Architecture Roundtable
Business Review hosts a discussion with A2 architects. Our favorite part:
What are the best examples of architecture in Ann Arbor over the past 20 years?
All: the University of Michigan Biomedical Sciences Research Building, on Huron at Glen.
…
[Connie] Brown: …Yet it’s a University of Michigan building. It’s ironic that we’re celebrating this building, yet U-M also seems to keep local voices … out of their processes.
Ironic is one way to put it.
Since when is architecture by popular vote ever a good way to design a building?
The WORST architecture in Ann Arbor is the Modern Language Building on the U of M campus. The U is tearing down the Frieze building, which has way better natural lighting and more pleasant space, and leaving the MLB standing. That is simply wrong.
The new health/life sciences building, while better than most architecture, is an example of an overly busy postmodern hodgepodge… and offensively pseudointellectual. A good match for the U? Yeah, I guess.
Judging by how ugly most buildings in most cities are, and how atrocious most homes in most neighborhoods are, how could anyone expect much from the institution that commissioned the MLB?
posted by This Blog is Overrated on April 27th, 2006 at 6:00 pmI don’t know, I would have to pick Dennison as “worst building on campus.” It’s an eight-ish story building serviced by one tiny often-broken elevator. I once had to haul a tv on a cart up there from LSA media services. I waited as the elevator opened on my floor about 5 times, each time completely jammed full of people. Finally after classes had all started I was able to get myself and the tv into the elevator. Besides the stupid elevator, Dennison’s classrooms are miniscule and ugly and the windows are usually stuck open or shut. It inspired at least one suicide during my time here. It’s poorly built, dysfunctional, and hideously ugly.
And don’t get me started on architects.
posted by Carolyn on April 27th, 2006 at 9:49 pmThe BSRB? Are you sure the category wasn’t “Best Architectural Homage to Pringles?”
posted by golightly on April 28th, 2006 at 12:23 amI don’t know, I would have to pick Dennison as “worst building on campus.”
Hear hear! And you have to love the cinder-block decor . . . they couldn’t afford drywall? Most of the windows on the south side of the building leak, and there are two other spots on the tenth floor (one in an office, no less) that consistently leak after a heavy downpour.
At least all four elevators are consistently working nowadays.
posted by Becky on April 28th, 2006 at 11:06 amThat Biomed building is atrocious. Maybe it’s a good thing we don’t let architects design most of our buildings anymore (?)
posted by Brandon on April 28th, 2006 at 11:19 amThe MLB is worse than Frieze? Maybe it’s just because I was lucky enough to have upper-floor MLB classes, and unlucky enough to have 2 basement Frieze classes, but I’d tear down the Frieze over the MLB any day, as long as the State Street facade remains intact.
I third the Dennison call. Ugh, bad memories of intro math and physics classes just came a-floodin’ back…
posted by Jen on April 28th, 2006 at 11:56 pmdo u hate ann arbor or something?
posted by Anonymous on April 29th, 2006 at 8:01 amI think the point has been missed a little here. The article was not about examples of good and bad architecture on the U of M campus, or even in Ann Arbor; it was about (supposedly) improving downtown and the perspectives a handful of local architects might bring to this topic.
For me the article added very little to the discussion of downtown. Maybe if the questions were less ‘canned’ but that would have required listening and thinking. How could Paula Gardner leave this comment on the table?
“… there has to be a change in zoning. For example, there are two zones in this city right now that are unbuildable. Eighty percent of the land in those two zoning districts is non-compliant. What is there about (the city) that would allow that to go on for 25-30 years?”
The city’s approach to zoning is a big part of this discussion but instead the questions and answers kept falling into architectural fashion and no one brought it back to point. As if “peer reviews” and having “dialogue [that] is rich enough ” are the Rosetta Stones of a healthy downtown.
There were also a number of topics not mentioned:
Political will – The county offices are no longer in the county seat, for example. What does that tell us about the desire for all stakeholders to find a way to support the urban center? Should we expect the city to come to the realization that they too can move their main offices to Zeeb Road, selling it to the electorate that we will save millions by doing so? The money thing cuts both ways.
Pedestrian friendly environments – Compare and contrast a healthy downtown (or even our current downtown) with Washtenaw Road east of Arlington. What do the ‘experts’ think about that? All I saw was a comment about the style of these buildings. Are they or are they not contributing to the problem downtown and if so what is to be done now?
Regional issues – Ann Arbor is not in a vacuum; there are regional pressures. What about the surrounding Townships, what role do they play in this? Ypsi Twp., Pittsfield and Scio have all boomed and continue to do so; is that a drain for AA downtown? Has anyone noticed that the best Public Libraries are now in the outskirts? These are capital investments that will influence future, private decisions. I lived in DC when major parts of the metro were being planned and built and station location was huge in the re-vitalization of many areas. When new stations were completed developers fell all over themselves to invest around them, in DC, VA and MD. Our politicians across the region should recognize that their investments are worth something to the community and that Libraries and County Offices can help the efforts to re-build a new downtown, or help to suck more life out of it.
The bigger region - The ‘Sick Man of Michigan (or is it the Midwest)’ must also be considered a factor at some point and enter into the discussion. Anyone who wants to talk about any kind of mass transit must consider Detroit, and its suburbs. Where will we be taking these trains and busses to anyway? Ann Arbor will benefit from a healthier Detroit.
posted by abc on April 30th, 2006 at 9:04 amabc wrote: “The county offices are no longer in the county seat, for example. What does that tell us about the desire for all stakeholders to find a way to support the urban center?”
First off, most of the county offices are still here in downtown Ann Arbor, including County Administration and all of the elected officials except the Sheriff (out at the Hogback Road jail since the 1970s) and the Drain Commissioner (who got moved to the misbegotten Zeeb Road facility).
Absolutely, the location of county facilities is a political question, but it is not just Ann Arbor’s decision. This is one of the consequences of Ann Arbor’s slow growth compared to the fast growth outcounty: there are proportionately fewer commissioners from the city to fight to keep county offices downtown.
As to the Ann Arbor District Library: yes, there are some snazzy looking new branch buildings, but in terms of content, the downtown library is still by far the best. That’s not just from my own perspective as a history researcher, but from my seven-year-old daughter, who always prefers the more abundant resources of the downtown library to what she can find at the branches.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on April 30th, 2006 at 12:15 pmLarry K
Yes, some things are still in the city but there are more County offices out on Zeeb than just the Drain Commissioner; how about the Building Department as well as Environmental Health to name a few. I am simply trying to point out that the direction of late is to follow the residential development and invest on the outskirts. Downtowns die at a glacial pace, one small decision at a time. If we want to do something about this we have to identify all of the decisions that support the downtown and all of the decisions that tear it apart. I actually believe that there are very few if any neutral urban decisions.
Could a future library board decide to disperse some of downtown’s resources now that they have invested in the infrastructure? I hope not but I do know two things; that decision is now easier to make and if made it may not draw much attention. But the glacier will have continued to move.
posted by abc on April 30th, 2006 at 2:33 pmabc, you continue to overstate the case. First, you said that “the county offices are no longer at the county seat”, and now you admit merely that “some” offices remain in the city. The Zeeb Road project is generally regarded as a debacle, and they’re just trying to make the best of it.
But I would agree that the long term prospect is bleak.
On the county board, the non-Ann Arbor commissioners generally push for having facilities elsewhere than downtown Ann Arbor because (1) other locations would be closer to their own constituents, (2) parking is scarce and costs money downtown but is abundant and “free” elsewhere, (3) land costs more downtown, (4) Ann Arbor already has enormously more than its “share” of county facilities, (5) county services should be located close to less-affluent recipients (e.g. in Ypsilanti), rather than in affluent Ann Arbor, (6) county government paying extra for a facility to stay downtown represents a huge subsidy from tax dollars for a wealthy community, and (7) Ann Arborites are elitist and arrogant and need to be taken down a notch.
Because the city of Ann Arbor’s population is growing more slowly (if at all) than surrounding areas, each successive decade’s redistricting brings proportionately fewer Ann Arbor commissioners and proportionately more from the rest of the county.
The county board put a millage on the November 2000 ballot to expand and consolidate court facilities downtown, moving some courts from other locations back to the courthouse at Main & Huron.
It was voted down for many reasons, including general hostility toward courts and judges, but one of the most often heard arguments was that downtown Ann Arbor (with alleged parking woes, etc.) was not the right place for this facility. The implication was that we should consolidate all our courts somewhere else.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on April 30th, 2006 at 4:06 pmFrom a slightly different angle: downtown Lansing didn’t die at a glacial pace. Yes, I’m sure it faded bit by bit over time, but there were two catastrophes which were, as a practical matter, impossible to recover from.
First, in 1968, almost the entire north half of downtown was leveled by the urban renewal program. So, poof, half of downtown was gone. And nothing was built there for ten years — the land sat vacant as a vast parking lot. When finally some things were built, it was sterile, suburban-office-park style, with drab little front yards and no retail.
Second, in the 1980s, a judge in West Virginia put an abrupt end to the viability of retailing in downtown Lansing.
Lansing had a profitable local department store chain, Knapp’s, which had a big store downtown and stores in each of the suburban malls ringing the city. A block from the downtown Knapp’s was the downtown J.C. Penney department store.
Though Knapp’s was profitable, it came under the ownership of some national holding company which wasn’t doing so well. To no one’s surprise, the national firm went bankrupt. The expectation was that Knapp’s and the other viable enterprises owned by the holding company would be sold as going concerns.
But in bankruptcy court in West Virginia, the judge became impatient with lawyers who were arguing over some minutiae. Irritated, he banged his gavel down and ordered that everything be liquidated.
So Knapp’s was shut down. J.C. Penney then took over the suburban mall locations that Knapps had, and shut down its own downtown location.
So downtown Lansing went from two department stores to zero in a week. By a few months later, most of the remaining retailers were gone, there was nothing open after 6pm downtown.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on April 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pmSigh. The history of city planning is a pretty sad one.
Just a few notes: I strongly suspect that MLB will be next to be renovated/rebuilt after North Quad gets built, b/c it will be adjacent to the building site and the U. (like other institutions) as I understand it tries to save on cash by just relocating the workers and construction infrastructure to the adjacent site.
Dennison is waiting for the building budget wheel to swing back around to physics. They got a new building and some renovated space in what is now West Hall several years back. Now that the biomed facilities are in place, look for physics to get their turn again a few years from now (5-10, random guess.)
Also, the library seems to be finishing its branch locations first. There are vague plans in the works (maybe they’re more specific, who knows) to renovate the downtown branch in the near future (maybe next 5 years, sounds like.) However, it also looks like this is getting caught up in the possible relocation of city hall to the library parking lot, and who knows what will happen there. There would be a huge parking question, for one thing, so that is in turn getting caught up in the even bigger discussion about the role and location of parking downtown. My bet would be, don’t expect a resolution on any of those issues anytime soon, but I could be wrong.
posted by Young Urban Amateur on April 30th, 2006 at 10:01 pmI always find it ironic that the County planning offices are out in sprawlsville and not even accessible by transit. I don’t know how I’d even get out there if I ever were to work for them.
posted by Brandon on May 2nd, 2006 at 1:20 amLarry K, Thanks for the history lesson on Lansing, very interesting but I think less common than the slow death. But to your earlier points, I am now confused. I am wrong to say that the county offices (even a portion of them) being out of the county seat are bad, because your point is that the offices being out of the Ann Arbor are not good.
Seriously, we seem to be saying much the same things with the exception that you do not (or maybe feel like you cannot) come flat out and say that the county’s and other local government’s capital investments could and should be spent better; better with respect to the whole urban picture. You say the Zeeb road offices are “generally regarded as a debacle”. By whom? What about you? You’ve explained the general viewpoint of the commissioners but does that mean they considered the impact to the city when they voted to move the offices out of Ann Arbor; was that decision conscious or was the discussion merely about money. Also is it a “debacle” because it was bad for the city or because you find that splitting the offices doesn’t work quite well.
I also do not understand your comment, “But I would agree that the long term prospect is bleak.” Do you mean for the city? Or the county? Or what?
Tell me, are the county commissioners as jaded as you portray?
“Ann Arbor already has enormously more than its “share” of county facilities” - It is the county seat, after all, and doesn’t it make sense to have the central offices for the county in a … central location?
“Ann Arborites are elitist and arrogant and need to be taken down a notch.” – Really are they, (we), (you)? Is anyone exempt?
posted by abc on May 2nd, 2006 at 8:32 amLarry, I forgot to ask; what are you doing to make the future less bleak?
posted by abc on May 2nd, 2006 at 8:35 amOkay, I admit I was a little unclear there.
First, I strongly agree that the county offices are an important anchor for the downtown, and ought to remain there, because the whole region benefits from having a viable downtown. I took that position as a member of the county board, and I continue to make the same argument as county clerk.
I took exception to your first post when you seemed to be saying the county offices had already left. I responded by pointing out that almost all of them were still there. The county has a huge and growing investment in the “downtown campus” (as county admin calls it), and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
But as decisions are made down the road, I am not optimistic.
You wrote that the location of county offices was a matter of Ann Arbor’s political will. Certainly it’s a political decision, but Ann Arbor does not control the county government. Ann Arbor commissioners are not a majority of the county board, and almost all of the others represent rural and suburban areas where the needs of automobile transportation (e.g. “free” parking) usually trump all other considerations.
The Zeeb Road facility is a debacle because the design and construction process went awry, resulting in a building with many usability problems. Maybe “debacle” is too strong a word, but I don’t think too many people within the county government regard it as a successful project. Perhaps the word I was searching for is “albatross”. I hear it called the “monkey butt building”.
The politics of local government capital spending is that equity considerations (e.g., “my district needs a share of county offices too!”) are taken a lot more seriously than downtown-health considerations.
Indeed, when the state of the downtown was brought up in connection with the 2000 millage vote to expand the courthouse, the response from opponents was along the lines of “if downtown is so dependent on county government spending to be viable, it’s doomed anyway, and we should move the courts elsewhere.”
People like HAVING a healthy downtown, but they bristle when faced with paying for a subsidy to make it possible. For examples, the city subsidizes the AATA bus system and the downtown parking system, diverting funds from many other priorities. The downtown would quickly wither without those crucial supports, but spending that money is hugely unpopular.
And that’s just in the city proper. Imagine how folks out in Manchester and Chelsea feel about a county project costing an extra million or two because it’s more expensive to build it in downtown Ann Arbor.
You and I would argue that the county’s money would be well spent to keep things at the center, but they would say “I wouldn’t mind driving a little farther if it meant my taxes would be lower and the parking would be free.” Most people rarely have occasion to deal with the county government, so they place little value on it being in a central location.
I don’t see any immediate crisis — maybe not for quite a few years — but it’s hard to see how to win that kind of argument.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on May 2nd, 2006 at 10:40 am“The politics of local government capital spending is that equity considerations (e.g., “my district needs a share of county offices too!”) are taken a lot more seriously than downtown-health considerations.”
Sad but probably true; when will people realize that a little bit of everything, scattered everywhere, is sprawl and bad for all of us.
“the monkey butt building” - That explains the bright red canopies hung on banal boxes. The monkeys distinguish themselves during the mating ritual by shaking their bright red posteriors. Those architects are so clever about where they get their inspirations from.
posted by abc on May 2nd, 2006 at 11:36 amBack to the original article: What’s so great about the biomedical building? It strikes me as adding too much contiguous Universiy-only space, and creating a very imposing, unwalkable, pedestrian-unfriendly environment (though, to its credit, it’s tall and therefore dense, which is good). I like the fact that East Hall appears to merge almost seamlessly into the South U streetscape, for instance. The land on which this biomedical complex used to sit had a few houses and such (and Glenn Ann used to be a working gas station). I’m not saying we should stick in a time warp, but I think it might be cool to have a streetscape somewhere in the mix. I’m thinking that that if that behemoth is ever staffed, it would be nice for there to be some funky local places to eat and shop nearby.
And they also lamented the loss of retail downtown…that bothers me also.
posted by K on May 16th, 2006 at 12:19 am