Mmm Skyscraper I Love You
A2 acrophobia reaches new heights (sorry. Also, is there a word for “fear of looking at a high place from below”?) with a new resolution to be debated by the local Democrats that would limit all future buildings in Ann Arbor to four stories. It begins:
WHEREAS, Ann Arbor is one of the most livable cities in the country, with diverse neighborhoods featuring mainly low-rise homes and apartments that would be compromised by out-of-scale developments that threaten the health and safety and general welfare of its residents, as well as the integrity and sustainability of its neighborhoods…
Then it goes on to list some of the reasons why tall buildings are a menace. They “overwhelm both historic buildings and sites of historic significance.” They “add to traffic congestion and the worsening of air quality through increases in vehicle use by inhabitants of taller structures.” They “increase the danger of fairy collisions as fairies are forced to fly higher and higher to reach their doors.” Okay, one of those was made up. They aren’t seriously arguing that taller buildings cause an increase in vehicle use.
I feel like I’m going crazy. WTF, people!? 4 stories? FOUR STORIES?
What a ridiculous thing to vote on. Is this going to be up for vote at the next AA Dem Party meeting? I hope I’m in town for this one.
Ridiculous.
posted by Young OWSider on April 3rd, 2006 at 11:09 ambatophobia - An abnormal fear of being near an object of great height, such as a skyscraper or mountain.
— http://www.thefreedictionary.com/batophobia
Was this part of someone’s April Foolery, or does this stupidity have some actual supporters behind it?
Maybe the increased vehicle use by inhabitants of taller structures includes elevators….
posted by archipunk on April 3rd, 2006 at 11:31 am10 bonus points for the post title’s Underworld reference, AAIO. Well done. Sticking with your earlier Saint Etienne reference, may I suggest an alternate title from the line from Finesterre “this house believes in skyscrapers”?
You are clearly on your way to earning a star by your name for these great post titles.
I’ve also noted that you “work well with others”, and “enjoy sharing”.
Congratulations, and don’t hog the crayon sharpener!
posted by todd on April 3rd, 2006 at 11:47 amThanks, Todd. I probably still need to work on “keeps desk and materials in order”, though.
The Underworld song brings back all kinds of college memories…
posted by ann arbor is overrated on April 3rd, 2006 at 11:50 am“…out-of-scale developments that threaten the health and safety and general welfare of its residents…”
ROFL. I now live in Manhattan. I have yet to be mugged or harmed by a skyscraper. WTF?
posted by Scott T. on April 3rd, 2006 at 11:50 amIn addition to the aformentioned resolution on limiting building heights to four stories, there’s a resolution opposing changes in rules for construction in historic districts, a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and the best one of all, a resolution suspending monthly meetings over the summer “…to ensure that the maximum number of interested people will be able to attend the membership meetings.”
posted by JCP2 on April 3rd, 2006 at 11:57 amI’m writing a letter with regards to this issue. So far I’ve only managed to scribble “
To the mindless twit wasting time with this bullshit,Dear ignorant batophobe,”…Upon completion, do I send only to Susan Greenberg? How many others thought this up? That is, should I pluralize my salutation?
posted by FAA on April 3rd, 2006 at 12:59 pmIt’s Lou Glorie’s idea.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on April 3rd, 2006 at 1:04 pmIf they establish a limit on height, is there any word on how deep stuff can get around here?
posted by Nitro on April 3rd, 2006 at 1:47 pmMy open letter to the AADP:
Dear Ann Arbor Democratic Party,
As a Democrat, I find it laughable that the Ann Arbor Democratic Party worries itself with issues such as building height limits. It is another example of how the local chapter has evolved into a obstructionist wing of the national party that fails to deal
with real issues. Why do you attempt to impose your values of a “quality” downtown onto others in a manner that is grounded in no environmental, social, or economic reality? The 4 story limit is another attempt by protectionist landowners who can still afford to live within the City to further protect the status-quo, regardless of the orsening economic and environmental degradation occurring around them.
Environmentally, height limits increase sprawl, thereby increasing congestion, thereby worsening air quality. Smartly-designed density increases pedestrian activity, supports local shopping and restaurants, and reduces the need for automobiles.
Economically, a 4 story limit does not take into account the realities of construction costs, since 4 story structures generally are the most expensive to build per usable sq ft. Secondly, an artificial limit on height further restricts the housing supply of a city that is only affordable to a small segment of society. Why do you desire to limit
the types of people who can live here? Why do you wish to create further segregation of homeowners in the region? Why do you advocate a position that would not allow me the opportunity to own a house in Ann Arbor? How does this represent the platform of quality of the national Democratic Party?
If you were truly concerned about issues that affect real persons within Ann Arbor, this silly resolution would not have been placed on the Party Agenda. Instead, improving mass transportation, advocating for greater affordable and work-force housing, requiring Ann Arbor and the region to adopt Smart Growth principles that locate more individuals within the City, job-training, and assisting our struggling brothers and sisters in Ypsi and Detroit would have topped this meeting. Unfortunately, the Agenda of the local Democratic Party reflects the desire of a few protectionist landowners to impose their values and fear of change on the remainder of the community.
Lastly, if you find this letter unfair, I would dare ask how many U of M students are involved in your organization. Next, what percentage of U of M students are Democrats? I’m sure the mismatch indicates the alternative reality this chapter operates in.
Sincerely,
Jon Ippel
posted by Jon Ippel on April 3rd, 2006 at 2:55 pmUM Graduate Student
Clearly the local dems are a feeble and frightened lot, if they’re so easily struck down by a gust of wind.
The new dem rallying cry: ‘wealthy white families only!’ That’ll win the midterm elections, eh?
posted by Dan on April 3rd, 2006 at 5:13 pmThe local Dems are past saving, but it’s worth noting that there is a similar high regulation in Washington, D.C. … I’m not sure if it’s “nothing higher than the Capitol Building” or whatever, but it’s really sent the local economy to hell, at least in terms of attracting buisnesses — that, and then there’s all the people from VA and MD who are there every day but don’t pay any payroll taxes… but don’t get me started.
posted by Daniel on April 3rd, 2006 at 5:38 pmJon
I’d send that ’round the internet petition-style. Not like petitions really accomplish anything (especially internet ones), but damned if that isn’t a beautifully crafted letter I wish I’d written. Well done.
posted by Jen on April 3rd, 2006 at 5:43 pmI just find the first line of this resolution is obviously self-satire … Ann Arbor, “one of the most livable cities in the country”…? Yeah, right …. back in ‘71 or perhaps ‘86, but not now.
Also, I wanted to excuse myself for mis-spelling “businesses” in my previous post.
posted by Daniel on April 3rd, 2006 at 5:49 pmHooray for Jon Ippel. I am a long time Democrat, and I think your letter is marvelous. It mentions all the issues I care deeply about, especially the parts about Smarth Growth and attempting to stop sprawl, and to provide affordable housing. Luckily for us citizens, the ELECTED Democrats on Council feel the same way Jon does, and in fact are working assiduously on these issues. The resolution is the flight of fancy of someone who obviously knows nothing about the real world,and who, as far as I know, has never done anything in the local Democratic Party.
posted by realDemocrat on April 3rd, 2006 at 6:42 pmLovely letter, Jon! It inspired me to write a letter to the Ann Arbor Dems, although I was unable to refrain from calling them “insane”.
posted by Becky on April 3rd, 2006 at 9:38 pmLet’s keep in mind here that the proposal has been, er, proposed, apparently by one person. It’s not an official Democratic Party position, especially if it gets voted down. To ridicule the city party as a whole for this is at least premature.
Unfortunately I can’t make the meeting myself, but I call on all Democrats to show up and vote “no”.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on April 3rd, 2006 at 10:28 pmOne of these days, by the way, I should repost quotes from Republican leaders in Virginia denouncing “smart growth” (higher density development near transit) as a nefarious plot to create housing for Democrats. They urged continued sprawl policies as a means to protect Republicans’ political interests.
Silliness, as usual, is bipartisan.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on April 3rd, 2006 at 10:33 pmI moved from Ann Arbor to Boulder CO back in July (haha, I’m living John Hieftje’s dream). We have a 55 ft height limit here in Boulder dating back to 1971, and I’m sure it has to do with preventing obstructions of mountain views. The hilarious thing is that you can’t actually see the mountains from most of Boulder, just the foothills. You have to drive several miles east of town to see the actual Rockies. But I’m sure the rich people here love staring at those foothills secure in the knowledge that “undesirables” won’t be able to afford to live in Boulder thanks to the one-two punch of the height and development limits. “Smart growth” is a beautiful thing–until it gets transformed into a technique for keeping a community homogenous, white, and wealthy.
posted by MLK on April 3rd, 2006 at 11:30 pmAccording to what I heard, John Hieftje was in Boulder last Sept. and called it “disneyland”. I am told he was very disappointed in the mall (and it’s very expensive upkeep) as well as the elitist atmosphere ($500,000 median home price). MLK is right about homogenous, white & wealthy - is that what we want for Ann Arbor? I don’t.
posted by realDemocrat on April 4th, 2006 at 6:54 amI wound up at some kind of Hash Bash party on Saturday night, and it was very old school Ann Arbor, i.e., lots of grey ponytails and beards were in evidence. I don’t smoke, and sometimes like to make fun of hippies, but it was somehow comforting to know pockets of hippiedom still exist to keep the yuppies from screwing *everything* in this town up.
I don’t think there is necessarily anything sinister with people who might prefer homogenous communities, but I know I relish random encounters with weirdoes. Makes for good stories.
posted by Dave on April 4th, 2006 at 9:21 amI heard the building height limit in Boulder is related to the height of cottonwood trees. Maybe we should establish a height limit for A2 related to the ash tree?
posted by Jennifer Hall on April 4th, 2006 at 4:31 pmI heard the building height limit in Boulder is related to the height of cottonwood trees. Maybe we should establish a height limit for A2 related to the ash tree?
posted by Jennifer Hall on April 4th, 2006 at 4:31 pmLarry, the Washington Post has done several articles, including the one linked below (forgive my inability to embed the link) on NoVa Republicans opposing density. “Too many people who move into those kinds of settlements tend to be Democrats rather than Republicans.”
Unlike Ann Arbor though, in DC some of these projects are getting built because a decent percentage of the people who have money and influence also are the people who want to live in dense (albeit expensive) communities and take the Metro to work.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/993625531.html?dids=993625531:993625531&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&fmac=35b6ea28047305f003c0338fef1418bd&date=Feb+26%2C+2006&author=Amy+Gardner&desc=Voter+Demographics+or+Density%3F
posted by RD on April 4th, 2006 at 6:23 pmThanks for the link. But what do you mean, “unlike Ann Arbor”? The city council has just approved a whole bunch of high rise condo projects downtown, and more are coming.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on April 5th, 2006 at 9:56 amSo - how tall is an ash tree?
posted by Dave Cahill on April 5th, 2006 at 10:51 amAccording to this, 50′ - 80′. That’s 5-8 stories tall! take that, 4-story limit!!
posted by KGS on April 5th, 2006 at 11:47 amBe careful with that Idea; what with the emerald ash borers, a lot of the local ash trees are only about 4.5 inches tall.
Which is, admittedly, tall enough for a fairy door.
posted by Nitro on April 5th, 2006 at 12:16 pmexactly my point (or joke, I guess). sorry it was at the expense of the poor ash trees.
posted by Jennifer Hall on April 5th, 2006 at 5:21 pmWell, we had an ash tree that was just removed by the City because it was in the process of being killed by the emerald ash borer. It was at least ten years old, but only about 20 feet tall.
We had bought it having been told it was a river beech. But the city forester’s people told us we had been ripped off by the nursery, and that it really was an ash.
posted by DaveCahill on April 5th, 2006 at 6:37 pmThat would have been a River Birch, dillweed. Betula nigra. And they don’t look anything like Ash trees.
For an avowed tree lover you’re pretty clueless.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on April 6th, 2006 at 9:34 amAnn Arbor has trees
posted by FAA on April 6th, 2006 at 12:06 pmTo Dave, they all look alike
Is he tree racist?
Larry, I was thinking of dense mixed-use (walk to the grocery) apartment/house clusters centered on public transit hubs. I didn’t think Ann Arbor went in for that kind of thing, but I’ve been away a couple years and clearly not on top of local politics. If someone’s building that kind of community (even without the grocery) in Ann Arbor, that’s fantastic.
posted by RD on April 6th, 2006 at 8:56 pm