to the Calthorpe study if they perceive it to be a threat to their interests, then I’ve got a bridge for sale, cheap. This vocal minority has already made it known that they don’t think that we should start the Calthorpe study with the idea that we need more density in Ann Arbor. You’ll never change their minds (witness the Friends cheating tactics), so really, the only chance that we have is for Council to ignore these people, and they haven’t shown any desire to do this…..I’m not holding my breath for any palpable change for Ann Arbor.
posted by todd on July 30th, 2005 at 9:03 amOh, really? Where is this bridge?
posted by Alan Gutierrez on July 30th, 2005 at 11:59 amAlan, come on. Are you trying to tell me that whatever the Calthorpe study tells the city to do, the citizens will do it, no questions asked.? Particularly when people are already claiming that the whole Calthorpe study is “falsely” starting on the premise that no growth is not an option.
This means Tall buildings. Really tall. Meaning more than 15 stories throughout the downtown area. Sometimes (gasp) they might be near downtown homes/apartments/condos.
Multi-tiered parking garages. A number of them. Elimination of surface lots.
Yeah. The Sierra Club and the Friends are going to welcome these things with open arms.
We tried to put in one piddly parking lot on 1st and William, and people went apoplectic. What on earth has changed in the last 30 days that tells you that this is going to stop?
Let’s hear it.
posted by todd on July 30th, 2005 at 12:37 pmThank you for the run down, Todd. I’m canceling my membership to the Sierra Club immediately.
Has there been talk of Eminent Domain in reference to the Greenway? How are you supposed to claim your four parking spots? I lived downtown for five years and only got a paid parking space in the Maynard structure after four years.
posted by Alan Gutierrez on July 30th, 2005 at 1:43 pmFYI Alan,
We donate to the Sierra Club. We will continue to do so. I just happen to vehemently disagree with their stances on downtown development….particularly in reference to their support of the Friends proposal to use all three DDA sites for parks.
And you didn’t answer my question. I realize that I sound bitter, but what has changed that would make you think that people will follow whatever Calthorpe recommends?
If everyone can continue the Calthorpe workshops….and run a few of our own, we don’t need consultants to run all of them…..and we can agree to a path, whatever that path is, and everyone stops protesting individual projects, then I am all for it. Even if it means more damn downtown parks.
posted by todd on July 30th, 2005 at 2:03 pm“Has there been talk of Eminent Domain in reference to the Greenway?” No, although some erroneously thought that one of the more comprehensive greenway visions would include knocking homes down. No one wants to use Eminent Domain anywhere in Ann Arbor to my knowledge.
“How are you supposed to claim your four parking spots?” Ya got me. Call City Hall.
posted by todd on July 30th, 2005 at 2:15 pmI’m all for more commercial development in central Ann Arbor if it means that there would be more things of interest there for me. I also want a convenient place to park when I get there, since I (like most other people who go there) live outside of walking distance. There better be something really, really attractive to me if I have to fight for parking or take some sort of shuttle service to get there. Downtown Ann Arbor is not the only place I can get to within thrity minutes in my car; it just happens to be the closest. Also, I’m not going to go there for a park. I am already close to several that accomodate my recreational needs.
posted by JCP2 on July 30th, 2005 at 2:21 pmJCP2 - A park for me, isn’t a lawn and monkey bars. I agree that I’d rather have a place where you can mountain bike. A parking sized park is pretty useless.
todd - I do appreciate the run down. I’d not been paying attention. I did not know that the parking lot was lost.
posted by Alan Gutierrez on July 30th, 2005 at 3:35 pmSome quotations from the Chicago Tribune about a proposed building (twisty and 2,000 feet tall — with spire).
“…Still, because of its height, the tower can be expected to become a lightning rod for opposition in the affluent, highly organized Streeterville neighborhood.
‘Some people will be excited to have a landmark in their neighborhood, and some people are going to be horrified that they’re going to have to such a tall building close to them, ” said Jim Houston, president of the Streeterville Organization of Active Residents.
The influential neighborhood group has not yet taken a position on the project…
‘It’s going to put Chicago on the map,” [Alderman Natarus] said. ‘I’m not concerned about height. And I’m not concerned about density, because it’s a sliver.’ …. “
posted by A Different Jon on July 30th, 2005 at 4:43 pmAlan - don’t cancel your membership to the Sierra Club. Just call them up and tell them you don’t want to be part of the Huron Valley chapter. The general Club is swell - it’s just (a very small but vocal contingent of) the local that’s being idiotic. Call and ask to transfer your membership to the Southeast Michigan Group. Bonus: you get a newsletter talking about _Detroit’s_ environmental problems, which are way more hard core than Ann Arbor’s.
Todd - there’s hope. Of three scenarios, 20 tables total, 14 tables chose the scenario with the most growth. 3 chose the middle scenario, but “cheated” and added more growth to the middle scenario. (Quote from a presentation, “But we kind of cheated - we decided we wanted a few more of the ‘high-rise residential’ pieces than scenario two gave us.”) 2 chose the straight middle scenario, and only one chose the least-growth, no-change scenario. That group contained Mr. Cowherd - while the Friends rounded up enough zealots to have a passionate voice or two at every single table, they were out-argued in almost every single group.
posted by Murph on July 30th, 2005 at 10:49 pmMurph - It’s not the Huron Valley Chapter, it’s the Huron Valley Group which belongs to/is supported by the Mackinac Chapter. Supporting any group within the Mackinac Chapter is ultimately supporting all groups (or the whole orginization for that matter, which left a foul stench in the air through its immigration/population policy and elections debacle prompting others I know as well as myself to find other means or organizations…).
posted by FAA on July 31st, 2005 at 12:33 pmAh. Well, I don’t know anything about bad stuff going on at the state level - it’s just the local that I know why to be angry at right now.
Really, all I want is for Doug Cowherd to not be able to claim to speak for “4,000 members of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club”. Switching your membership to the SEMG at least takes care of that problem.
posted by Murph on July 31st, 2005 at 2:45 pmYeah Todd, makes a nice story and fits in well with your theory of build up, everywhere, all the time, in order to “save” Ann Arbor. I don’t think it is quite as simple as you portray.
Metzgers ceased doing business for several reasons: 1) the Metzgers were elderly and were tired of running the business, 2) none of the kids wanted the business, 3) a hip new brew-pub went in across the street and took many of their patrons, 4) the parking lot was going to be closed down. After being closed for a few months, the Metzger’s son John and daughter Heidi decided they actually did want to run the restaurant and the Metzgers actually tried buying back the building, but the ink was dry on the contract and they ended up moving out of downtown.
It sounds good to say that Arbor Brewing is moving their brewery to Ypsi because of the high cost of doing business in Ann Arbor, but the truth is, Matt and Renee have far more ties to Ypsi than Ann Arbor. They have lived in Ypsi for over a decade and own two houses there. My feeling is the reason they opened in Ann Arbor was to get money and a reputation before making the move to Ypsi that they have been planning on for years.
As for Leopold Bros, you will be happy to know that in the Calthorpe “game” the other night, South Main was considered prime space for development and most (if not all) of the boards had high rises running through where Leopold Bros is now. I assume you are OK with that. There would be retail on the first floor, so hopefully you would be the first choice, but the rent on a new building would probably be too steep and my guess is it would end up as a chain restaurant of some sort. Oooh, maybe we will get a W.G. Grinders! Wouldn’t that be great!
posted by Juliew on July 31st, 2005 at 7:59 pmJulie — Why did Decker Drugs close? Wooden Spoon books, Harry’s Army Surplus, Dascola, Mast Shoes, Wilkinson Luggage… Why have they been forced to move or close? Why didn’t the Greffs originally buy houses and establish ties in Ann Arbor?
Todd has said previously that when their lease is up, they will no longer be able to afford doing business in Ann Arbor. I am not happy about that.
posted by Dale on July 31st, 2005 at 10:39 pmDale, I’m not discounting the loss of small, independent businesses in Ann Arbor. I think it is a problem. I’m just saying it isn’t necessarily just because there isn’t more density downtown. New buildings are always more expensive than old buildings. If you build new, dense high-rises on Ashley Street, you will kill the Fleet, Red Shoes, Mosaicspere, and Lucky Monkey because they are in what is cheap space downtown. The cheap space in Ann Arbor is going to be older construction.
Decker Drugs closed because their rent went up. The owners of the building are from out of town and know they could get more money from a franchise. This is a big problem in the downtown area. I talked to Jim Decker before he closed and he said the business was doing the best it ever had but a drug store just doesn’t have the same margins as a restaurant. Many of the buildings downtown are owned by people who want to make the most money off of it. That is going to be a bar and/or a franchise. Nothing else comes close.
Wilkinson’s Luggage closed because the landlord was doing construction to add a story to the building. In doing this, he was going to add an elevator to bring it into ADA compliance and the elevator would have taken too much space on the interior of the store for Wilkinson’s to be able to deal with. So they decided to make the leap to the ‘burbs.
Dascola is still open downtown.
Mast Shoes wasn’t selling enough shoes at their downtown location and it wasn’t big enough to do more displays so they consolidated to their bigger location at Westside.
I don’t know why Renee and Matt didn’t buy in Ann Arbor when they located here originally, but I know they paid more for their house in Ypsi than we did for our house in Ann Arbor bought at the same time.
Change on the scale that Calthorpe is looking at (for example, adding 2500 people means adding 31 high rises to the downtown area) would most likely destroy all the small, local businesses remaining downtown. New businesses would come in to fill the gaps, but they are more likely to be national chains.
posted by Juliew on July 31st, 2005 at 11:43 pmWhy is the loss of small independent businesses downtown necessarily a problem? For some things I want to pay the lowest price, while for others, I will pay a small premium to get either better service or convenience. If the stores I want to go to are downtown, then fine. If not, then I’ll go to where they are.
posted by JCP2 on August 1st, 2005 at 8:17 amJCP2: interesting question (Why is the loss of small independent businesses downtown necessarily a problem).
Because it is symptomatic of the bigger picture of what is happening in this country—bad taste and mediocrity have taken over and people will lap it up with a spoon and justify it with the balm of “it’s cheaper.”
With an independent owner–someone who has passion for the business they are in, their opinions, knowledge, their ability to educate and persuade their customers, the fact that they have a stake in the business as opposed to be being a hired lackey–places have personality and are special. Like radio used to be, like regional food and accents used to be, like towns used to be.
Now everything is turning into on big homogeneous mass of mall culture.
posted by OFWinsurgent on August 1st, 2005 at 9:23 amChange on the scale that Calthorpe is looking at (for example, adding 2500 people means adding 31 high rises to the downtown area) would most likely destroy all the small, local businesses remaining downtown.
This is not true.
Scenario 2 added 1,000 residential units, which you could figure to be between 1500 and 2500 people. That scenario had, as I recall, maybe 4 “high rises” which were *only* 8 stories. Where the heck is 31 highrises coming from??! that’s a ridiculous number for the number of people you’re talking about.
Moreover, if most of the development were on surface lots, it would nothing but good for the small local businesses in old buildings. Their rent might go up, but so would their business. Think of all the surface lots that could be developed! Parking lot next to the Campus Inn, on the other side of the Sloane condos, on the corner of Huron and Fifth across from city hall, on the corner of division and washington, the brown block… I could go on, but you get my point. Put highrises there and we add a considerable population with no bad effects on local businesses at all.
posted by KGS on August 1st, 2005 at 10:04 amSmall businesses aren’t cool? I knew that Wal-Mart was cool, but I was unaware that small businesses weren’t cool. Small businessmen are nothing more than a bunch of monopolists, buying Volvos and Priussies and preventing Ann Arbor from being just like Novi! Why, without their meddling we could replace the old downtown buildings with a super highway and strip malls! Power to the people! Down with small businessmen! Up with Novi and Canton!
posted by Disgruntled Dad on August 1st, 2005 at 10:05 amTodd, If Ann Arbor is inhospitable to your business, you should consider moving it here — the city is dying to get more businesses downtown and are encouraging of bars and dance clubs and brew pubs because they are trying to make a reputation as a regional place for nightlife. The city is big into downtown development and there is a new state- and city-subsidized area where a regional (live) theater is moving in along with parking garages, mixed-income housing, retail space — along with a college which is relocating there. The downtown area has seen the addition of over a thousand new housing units in the last five years, with more planned. We have a city the size of Ann Arbor’s, but a lot more people in the surrounding communities come here for entertainment (our summer outdoor concerts draw over 20,000 people). Plus, businesses here have easy transport of products up and down the eastern seaboard via truck, ship, and rail. Let Ann Arbor have parking-lot-sized parks and nimbys — we’ll take Ann Arbor’s brewpubs (along with any of Ann Arbor’s remaining creative class).
posted by Anna on August 1st, 2005 at 10:13 amPray tell Anna, where is this mystery town to which you allude in all your patronizing, sniffing diatribes against Ann Arbor? We provincial folk of Tree Town wait with bated breath for enlightenment.
posted by OFWinsurgent on August 1st, 2005 at 10:26 amI think it rhymes with “zoo-cravin’ fun etiquette.” But I may be mistaken.
posted by Brandon on August 1st, 2005 at 10:43 amOFW, the people who need to know know already. Kisses.
posted by Anna on August 1st, 2005 at 11:04 amKGS, Calthorpe’s Option 2 (adding 1000 housing units) added two high-rises, many low-rises, and some townhouses. Option 3, which my group used, added 2500 housing units (my mistake was to say 2500 people, it was actually housing units). That was done with 31 high-rises, a smaller number of low-rises, and no townhouses. If you figure that there are approximately seventy units in every 8-10 story high-rise, it does works out.
I agree that building up on the empty lots and rebuilding nonworking buildings like Tally Hall is a good thing. But building on empty lots alone doesn’t give you 2500 housing units. Personally, I think that is too high a target, as does the Downtown Residential Task Force. They recommended adding 1000 residential units.
posted by Juliew on August 1st, 2005 at 11:19 amWell, wherever it is, life can’t be too great for you there since you spend so much time posting bitter loveletters to your hated former town. In any event Ann Arbor has one less condescending snob to contend with. Hooray.
posted by OFWinsurgent on August 1st, 2005 at 11:29 amI still think the 31 high rise number is wrong. My group also did option 3 and we didn’t have nearly that many. Just think about what was on the page: it might have had 6 blocks across, and no more than 5 rows down. So 31 residential building blocks I could buy, but not 31 *high rises* only. Honestly I think there were only 10-15 high rises in the scenario, but still that’s 9-14 more than we’ve had built in the last 15 years. (by which I mean purely residential high-rises; Corner Apartments is the only one that qualifies AFAIK)
Also, the high rises that Calthorpe was using were *6-8 stories* not 8-10. Figure your numbers again. Mid rises were 3-5, low rise were up to 2 stories.
The Downtown Residential Task Force recommended adding 1,000 units *in the next 10 years*, and thought an _additional_ 1,500 units by 2030 was appropriate. So in Calthorpe’s scenario 3, they were *below* the rate recommended by the DRTF, because that was for 2,500 units by 2035.
I think that building on surface lots and underutilized buildings would do the trick, to be honest. We have a lot of wasted space downtown.
posted by KGS on August 1st, 2005 at 12:18 pmYeah, there’s probably not room for more than one of you, OFWI.
posted by Anna on August 1st, 2005 at 1:03 pmI know you are but what am I?
apologies to peewee herman
posted by OFWinsurgent on August 1st, 2005 at 2:12 pmhttp://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3648651
http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3646881
http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3621998
Looks like a fun place to start a business. I’m on my way, as soon as I save up 350,000$ for a house!
posted by Disgruntled Dad on August 1st, 2005 at 3:56 pmTodd, before you pack up and become a Bulldog, you might want to ask Anna (or someone else) about whether New Haven has moved out of the top thirty “most dangerous cities” list. More fun!
posted by Disgruntled Dad on August 1st, 2005 at 4:01 pmOFWinsurgent, it’s not that I am against small business. I work in one myself. It’s just that it seems that people have voted with their wallet already, and maybe the homogenous mall culture is what they want. Also, if a landlord can charge more rent to a higher margin chain store, why shouldn’t they? It’s true that small business owners feel that we have something to offer that a big box store might not; what’s not so clear is if customers feel the same way and are willing to pay a premium for it. A lot of mass produced consumer goods are essentially fungible, and with the Internet being the way it is, information is no longer privy to a few, and price competition is open to all. As an aside, I bought my first new car online. Independent businesses can survive, and thrive, but unless they are a boutique type of store, they really can’t compete in a high rent area like downtown Ann Arbor. They’ll just relocate somewhere else. My question specifically was why is the loss of small independent businesses DOWNTOWN necessarily a problem, not why is the loss of small independent businesses in general necessarily a problem. I agree that I think that small businesses have a lot to offer the consumer.
posted by JCP2 on August 1st, 2005 at 7:49 pmWell, what the public (”they”) wants, the public gets…perhaps you are right about the “voting with the wallet” issue. DeToqueville called it “Tyranny of the Majority.” Personally, I try to fight this trend by beating this horse (Shop your block) to death.
This is not to say that I don’t make an occasional run to a big box store or the internet (TP, cleaning supplies, computer parts, pet food, hard-to-find books). It’s just my general practice to try to support independent businesses when I can. If they disappear downtown, they will most likely disappear in most places.
posted by OFWinsurgent on August 1st, 2005 at 8:13 pmI also try to support independent businesses when I can, but I disagree that an absence of them downtown will lead to an absence of them in general. Most customers would be willing to pay a small premium for the little extras that a competent and knowledgable independent establishment can give them, but the emphasis is on small. Not enough to make the rent downtown, but okay for somewhere where the rates are lower. There’s not enough traffic to support starting up a high-volume, low-margin retail business downtown without significant external funding. The fact that a McDonald’s or a Burger King does not exist in downtown Ann Arbor speaks to that (Wendy’s in the Student Union and Medical Center doesn’t really count). Also, a lot of independent small businesses are not retail with a storefront, and they can be virtually anywhere. We work with our clients via phone, fax, and UPS. There’s no sign out front indicating where we are.
posted by JCP2 on August 1st, 2005 at 8:41 pmJCP2 — do you know what it means to live in a “community”? Small, locally-owned businesses are an integral part of that (if I need to explain why, the words would be wasted). In addition, fidelity to local consumption among a community means that individuals within that community have opportunity to develop their own businesses — meaning that it promotes lifestyle choice AND economic opportunity. If everyone shops big box and mega-chain in Ann Arbor, then NO ONE has the opportunity to develop their own retail venture or to develop their own product for the local market — they have to bow to the chains. And perhaps, in the wake of cuts at Pfizer, we should consider just how responsive global corporations are to the local community.
posted by Dale on August 1st, 2005 at 10:54 pmI prefer independent businesses too, and would like to keep a lot of them downtown, but I admit that it’s a somewhat selfish want, because I live downtown. I’m socially and financially invested in the neighborhood, and seeing Joe Joe’s Juice bar (where, I confess, I never went because it looked scary. I think it was the pile of brown bananas in the window) replaced by fucking Smoothie King pisses me off. But JCP2 is right that small businesses can be located pretty much anywhere. Packard, on the east side of town, in a good example. Lots of ethnic groceries, the Fantasy Attic costume shop that was driven from Main Street, bike shops, Banfield’s Bar. It’s currently, I believe, the funkiest neighborhood in town. Unfortunately it looks like shit and you can’t walk it. It kind of reminds me of Los Angeles–lots of neat stuff in a god-awful setting. North Main is the only part of downtown, that I can think of, that has the potential to be an actual “urban” funky district, but the way it’s currently developed, it’s way too spread out. If only someone had had the foresight, a hungered years ago, to line Main Street with four story brick warehouses from Kingsley to Barton Hills.
On a side note, has anyone ever noticed, aside from Larry, that Main Street is Whitmore lake road, but that M-14 cut off the connection? So if you want to annoy your friends and loved ones, start calling “Main Street” Whitmore Lake. On the one hand it was crazy to cut the road in two, but on the other, I think it’s the only reason that we don’t have Ann Arbor-Saline Road style sprawl on the north side.
And finally, on the subject of Ann Arbor-Saline style sprawl, I spent a good portion of the weekend in Livonia. Wow. I remember Haggarty road being dirt, and now it’s restaurant row. That is, if you define “restaurant” as a place that warms up food originally prepared in a central commissary, food that can be assembled from as few products as possible (Boneless, skinless, chicken breasts anyone? We prepare them nine different ways, and six of those ways can be cut up and put on top of romaine lettuce!) And the rubes, including yours truly, lining up and waiting an hour and a half to get into Bahama Breeze. Thanks, Mom, but happy birthday anyway.
And Livonia is the future. It’s only a matter of time until Ann Arbor, from Forest to First Streets, is a slightly denser version of the same thing. We like to think we’re on the cutting edge when in fact we’re just behind the trend. Saginaw anyone? Could buy yourself a little more time.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on August 2nd, 2005 at 9:36 amDale, I do live in a community, Maybe not the one that you live in, but I have a little garden and good neighbors. Lest you forget, Microsoft, Apple, McDonald’s, Borders, Barne’s and Noble’s, Dell, and a whole host of large corporations were once small, locally-owned businesses. Heck, even Walmart had to start somewhere. Is there some unwritten boundary that small business owners cannot cross? It’s probably not going to happen to me, but I’m guessing that most small business owners strive to be large business owners someday.
posted by JCP2 on August 2nd, 2005 at 3:35 pmI always want to see diversity and balance — economics, transportation, nutrition, etc.
An important distinction for me is the local. My hometown, Kalamazoo, had a big corporation — Upjohn. It was a big employer in management, research, and manufacturing. They did a lot for the community. The CEO died (who had been part of the Upjohn family, continuing a century-long tradition), and some new big-shot came in, orchestrated a merger, and then it was Pharmacia & Upjohn, based in NJ. The bleeding started. After more acquisitions and mergers, there was no local management and only one family member on the board. Then Pharmacia accepted the offer from Pfizer and the hemorrhaging hasn’t stopped since. Oops, sorry Ann Arbor — you got slashed, too. One thing you may have noticed, is that at some point, community impact becomes less important to companies than purely economic motives. This surely happens with any publicly traded corporation. I wouldn’t wager at what size it happens, but when a corporation stops thinking about its community, that’s when I start looking for other options.
Now, to bring this back to the issue of downtown (for that was a rambling tangent if ever there was one), if Ann Arbor’s (or any) downtown does not have a balance of small, local businesses to go with the large ones, there is really no buffer against those companies picking up and moving if it suits them. In addition, the conservative nature and supposed efficiencies of large corporations makes for a less interesting experience the whole way around. Wow — what a cool interior all the Starbucks have. Damn, Borders is just a unique book-buying experience. Hmm, the checkers at Meijer sure do seem invested in their work. Yes, so much better than Cafe Ambrosia, Dawn Treader, and Sparrow’s. (That was for you, OFWi).
posted by Dale on August 2nd, 2005 at 4:28 pmTodd:
Move Leopold Bros. to PDX, OR. There aren’t enough people making lagers here.
posted by Portland Timebomb on August 2nd, 2005 at 4:38 pmThanks Dale. Don’t forget Monahan’s too (I was once a fish-mongress).
posted by OFWinsurgent on August 2nd, 2005 at 4:53 pmLong live local fishmongresses!
posted by Dave on August 2nd, 2005 at 5:01 pmWow, you must be pretty cool, OFW. I applied for a job at Monahan’s and was not deemed worthy. And I really wanted to monger. I like dead fish. But I think he saw the light in my eye’s dim when he explained that I’d have to drive out to Metro Airport at some godforsaken hour of the morning to pick up the fish.
He did call my references. That could have also been the problem.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on August 2nd, 2005 at 5:06 pmBeing a fish mongress had its moments, however, gutting mackeral, or worse—Schmaltz herring— at 7 a.m. with a hangover is not the greatest way to spend a Saturday morning.
Actually, I worked there part-time for a number of years in the mid 90s, but just come in now and then these days if he is in a jam. I still do all his ads and marketing however.
posted by OFWinsurgent on August 2nd, 2005 at 10:40 pmJulie,
Sorry, I was out for the weekend, so I’m a little slow responding.
As usual, you have well reasoned responses, but I think you missed a few things.
Metzger’s relocated outside of downtown. Why? Even if you followed the actual story for their departure (I did too), ask yourself why did they choose to put their new restaurant outside of Ann Arbor when they had such an established customer base downtown?
I have spoken with Matt and Rene on several occassions about their new plant. In fact, they are modeling the operation of the new plant after ours….small kitchen, small staff, etc., and they visited us with their architects to have a look at our place just a few weeks ago. Yes, they have ties to Ypsi, but I can assure you that their site selection process took the conditions in Ann Arbor into account. What they told me was private, but I can say that neither the Leopold’s nor the Greff’s would ever open another business in this town, and that’s sad.
As for us, yes, we would be thrilled to see more development to the south of central downtown. I’m not holding my breath.
What Scott and I chose to do iin the name of survival is to move forward our plans for the exportation of spirits. I was in Virginia over the weekend, and I am pleased to report that the State will pick up both our Vodka and Gin in our choice of 50 State operated liquor stores starting in November. Further, Scott arrives today from Denver. We begin shipping to Colorado next month. We are working hard to stay in Ann Arbor.
JCP2, I very much agree that national chains are a good thing. They have a lot of power to change things for the better if they choose to do so. They can also provide an anchor for other small shops to operate around (Borders downtown comes to mind). I am only against creating an economic atmosphere where ONLY chains can survive. This is what has happened in Ann Arbor.
Parking Structure Dude: “And Livonia is the future. It’s only a matter of time until Ann Arbor, from Forest to First Streets, is a slightly denser version of the same thing. We like to think we’re on the cutting edge when in fact we’re just behind the trend.”
This is what I see as well.
posted by todd on August 4th, 2005 at 12:14 pmpersonally we here down in ol’ Ypsi are darn glad the Greffs are building their brewpub. Neighbors cannot wait to invest. I say if it is too expensive out west in A2, come one and all and rebuild Ypsi. We are all friendly and you all can all help us pay our taxes!
posted by Anonymous on March 12th, 2006 at 7:57 amKind of makes you wonder whether those are police costumes….
posted by A Different Jon on March 12th, 2006 at 5:00 pm