OFW Blocks Mixed-Use Development
This is why we can’t have nice things:
A controversial 10-story mixed-use development proposal on the edge of the Old Fourth Ward will go back before the Historic District Commission Nov. 9, six weeks after the commission rejected it.
…
It has already been approved by the City Council and Planning Commission.
…
“It’s the gateway to the Old Fourth Ward,'’ [the Historic District Commission’s] Derr said about the site. “That’s primarily residential, two or three-story homes.'’
It’s interesting that the building is being presented for review again to the HDC, especially since they’ve already decided that they are going to reject it again anyway. Maybe City Council is just gathering more evidence for a proposal to restrict the HDC’s scope of authority.
posted by JCP2 on October 26th, 2005 at 2:25 pmAfter keeping up with this board’s activities for a while, I watched (thanks, local access) my first HDC meeting a few weeks ago, I began slowly to hate them, mostly because they seem to have no perspective and are self-righteous about it. And because they use formal procedure in manipulative and dastardly ways. This appears to be a continuation of that trend. Alas.
posted by Heidi on October 26th, 2005 at 2:38 pmActually, it appears the Historic District Commission, not the OFW, is blocking this. The OFW doesn’t have that kind of power, though many of the members have influence with the powers that be.
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 26th, 2005 at 2:51 pmI think this is a supportable proposal. The destruction of the two houses were the valid sticking point from last time; since they are moving them (actually an historically faithful strategy to cope with new development), there is no legitimate grounds for HDC to deny this proposal. I’d wager Freed wanted to put this altered proposal forward so that their certain-to-follow lawsuit will have strong grounds. In my opinion, it will.
posted by Dale on October 26th, 2005 at 2:58 pmSorry, but just to verify, are we suggesting that a ten-story building would be a good thing? I’m in no way saying anything about the methods or personalities involved, but ten stories ? I had the pleasure of living for a couple of years in a very nice city where seven stories was pretty much the upper limit, and they still managed to fit several million people in. While the possibility that Ann Arbor would look like someone flipping you the bird from a certain angle does appeal to my sense of esthetics, in a sick way, nevertheless it does seem rather… large.
posted by David on October 27th, 2005 at 2:19 amMy God. ten stories? I think it’s just going to cripple this city. Hell, we may be up there in height with that building in Kuala Lumpur if we build it.
I find it rather sad that I live on the 15th floor of the tallest building in ann arbor - 27 stories - and we think it’s huge. If we want to act like Manhattan, we should build like it as well.
posted by eston on October 27th, 2005 at 3:26 amYes, but Tower Plaza sucks, oh, and blows, talk about the most pedestrian unfriendly corner of town. It has it’s own weather and that weather is terrible year round. I’ve had to wait there for something for an hour in July and it was a non-ending, grit in the eye, party.
I’ve also lived there and that was no great shakes either. Have they ever effectively dealt with that little roach problem they seem to perpetually have?
And the point is, again, if I wanted Manhattan I’d live there. I HATE Manhattan.You can feel it’s psychosis a hundred miles away.
F- Manhattan. I’m pretty sure I’ve never acted like Manhattan.
And Even 101 has nasty weather. Isnt there some way to build a bunch of nice little mixed use 5-8 story buildings in some ergonomic, FLWright,pedestrian friendly kind of way, taking into account and blunting the prevailing winds instead of creating a bunch of eye of a cyclone of trash and grit, plus butt-ugly pices of cheap expensive crap? (see corner house)
posted by stella on October 27th, 2005 at 8:01 amThe first floor of Corner House Lofts IS THE IDEAL.
posted by Dale on October 27th, 2005 at 8:41 amThe site is on the slope of a hill, so the top of the building won’t be as high as expected. Anyway, the big medical center research building on the east will dwarf whatever’s put there. Isn’t there already a tall yellow building with a big parking structure to the north as well? It’s not like they’re putting up a skyscraper in Dexter.
posted by JCP2 on October 27th, 2005 at 9:13 amI could concede that, but the remaining however many floors, barren, lack of windows, none of the nice touches from the original plan, is hideous to the eye. That building that replaced the McD’s on Maynard is perfectly lovely. Why can’t we have more of that type?
posted by stella on October 27th, 2005 at 9:15 amFrank Lloyd Wright design? What is it withyou people in Ann Arbor and your infatuation with Frank Lloyd Wright? Surely this, and Arts & Craft… seemingly another local favorite, aren’t the only styles of design you are familiar with?
posted by David on October 27th, 2005 at 10:15 amFrank Lloyd Wright’s designs, while individually they may be esthetically appealing to some, a building of that design placed within Ann Arbor would be hideous. It would look nearly as bad as that horrific building the U is building on Huron. Nothing like placing a futuristic glass house in the same eye-shot as the historical brick dorms.
Perhaps funds that would have been allocated to design (which I also like) were instead redirected to the “appeals and litigation” department. Increase in uncertainty over project implementation leads to increased opportunity costs, and money will be redirected elsewhere.
posted by JCP2 on October 27th, 2005 at 10:18 amI think everyone’s missing the point, which is: will some wealthy yuppie’s view be blocked by this 10-story monstrosity?
posted by Dave on October 27th, 2005 at 10:25 amThe answer is “yes”, Dave. It will block someone’s view of the 11 story building across the street, and take away their 1950’s quaint, rundown/ghetto-charm gas station too.
posted by FAA on October 27th, 2005 at 10:53 amHonestly, I’ve seen the developers 3-d models of this building and it is quite a monstrosity. I don’t have problems with 10 story buildings, but in an area that borders 2 stories residences it is a bit extreme. They basically would have passed the plan if it had been 6 stories according to one historic preservationist in the city, but the developer said that it required 9-10 stories to make the project economically profitable.
Sounds to me like we might have a case of angry residents and uncreative developers.
posted by Adam on October 27th, 2005 at 11:20 amWe have a FLLW house in A2. Near the Arb. He didn’t work in glass too much; and his designs didn’t really fit into urban contexts, so the enthusiasm for pedestrian sensitivity doesn’t make any sense.
posted by Dale on October 27th, 2005 at 11:28 amI wonder how much more angry the residents will be when they have to pay a city income tax to supplement potential lost revenues when that piece of land is bought by the university. HDC can’t save them then.
posted by JCP2 on October 27th, 2005 at 11:35 amSorry, I’m obviously ignorant. Where is the proposed site for this building? Cross roads?
posted by Dan on October 27th, 2005 at 11:39 amOn Glen between Ann and Catherine.
JCP2, My unstated point
was that there needs to be a compromise. It’s possible the developer feels they have compromised enough, but no one is reporting on that in here, so most people seem to be speculating on motives, etc…
posted by Adam on October 27th, 2005 at 11:52 amThe project has already passed city council and the planning commission. Why does HDC get to have as much say as they do? I’m more interested in the future well-being of this town, rather than in preserving the entire center of town in a big jar of formaldehyde. The compromise was that the two “historic” houses would be moved to a different site, rather than finaincial compensation be paid to the city.
posted by JCP2 on October 27th, 2005 at 12:01 pm“JCP2, My unstated point was that there needs to be a compromise.”
Actually, what is needed is a set of design standards for the city that includes height so that developers don’t have to guess, and citizens aren’t suprised when new construction pops up….both parties will know what to expect.
If this isn’t what comes out of the Calthorpe, then this city is totally screwed.
To this point, Adam, while your comment about how the “uncreative developers” weren’t being creative may be true, the simple question is where does the developer go to find help in “being creative”? The answer is *nowhere*. These design standards don’t exist in Ann Arbor. This is where many of these disputes between various permitting organizations, neighbors, and developers come from in the first place.
And JCP2….amen to both of your comments. Question for the floor, setting aside the absurdly large $1M sum that this developer would pay to the affordable housing coffers, how much has this one rejection (a six week delay brought to you by the people at the Hist. Comm.) cost Ann Arbor taxpayers?
posted by todd on October 27th, 2005 at 12:10 pmJCP2, to my understanding the HDC gets to have such a say due to Michigan laws… Not much we can do there, at least not in any timely fashion.
Todd, my answer: Too much.
posted by FAA on October 27th, 2005 at 12:17 pmTodd,
Good point. I was told today by the Mayor that they are establishing a set of architectural design standards for buildings in Ann Arbor. While your point for providing standards for builders is well taken, my point was that the developer was pretty much told exactly what they should do (lower the height) to pass this plan politically, and that this would require some creativity on the developers part, not a response of ‘It won’t be profitable if its less than 10 stories.’
I feel I need to end the email with a ‘grrrr’ or something.
posted by Adam on October 27th, 2005 at 12:22 pmWell, if I were the developer, and the city told me that I had to muck in $1M for low income housing, and then go through all of these building delays, and was then told at the last minute that I had to lop off two stories because of a committee “says so”, without pointing to a code or a law…….my first response to them would not be fit for Prime Time TV. My second response would be “my discussions with you are over. Meet my really, really mean attorney, Mr. Meanpants”.
posted by todd on October 27th, 2005 at 12:40 pmFLWright inspired? gimme a break. FLW couldn’t have designed a pedestrian-friendly building if his life depended on it.
Adam, did the Mayor say *who* is establishing these design standards? Planning commission? some committee? I’m part of a group that is working on some, but it is a huge problem to say the least, and since we are doing it on a private volunteer basis, I have concerns about whether the city will even follow through on them.
posted by KGS on October 27th, 2005 at 12:51 pmTake it easy, KGS. Take the WALKING TOUR of Oak Park the next time you go to Chicago. His designs for suburbia were appropriately pedestrian up until about 1910. Your beef is not with FLLW, it’s with the soulless shills and credulous public that pushes and accepts the baseless appropriation of his name.
posted by Dale on October 27th, 2005 at 1:11 pmFor those who recall the last round with the HDC, the threat of legal challenge was based on the interpretation of “alteration,” and whether new construction could be considered an alteration under the state-level rules. Freed decided not to go that route; since they are not destroying the two houses, it is a much more acceptable (socially and legally) proposal. I’d wager they will win this round. Preservationists should be thanking their lucky stars that Freed didn’t challenge 6 weeks ago; if they had won (and I think there was a chance because new construction has clearly been allowed in other contexts as acceptable alteration), it would have gutted the sacred historic preservation ordinances, leaving Ann Arbor open to anything. HDC should accept this proposal.
posted by Dale on October 27th, 2005 at 1:17 pmStella, cry me a river. Whatever management issues you’ve had with TP, I haven’t, and you offered absolutely no argument for having tall buildings, instead flying into a fit of rage about wind and how “pedestrian unfriendly” William and Maynard is.
And seriously, what’s with the Frank Lloyd Wright orgy everyone has around here? Wright’s designs weren’t pedestrian-friendly at all. Aside from that, they looked like total crap and were made to fit in with a woodsy environment. Tree town or not, an expanding downtown isn’t the place for that.
Maybe a lot of people haven’t realised that this is a growing city. A city contains a dense population and an equally dense amount of concrete to support it. This city isn’t going to stay tiny forever, and the buildings will grow in altitude as more people move to the area. If the Ann Arbor townie bohemians want to protest and drag developers through the mud every time a building taller than 3 stories is created, the University will just buy the land and build a bigger, taller, uglier, and less personal monstrosity right near you.
Would you rather have ten stories of neighbors and commerce or an academic centre that turns into a dark, abandoned ten stories at night?
I love the Ann Arbor hypocrisy of 1. fighting sprawl and 2. fighting tall buildings. The population will come, regardless of the actions of the HDC, council, or what not.
This town makes no sense. Only another year and I’ll be free to leave to New York City.
posted by eston on October 27th, 2005 at 1:21 pmEston, right on! It’s ironic that four years ago, I was thinking “…only another year and I’ll be free to leave from New York City.”
posted by JCP2 on October 27th, 2005 at 1:27 pm“I have concerns about whether the city will even follow through on them. ”
See, that’s the thing KGS, I think that there is precious little chance that the city is going to follow through on the Calthorpe exercises that are seeking to figure out what the heck citizens want their city to look like.
Citizen groups, IMHO, mostly from the downtown areas will seek to discredit Calthorpe if it conflicts with either exactly what they want, or with their ability to kill individual projects.
Just my opinion……but the rhetoric that I’ve heard over the past few months tells me that Calthorpe will be unable to get a very small group of citizens to agree on some honest density, and things like the massive greenway project will be paid for by bonds and more taxing. This is great, but only if you’ve got the money to live here.
The comment above about how “I don’t want Ann Arbor to look like Manhattan” is at the heart of this perspective. Even after expert after expert spoke at the Calthorpe lectures and told the audience how tall buildings and more people per square feet lead to things like walkability, more and cheaper mass transit, less car use, affordability (relative affordability, that is), stronger local businesses, and economic diversity, many citizens seem completely unconvinced by these outside experts. They seem to equivocate density and construction with a loss of Ann Arbor’s character. This perspective is more appropriate for wealthy retirement communities in Florida.
For the life of me, I don’t understand how these people can’t see that it’s the *lack* of growth and development that is pushing up prices, forcing out small businesses, and making Ann Arbor yet another rich suburb. Ann Arbor is supposed to be “different”…..and it’s losing the things that made it different in a big, big hurry.
posted by todd on October 27th, 2005 at 1:40 pmOh stop being so condescending, Dale. I *have* taken the walking tour. And what’s on it? suburban houses and fortress-like Unity Temple. Nothing close to urban and pedestrian friendly! every building I can think of that FLW has done in an urban setting was a fortress - Guggenheim in NYC, for example - are set up off the sidewalk, with high windows to keep people from looking in, blank walls next to the pedestrian, etc. Hardly the touchy-feeling image that Stella is trying to convey, is it!
To bring this back to topic, though, I hope that the Glen Ann place project can be approved at last. IMO this is a great way to make a definite edge to the neighborhood, like a fence at the edge of a yard. It’s lower than most of the houses so it won’t appear as tall. The architecture is, from what I hear, good (though I haven’t seen it personally). Over and over, it seems like people object to the ‘10 stories’ because 10 is a big scary number, without looking at all the other benefits this project offers.
posted by KGS on October 27th, 2005 at 2:01 pmfor those who want to talk about design standards, go to the library tonight:
http://www.aadl.org/events/list/downtown/
Panel Discussion:University of Utah College of Architecture and Planning Dean, Brenda Scheer, Discusses The Design Police: Regulating the City Without Stifling Creativity
posted by Joy on October 27th, 2005 at 3:36 pmThursday October 27, 2005: 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm — Downtown Library Multi-Purpose Room
This last in a series of public lectures concerning the future of downtown Ann Arbor, will center on urban planning and feature a lecture by Brenda Scheer. A panel discussion will follow, with local architect Damian Farrell, planner Megan Gibb and developer Bernie Glieberman. Moderated by UM Architecture Dean Douglas S. Kelbaugh, the panel will discuss types, as well as pros and cons, of design guidelines and codes. The series is cosponsored by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Strategy Steering Committee.
More about this event…
10 does seem high for a residential neighborhood, but yes, it’s right nearby the Medical campus with its huge buildings, right next door to a huge parking structure, next to (replacing?) an already several-story apartment building, down the street from a shiny new modern University building…I think the key here is that it’s at the bottom of a hill. What’s adjacent to it? Again, North and East: Medical campus. West: (up Catherine) another apartment building, three-story condos, and a hillside; (up Ann) a pizza place, a small parking lot, a Jimmy Johns…another 3-4 cash-register apartment building, I think…then across the street you have that old Fraternity or whatever that’s been converted into a rooming house…I just don’t see it detracting from much character. That particular corner’s neighborhood feel has already been taken apart by the University, really, and yeah, the abandoned gas station doesn’t feel very “friendly” to me. The top of the building will probably be no higher than the roofs on North Ingalls and Thayer. For that matter, what about the North Ingalls building??? I mean, what, should we knock down the Ingalls building because all of a sudden it’s too big and “detracts” from the neighborhood?
(BTW, I like the new medical science building–so it’s across the street from MoJo and Stockwell: so what? Lloyd Hall is way uglier, and it’s right next door to MoJo! Not to mention that awful addition that’s tacked onto Stockwell…the med sci building is about ten steps up on the aesthetics scale from those two.)
posted by Mike on October 27th, 2005 at 3:39 pmKGS — Wright’s pre-1910 buildings in wealthy suburbs, his later suburban buildings, and his urban buildings are all different animals. To say all his buildings all have the same quality in being non-pedestrian is about as ridiculous as the claim that nice 5-8 story urban buildings are Wrightian.
posted by Dale on October 27th, 2005 at 4:13 pmJCP2: Ha. To each his/her own, I guess.
posted by eston on October 27th, 2005 at 5:08 pmIMO this is a great way to make a definite edge to the neighborhood, like a fence at the edge of a yard.
Heh. “You can’t put that fence there — it’s the gateway to my yard, which is primarily two and three-inch blades of grass.”
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 27th, 2005 at 7:02 pmAAIO, you know, for the most part I have always been with you in your skewering of overzealous OFW types (couch ban, sliming the student population/renters, etc.). However, I think you tend to misrepresent the area as some sort of country club enclave with comments like the one above. Nobody in this neighborhood has a lawn (larger than a postage stamp anyway) to speak of.
If you are going to get on the case of the purported NIMBYism in the OFW, at least stick to their real beef, which is historic preservation. Absentee landlords have hosed this neighborhood for years, which you well should know, having lived in it.
For the record, I am somewhat ambivalent about this proposed building, I suppose I am more for it than against it (I think they need a lot of housing there and the current situation is an eyesore), but haven’t really taken a look at the site plan or talked to the folks I know who live down there to find out what their objection is. In any event, I’m sure it’s not about their fucking lawns.
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 27th, 2005 at 11:58 pmI didn’t mean that this literally has anything to do with lawns. I was just extending the analogy. Anyhow, Chris Crockett has made comments to the effect that she doesn’t want a tall building “looming over” the OFW (I think in regard to some Calthorpe meeting suggestion for Huron, not this building), which doesn’t sound like it has anything to do with historic preservation.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 28th, 2005 at 1:00 amI think that comment may have been in regard to the 10- storey building they wanted to put where the Greek Orthadox Church is on Main, but I could be wrong.
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 28th, 2005 at 7:50 amUnfortunately the Historic District Commission’s views are not represented in these posts. For a very eloquent defense of their reasons in rejecting the building you can read Susan Weinberg’s editorial from the Ann Arbor News here:
posted by David F on October 28th, 2005 at 9:04 amhttp://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1129905905155420.xml?aanews?NEO&coll=2
Unfortunately, that piece is not truthful. The chief objections of the HDC were 1) that Freed hadn’t played ball with HDC, instead working through other bodies, and 2) that the building was too tall.
Note that there is no explicit mention of size as grounds for rejection, though the HDC was explicit in citing the height of the building as objectionable. Wineberg, in particular, focused on the size of the building, accusing Freed of using an axonometric view (an oblique aerial view) to mislead the HDC about the building’s height. If I remember correctly, there was an exchange in which Freed’s rep asked what it would take to get the building approved, and a member of the HDC responded “make it 5 stories.”
posted by Dale on October 28th, 2005 at 9:45 amDan F,
Thanks for the quote.
“”The article discussing “design review'’ on Sept. 18 in The News noted many people are unhappy about new ugly buildings, which is to say that they really would like some civic beauty, though they might not call it that. We long for a physically pleasing building environment, not behemoths that pay lots of property taxes but make Ann Arbor a lousy town. Ann Arbor deserves better and the HDC insures that at least one group, appointed by the mayor and council and serving as volunteers, will be watching over the developments in historic districts and thinking about things other than the bottom line”
Here’s the problem. This may be an eloquent defense, but it sure is vague.
Pretend you want to build in the historic distric. Read the above paragraph. Now go to your architect and tell him to follow the “standard” that is in the above paragraph.
The HDC is somewhat hamstrung in that they don’t have the funds, to my knowledge, to hire a professional to draw up the design standards, making the HDC an actual, functioning organization. I bet that the developer would have gladly paid a year’s worth of a U. Planner/Architect’s design salary in order to avoid this current mess…..even if it means that the developer finds out that he can’t build on this site.
A design standard can’t be “nope, not this” (which is curiously related to “nope, not here”) or Ann Arbor will continue to get half-assed designs.
I would imagine that the HDC already knows that it is in desperate need of written design standards. It probably doesn’t have the $$$ to do it.
posted by todd on October 28th, 2005 at 11:00 amIn the beginning of that article I let the “massive 10-story” bit slide… Perhaps Susan C. Wineberg has never been out of the Ann Arbor city limits to see a 10-story building in context, or even looked across the street to see the larger university buildings.
But when she hit the “not behemoths that pay lots of property taxes but make Ann Arbor a lousy town” her unsupported bias was exposed. She writes extensively about what the HDC is, but can’t back up why a 10-story building is a negative. Hardly eloquent.
posted by FAA on October 28th, 2005 at 11:02 amActually, Susan lives within a block of the proposed building. I know her in a neighborly capacity, but not really personally. I know that she has been involved in historic preservation for years, and I can respect that even if I don’t always agree with her.
It never ceases to amaze me how people on this blog tend to characterize people they don’t agree with as having just fallen off a fucking turnip truck…I’m referring to the comment “perhaps Susan C. Wineberg has never been out of the Ann Arbor city limits…” come on.
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 28th, 2005 at 2:28 pmOh, come on OFWinsurgent…
I’m not on Susan’s case because I disagree with her, but because she can’t express a single word as to why the proposed building is a bad thing in her article. She sounds like a political ad - no basis at all, just a one-liner that the proposed building would “make Ann Arbor a lousy town”.
Also, I found Susan’s “…$1.6 million surplus, we can still afford to make these kinds of decisions” quip to be pompous, outrageous and irresponsible. So what if the city has an excess of my and other tax payer’s dollars in the bank, let’s just rest on it until it’s spent? And what comes of next year, should there be debt? Regardless, with that statement of hers, yes, I’ll put her into the recently jettisoned from a turnip truck category - but for a reason far different from your assumption.
posted by FAA on October 28th, 2005 at 3:38 pmJesus Christ, OFW “insurgent,” take a look in the mirror for a second.
posted by Anna on October 28th, 2005 at 4:53 pm“I’m not on Susan’s case because I disagree with her, but because she can’t express a single word as to why the proposed building is a bad thing in her article.”
i thought wineberg’s editorial expressed her PoV clearly and succinctly:
“the commission enforced the Old Fourth Ward ordinance which states, ‘No person shall demolish or move a significant or complementary historic structure unless it receives satisfactory evidence that it will be replaced by a structure having a design which is consistent with the historic architecture of the district and that this will be based on the compatibility of the proposed work with the style, materials, period, proportion, design roof pitch, number and location of openings, scale, color and texture of the building and based on its impact on adjacent buildings in the historic district.’”
posted by peter honeyman on October 29th, 2005 at 1:08 amPeter, are you arguing for FAA? Wineberg’s parroting the language of the ordinance without acknowledging how they INTERPRETED it does nothing to explain her case.
posted by Dale on October 29th, 2005 at 3:00 amdale, i’m arguing against FAA’s claim that wineberg “can’t express a single word as to why the proposed building is a bad thing in her article.”
i think she is clear and precise in her objection: the proposed building does not comply with the OFW ordinance.
posted by peter honeyman on October 29th, 2005 at 3:34 amI think the problem with the OFW ordinance is that it’s not very specific. Maybe that’s intentional so that it can be “used” in various ways to block “undesired” development.
posted by JCP2 on October 29th, 2005 at 12:43 pmMr. Honeyman, Susan justifies why the HDC shot down plans last time around - but with the demo out of the picture for the next proposal it may all be moot… Still, I’m not arguing that. She says nothing to support why a “behemoth” would “make Ann Arbor a lousy town”. It is statements such as those coupled with her rehashing of the ordinances that allude to the HDC denying the new building on the basis of prejudice (and semantics, but there are good and bad semantics - part of which are her job and we could argue for days which are being enacted here…).
posted by FAA on October 29th, 2005 at 1:17 pmi think wineberg gets her opinion across just fine by referring to the project as a behemoth — i take that to mean she thinks it is big.
similarly, when she says it would make ann arbor a lousy town, i gather that she feels that the project would not make ann arbor a better place.
those are her opinions. they are expressed in a way that is easy to understand.
i did not follow your comments about prejudice and semantics, but i defer to your expertise on those matters.
posted by peter honeyman on October 29th, 2005 at 4:37 pmHoneyman, you have now either overlooked or not understood the “why” portion of my comment twice. I would thank you for your explanation of “behemoth = big” and “lousy town = not a better place”, but I was vaguely familiar with the concepts beforehand.
When I said prejudice, I meant Wineberg has a preconceived opinion of larger buildings that is not based on reason - I gathered this from her negative tone towards said buildings and the fact that no reason was supplied.
When I spoke of semantics, I should have pointed to her quoting only the portion of the ordinance which makes her case - but not the portion that says demolition may occur if the buildings currently in place will deter a major improvement project of significant benefit to the public (this is assuming you agree that the $1,000,000 towards affordable housing, the projected $300,000 or so in tax dollars for the city, and the new jobs created by the retail and office section of the building qualify as a benefit to the public…but again, this is all moot should the next proposal have no demo at all). Sorry for any confusion.
posted by FAA on October 29th, 2005 at 6:00 pmThe standards governing the Old Fourth Ward historic district, which Susan Wineberg set forth above, were not adopted by historic weirdos from Lansing or bizarre old ladies from Ann Arbor. Instead, they were established by City Council in 1983.
Also, when Council initially approved Glen Ann Place, it said that its approval was conditional on the Historic District Commission’s approval. In other words, Council’s approval would not be final unless and until the HDC approved it.
Based on what Wineberg posted, I don’t see how the HDC could legally approve Glen Ann Place.
posted by DaveCahill on October 30th, 2005 at 11:13 amI thought you were a lawyer? Approving Glen Ann Place is entirely legal, reasonable, and appropriate.
posted by Dale on October 30th, 2005 at 6:25 pmEnough with the personal attacks already! For the record, I grew up in the center of Chicago, surrounded by buildings of all sizes, including very tall buildings. I am a fan of all good buildings–short, medium, tall and very tall. This issue is not about whether I like tall buildings. It is about whether the proposed Glen-Ann building is compatible with the other buildings in the historic district. Historic districts are a fairly new concept (they’ve only been around since 1970) and they were a grass root effort to get preservation away from the “George Washington slept here” kind of mentality about what is important in American history. In the 1970s there developed a movement to acknowledge that everyone–rich and poor–contributed to this country and that collections of buildings in districts could express this idea. When the Old Fourth Ward was being built, cars did not exist and the rich and poor lived near each other. So, we have Division Street where the elite lived and worshipped, and Huron St too althought most of that has disappeared long ago. Fanning out from these streets were where the less elite and working class people lived. They all needed to be within walking distance of each other, so we have elements of many classes within this district. The two houses on Glen represent the remnant of the working class and black population that once lived in this neighborhood. The ordinance is pretty clear about what is considered compatible, though of course this is open to interpretation. If the developers had come to us first, as they had indicated they would, this could have been sorted out before Council approved it. We had two work sessions with them before they went to Council so we were taken by surprise to say the least when we heard it had been approved. An almost identical building to this one has been approved for the 200 block of West Huron, which is a more appropriate site. And apparently they had a five story building approved for this site at Glen and Ann a few years ago but never built it. I guess the only way this will truly be settled will be in court.
posted by swines on October 30th, 2005 at 11:47 pmWhy does a reasonable person have to post before I do?
The area of Detroit that I grew up in has a lot of working class people and black people. They are equally as boring and deserve to have their history preserved as much as the rentiers. It’s cool that thier history is being preserved.
Being said, does it need to be preserved right there? Looking forward to the next 50 years, I think deveopment from the north and south converging on the river would be great.
What periods of time were these houses sanctified by the working classs and black people? Are we talking 25 years versus 100 years of rent trap?
And another thing…FAA is right aboot big buildings in Ann Arbor. Could somone provide stats about South Quad, Dennison, Harlan Hatcher, Alice Lloyd, Couzens, and the Executive Residence?
And another thing about density … could someone provide stats about South Quad, West Quad, Law Quad, Mary Markley, East Quad, an U Towers. And Stockewell, Mosher-Jordan, Marlkey, Alice Lloyd, and Couzens? Not only does the population have to be dense, but they also have to wantt o spend their money on the same things you do.
And another thing… why does it have to be word of mouth where Down on Main Street was about or why the only thing about rhe Peace Corps is a small plaque on the Union steps or why there isn’t something for hundreds of young people running naked down the streets? Why isn’t there something for thousands of people smoking dope on the Diag? Why isn’t there something for a film society or a Take Back the Night march. Why can’t we remember venomous rock stars showing high school chicks how to kill themselves by shooting coke? Why can’t Zingerman’s break down its wall to expand? Why can’t we commeorate the same carpeting being in student housing for the past 50 years?
posted by A Different Jon on October 31st, 2005 at 3:27 amI remember the venomous rock stars………
posted by stella on October 31st, 2005 at 8:20 amMs. Wineberg — that was a terrifically dishonest response. You and the HDC rejected Glen Ann Place because it was a 10 story building and because you felt Freed tried to maneuver around you. You did not do it to protect the memory of the working class.
If we care about the working class, we should be promoting new development, and particularly the development of affordable housing, from 10% of the median income through 80% (maybe the $1m from this development AND the saving of two marginally affordable structures could help in this regard?). I felt the previous decision of the HDC was correct. This proposal is more appropriate and should be approved on the following grounds (from the Historic District ordinance):
“(d) Retaining the structure is not in the best interest of the majority of the community.”
posted by Dale on October 31st, 2005 at 11:27 amfine, let’s vote on it
posted by peter honeyman on October 31st, 2005 at 12:24 pmMs. Wineberg,
Since you were kind enough to post here, can you answer a few questions? :
1. Are there final design standards for each of the 13 historic districts?
2. Was I correct in asserting that you do not have the funding or a full time staffer to put together these standards?
3. Here is the link to the map for all 13 Historic areas (there are another 5 districts under proposal for addition as historic areas):
http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/CommunityServices/Planning/Building/HDC/district.html
Since it seems clear that it is the size of the building that is the issue here, what is the tallest building allowed by the HDC in these areas? Is this maximum height/footprint in writing somewhere?
thanks
posted by todd on October 31st, 2005 at 12:59 pmI’m glad that Susan is participating in this item! And yes, as a lawyer (without a client in this dispute) I think the HDC did the only thing it could legally do by turning down Glen Ann Place.
posted by DaveCahill on October 31st, 2005 at 1:47 pmAnd now you see, by the same standards, that it can and should approve Glen Ann Place.
posted by Dale on October 31st, 2005 at 2:57 pmSo many quesions. So little time! The HDC doesn’t have design standards. We have something from the federal government called the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. We adopted those standards as the means by which we make decisions. We are not about designing, we are about protecting historic resources. Most of the standards encourage the protection of the existing historic fabric, and replacement with something similar if it is beyond repair. They also encourage the use of a historic resource to try to be the same as it was originally built for although adaptive reuse has commonly been accepted (witness the Gandy Dancer and Urban Outfitters to name just two).
Some people have a misconception about how historic districts are established. A study committee is appointed by the mayor and council and interested parties are usually on them. They work as volunteers for as long as it takes to research all the properties, draw boundaries, and write an ordinance. In theory, anything over 50 years old can be protected in a local historic district, including items related to the music scene in Ann Arbor and political events. People interested in protecting those venues have a right to petition for the establishment of a study committee. University properties, however, are off limits thanks to Ronald Reagan.
So, the situation is that we have a developer who proposes an out of scale building in a known historic district. Why pick that site? Why not build their already approved 5 story building? The building was rejected because it is not in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood and doesn’t even attempt to. I’m surprised to read about my motives in rejecting the building when I clearly stated my objections during the meeting. These meetings are taped and anyone can view them. Others may have had other reasons for voting no (the person who fumed the most about Freed going behind our backs actually voted FOR the building) but I was pretty clear that I felt it was not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. I am aware that there are large buildings all around this area, but that’s exactly the point. They are NOT in the district and the district was seen as a buffer to big developments around it. Soon we could lose the 4 houses on Huron that the University occupies and have them replaced with a large building. We need some breathing room in this town and the historic districts are an attempt to provide this. And regarding affordable housing, if you read Jane Jacobs you know that older buildings are always cheaper than new ones. Should there be no affordable housing left in central Ann Arbor? Freed would rather pay into a fund than provide affordable housing. And the fund, which doesn’t have much of a track record, is building or supporting projects like Carrot Way, way the hell out of town.
We do not have a paid staff person as historic district coordinator who is trained in this field. When our staff person left last January for another job, the position was taken over by a person from planning who works with hp half time. I don’t think hp has any budget at all right now.
What is the tallest building allowed? We don’t make decisions that way. It depends on where the building is proposed and what the ordinance for that particular district says. I know that the downtown district ordinances are not posted online and that is a problem. but I believe the Liberty Lofts project has a new building that is 5-6 stories tall. We also approved the new Y building and that is a fairly large building. But it’s not just a question of tall–the massing of the Glen-Ann building is one big block, from lot line to lot line, no setbacks at all because it is a PUD. In this situation it doesn’t have to follow the zoning ordinance either. Remember, there are two issues at work here. One is the approval of the demolition of two houses, the other is the approval of a proposed new building. One hinges on the other and we on the HDC have to interpret the ordinances as best we can, being non legal types. Like I said before, it will probably be settled in court. Then we can move on from there with better guidelines as to how to interpret our ordinances.
posted by swines on October 31st, 2005 at 4:23 pmHow about “some guidelines”? That might be a little helper to people who actually build buildings instead of just talk about buildings. It sounds like right now the guidelines are whatever your committee decides the guidelines are.
Oh, and is this an elected committee? Is there meaningful public participation? I sort of thought there wasn’t. Oh well, you must know better, I mean after all, you live on the OWS and all, and you’re so concerned about property values, I mean history.
posted by Michael McC. on October 31st, 2005 at 4:33 pmWow, it sounds like there are a lot of issues.
I get the feeling that the fact that the ordinances aren’t even posted online (surely a problem with a simple solution) is an example of the lack of information that others are complaining about. From what I’ve gathered, putting together a building isn’t as easy as stacking and unstacking floors willy-nilly, so it seems to me that it’s important to communicate as precisely as possible what the expectations are for what areas (ahead of time, if possible.) But I’m also not sure I see the reason why this needs to end up in court. The way I see it is, either the developer will come back with a shorter proposal, or he won’t come back at all (unless the new proposal gets approved on the 9th or whenever.) It’s the not coming back at all option that gets me a little worried–we can’t chase away all new housing proposals just because they don’t treat the town like a museum of domestic architecture. Of course I agree you have to be careful–things can get overbuilt, as they were during the 80’s. And yes, some things shouldn’t be built at all.
I’m torn about trying to preserve the area due to its social history. The two houses in question aren’t remarkable architecturally, and I’m not sure they’re even residences right now. If we’re talking about an old working-class, African-American neighborhood, that block, including the houses across the street (if the U. hasn’t torn them down yet?) has got to be the only part left–it’s pretty scrawny for a historic neighborhood, though as part of the larger Old Fourth Ward I guess I can see the value in it.
I can understand the motivations of the HDC for preserving the residential housing on that block, but I agree it’s frustrating that there doesn’t seem to be a clear idea of just what would be acceptable to build there. What would be acceptable to build there? If the developer came back with an identical proposal, but only five stories tall, would that get approved? Who was it approved by previously?
Maybe there would be a bit more confidence about the process if there were a good idea as to the alternatives–let’s say this development never gets built; so, is that gas station going to stand derelict for next 50 years? Is that really worth preserving? Or what about those houses on Huron that might get torn down–sad, but are they being treated like meaningful contributions to the neighborhood right now? If not, why not?
posted by Mike on October 31st, 2005 at 5:25 pmI watched the meeting in question and stand by my comments about the motivation of several members of the HDC.
One particularly nasty comment involved accusing Freed of attempting to mislead the HDC by making GAP look shorter than the BioMed building. The illustration in question was an axonometric view (basically an aerial view), a standard architectural convention that at least one member of the HDC misinterpreted.
posted by Dale on October 31st, 2005 at 5:31 pm…sounds a bit like Dr. Bill Frist to me.
“Watch Terri follow the balloon…”
Glad you’re on top of people’s motivations via video link.
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 31st, 2005 at 5:51 pmThe Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are online, just enter it in Google and you’ll find it. However, it has only to do with rehabilitation, not with new construction in an historic district, so it doesn’t apply in this case.
The historic guidelines are online, at least for the city. You can see the Old Fourth Ward ones here:
Of particular note is this portion:
“No person shall demolish or move a significant or complementary historic structure unless such demolition or moving is authorized pursuant to City Code Section 8:409. In either case, the Historic District Commission may approve the demolition or moving if it receives satisfactory evidence that it will be replaced by a structure having a design which is consistent with the historic architecture of the district.”
… by which all of this hangs. The problem is that this phrase - “design which is consistent with the historic architecture of the district” practically precludes anything other than 2-3 story residential. And that’s a shame, really, because what is ‘consistent’ can vary so much from person to person. I’m amazed that the previous 5-story building passed considering the vagueness of these so-called guidelines.
posted by KGS on October 31st, 2005 at 6:28 pm“I clearly stated my objections during the meeting. These meetings are taped and anyone can view them.”
OFWi, do you have an objection to what Ms. Wineberg asked us to do?
posted by Dale on October 31st, 2005 at 6:42 pmNo, not at all. I simply am mocking you for claiming to devine anyone’s “motivation” by watching the teevee.
It distracts from the real debate about this building, the clout of the HDC and the direction of urban planning in this town, which is a very interesting topic. All this other crap about people’s motivations and accusations of hayseed asthetics seem to be gumming up the discussion.
posted by OFWinsurgent on October 31st, 2005 at 7:09 pmWell done.
posted by Dale on October 31st, 2005 at 7:14 pmThe HDC was just applying the plain language of the OFW ordinance. If people have a problem with that, their problem is with City Council, which adopted the ordinance.
People who are slavering for development should realize that Council calls the tune, and has said that historic districts are off limits for huge buildings that are out of scale with the districts.
Even Calthorpe agrees with the idea that we shouldn’t trash historic districts.
posted by DaveCahill on October 31st, 2005 at 8:10 pmDavid, do you chuckle as you write these posts? I do as I read them. City Council APPROVED Glen Ann Place. Whatever the conditions, it means they DO NOT believe that historic districts are explicitly off limits (and they did not find GAP out of scale).
posted by Dale on October 31st, 2005 at 9:55 pmDale, you have failed (again) to understand what Council did. It said that it would only approve Glen Ann Place *if* the HDC approved it. The HDC did not approve it; ergo, Council did not. Check the resolution Council passed if you are still suffering a barrier to understanding.
Oh - who are you, really?
posted by DaveCahill on October 31st, 2005 at 10:12 pmAnyone who wants to read the resolution can find it here on pages 10 and 11. Anyone who finds that the language contained therein means that “Council … has said that historic districts are off limits for [buildings like Glen Ann Place]” should find better rhetorical deceptions to employ.
posted by Dale on October 31st, 2005 at 10:50 pmwhat rhetorical deceptions? it’s right there on the bottom of p. 10:
RESOLVED, That City Council approve the Glen Ann Place PUD Site Plan upon the conditions that (1) the Historic District Commission grants approval of the demolition or removal of the two existing houses on site and approval of the proposed building prior to issuance of permits, (2) etc.
posted by peter honeyman on October 31st, 2005 at 11:43 pmMeaning that the council had no reservations about a 10 story building in the OFW and was only abiding by the state requirements in making that a condition. Is this point so subtle, that the APPROVAL reflects the will of the council and the CONDITION is a state requirement, out of their hands?
Does anyone doubt that if the Michigan Local Historic District Act did not require HDC approval, this project would already be approved?
posted by Dale on November 1st, 2005 at 12:08 amIn the words of a very eloquent gentleman, “Oh snap.” Or was that “Zing”?
posted by Heidi on November 1st, 2005 at 2:03 amDale, the condition that Council attached for HDC approval has nothing to do with mythical “state requirements”. The requirements for new construction in the OFW were written by *Council* when *Council* approved the OFW district in 1983. Council said they would approve GAP if the HDC approved it. The HDC didn’t approve, so Council didn’t.
I see you’re still hiding behind anonymity…
posted by DaveCahill on November 1st, 2005 at 1:19 pmI’m the one hiding behind anonymity, asshole. Everyone who’s been hanging around for a little while knows who he is. Stupid fucker.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on November 1st, 2005 at 1:30 pmDave, that last statement is so telling.
posted by Dale on November 1st, 2005 at 1:31 pm…the stupid fucker being Dave and not Dale. I would hate to offend anyone who mattered.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on November 1st, 2005 at 1:31 pmThese are the Daves I know…
posted by Dave on November 1st, 2005 at 1:36 pmDave Cahill, I can’t believe I’m explaining this to a lawyer: State requirements are not mythical.
Michigan Public Act 169 of 1970 provides for the establishment of historic districts. Yes, the OFW district was written by council, but is in some instances copied verbatim from PA 169 of 1970, and probably would not exist without said act. PA 169 of 1970 Sec. 9 provides for procedures and duties of local public officials (i.e. CITY COUNCIL), and states that “A permit shall not be issued until the [local historic] commission has acted as prescribed by this act.”
Therefore, city council approved GAP dependent upon the HDC decision due to the very non-mythical state requirements.
Further, it is incorrect to say city council didn’t approve GAP. GAP was ultimately not approved, but not at the hands of council. The cause and causation here are not one and the same.
Oh - and before you ask, who am I? I am an Ann Arbor resident and homeowner (a matter of feet outside of the OFW with plans to someday knock down the old homestead and erect a 10-story behemoth) who enjoys the anonymity of the internet. This has no bearing on the validity of my or any other anonymous contributor’s statements here, nor should it.
posted by FAA on November 1st, 2005 at 3:25 pmDale’s not anonymous, you can link to his blog New West Side and send him an e-mail. It’s a great blog and he has some interesting stuff up there…how to contact realtors who are about to turn a great building on S Main into a frigging bank when it could be something much more interesting for the area. I admire that kind of activism.
PSD, why be such a dick?
posted by OFWinsurgent on November 1st, 2005 at 4:40 pmJust born that way, I guess….
Anyway, someone has to stop coddling that smug bastard. You all have been way more than patient with him, and he just toys with you.
And anyway, he’s more of an actual threat to the community than a certain harpy palindrome in the Nutmeg State who just happens to make someone else in the room act like a dick.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on November 1st, 2005 at 5:12 pmevery now and then, when one of my kids asks me for something, i tell her to ask her mom. this is convenient for me because it takes me out of the picture and puts the heat on mom if she says no.
of course i defer to mom not to shift the blame but to take advantage of her skill and expertise in analyzing kid things.
posted by peter honeyman on November 1st, 2005 at 8:32 pmperhaps she could log on here
posted by OFWinsurgent on November 1st, 2005 at 10:11 pmi got the aaio account in the divorce settlement. (she got the mercedes.)
posted by peter honeyman on November 2nd, 2005 at 1:31 pmWell, Mr. Hiding-Behind-Anonymity, all I can say is that you are literacy-impaired. A wide variety of language is possible in a historic district. The language of the various historic districts in AA is tailored for each separate district. None of this language is “required” by the state. It’s all local. Yes, the general statutory scheme is a state creation. However, it’s up to the local governments whether or not to have historic districts at all, and if they choose to have them, what the various characteristics of each should be.
If you can’t absorb this elementary concept, what else can I say?
posted by DaveCahill on November 4th, 2005 at 6:52 pmDon’t worry, PSD, she’s way too stupid to get that.
posted by Anna on November 4th, 2005 at 7:11 pmIt’s NOT all local. HDC’s follow the United States secretary of the interior’s standards when considering construction plans. The state mandates many procedures as well as duties of local public officials pertaining to historic districts. Grievances with or appeals to the decision of locally created historic districts are filed with and decided by… Wanna guess? The state (or circuit court, depending on the situation - but I don’t want to go over your head with these details)! The state even has requirements as to how many people have to be on a local HDC - with our town’s population that would be no less than 7 and no more than 9. Wanna guess how many are a part of the Ann Arbor HDC? 7!
So, Dave Cahill, lay off the pipe. In my previous statement I try and relay to you that the state does have its hands in local historic districts - specifically relating to procedures for construction and demo permits - and you reply with some cracked-up, non-sequitur, false piece saying “it’s all local”. I have never said anything about who it is up to to have historic districts or not, so I don’t know what you’re smoking.
posted by FAA on November 4th, 2005 at 8:49 pmWell, Dale, I’m glad you’ve admitted that the locals play a role, which I guess is progress.
Historic districts are completely “local option” programs, and the details are controlled by City Council and/or their appointed commission.
Oh - Congrats on going public at last, Dale!
posted by Dave Cahill on November 5th, 2005 at 2:29 pmActually, I did get it Anna, I just decided to spare you the pile-on, should I have decided to question the use of PSD’s description of you as a “harpy.” While I share that viewpoint, I prefer the alliteration “humorless harridan of New Haven.”
In the end, either one is accurate.
posted by OFWinsurgent on November 5th, 2005 at 4:05 pmWell, personally, I’d take “humorless” over “has an unholy relationship with her brother.” But to each her own.
posted by Anna on November 5th, 2005 at 6:58 pmHave you been googling me Anna? I owned a business with my brother in the late 80s and early 90s (perhaps you found the article in the Free Press, but it must have entailed a lot of digging.) He has since moved to San Francisco (about 7 years ago) and I have a completely different career.
This is comedy gold.
posted by OFWinsurgent on November 5th, 2005 at 7:22 pmAt 4 p.m. on November 9 the Glen Ann Place developers e-mailed the City that they were *withdrawing* the project!
A big victory for the people of the Old Fourth Ward and the city as a whole!
posted by Dave Cahill on November 11th, 2005 at 10:43 amCertainly a victory for OFW homeowners (which I’m not begrudging). Why don’t you check back in fifteen years and then we’ll see about the rest of the city.
posted by JCP2 on November 11th, 2005 at 10:46 amAnd it’s important to make the distinction between “people of the Old Fourth Ward” and “OFW homeowners,” because they are certainly not the same.
posted by Dale on November 11th, 2005 at 11:48 amThat was my intent. Thank’s for picking it up.
posted by JCP2 on November 11th, 2005 at 12:04 pmI think the winners are:
* people who prefer the current aesthetic of the neighborhood
* people who wish to live there who currently can afford it, but would be priced out by new development (at least in the short run)
* same for similar just south of William
I think the losers are:
* homeowners who would like to sell or modify their homes
* people who enjoy or benefit from a larger, livelier downtown
posted by A Different Jon on November 13th, 2005 at 12:15 am