Explaining the Allure of Downtown
A letter in Sunday’s News explains the real reason why buyers are attracted to downtown condos, egregiously ignored by a recent News story that focused mainly on the new buildings’ closeness to workplaces and restaurants. It’s because they’re within walking distance of a historic neighborhood with rare sights like trees, houses, churches and a school.
No, they’re moving to the condos to live near Nancy J. Goldstein of Ann Arbor.
posted by Patrick on November 13th, 2006 at 1:34 pm ebesides the fact that the article clearly has an axe to grind, and does so deafeningly, ……. I couldn’t help but notice a strange, mention of trees that “touch in the middle,” (the phrase is in quotes in the author’s letter as well) What in the world is she talking about??
posted by Heidi on November 13th, 2006 at 3:04 pm eI’m new in town this academic year, and was amazed when looking for rental housing (on a postdoc salary) how bad the situation is. Someone recommended looking at the OWS, and when I did I was amazed by the extremely low population density and the large collection of outdated houses that ought to be razed. Where I should see townouses, condos and two-to-three-story apartment buildings, I see old houses that must waste an enormous amount of energy per year. It’s a wonderful example of how NIMBY landowners can halt progress via restrictive building codes.
posted by UM Postdoc on November 13th, 2006 at 3:22 pm eHeidi, I think the writer of the letter is referring to trees that touch in the middle of the street, forming an arch overhead.
posted by Patrick Hunt on November 13th, 2006 at 3:31 pm eOK, trees that “touch in the middle” I think refers to the situation you get on streets where the trees on either side get big enough that the branches form a canopy over the street. Many consider this to be aesthetically pleasing.
And UM postdoc, I have to disagree with you. I lived in a duplex tucked in on the OWS (we managed to afford it on a postdoc salary + a grad student stipend) and I really appreciated that such a nice old neighborhood was close in to the university and still somewhat affordable. Not everything that is nice has to be new.
When we moved to Houston, we searched out a similar neighborhood, and bought a teeny little 80 year old bungalow on a street where the trees “touch in the middle”. It doesn’t waste an enormous amount of energy to cool the place in the summer, because those “outdated” homes are built very well.
But you’ll be happy to know that thanks to the lack of zoning laws in Houston and the legal creativity of developers to subvert neighborhood deed restrictions our little enclave is being destroyed, house by house, all in the name of progress. And they take all the 100 year old trees down as well.
I don’t consider the loss of an historic neighborhood to a bland development of oversized, faux-Tuscan townhouses to be progressive at all. If anything, redevelopment is increasing the property values and the rents in this area.
So once you finish that postdoc, seriously look into moving down here. Nothing stands in the way of progress!
posted by Houstonian on November 13th, 2006 at 3:48 pm eThe sprawl that is unfortunately so common in the southern US is not at all the sort of progress I am looking for. But the lack of planned growth common there is not made better by actively discouraging population density like Ann Arbor does. Forget the OWS - even one or two blocks from the university the town is still a bunch of freestanding houses. Before I came here, I thought it would be more urban.
posted by UM Postdoc on November 13th, 2006 at 4:19 pm eWelcome to the environs of the Motor City Post Doc!
posted by OFWinsurgent on November 13th, 2006 at 4:52 pm eSo where’s the happy medium between the lack of planned growth and actively discouraging population density? Just as an aside, our Houston neighborhood is not sprawl by any means - we’re inner loop just outside of downtown- and most urban planners would cheer the new infill housing and the subsequent increase in population density (and fewer people commuting from the suburbs). But there has to be a way to prevent the infill and the redevelopment from destroying every shred of what was there before.
I think that fear of the unknown redevelopment, and fear of losing the character of the neighborhood is what drives a lot of the NIMBYism in Ann Arbor. I agree that it’s frustrating to observe, but now that I’m a homeowner watching the neighborhood I bought into be systematically dismantled I can sympathize.
I do think that allowing garage/mother-in-law apartments in ann arbor would go a long way towards providing more housing density in Ann Arbor (without having to tear down houses), but unfortunately that was shot down a few years ago.
posted by Houstonian on November 13th, 2006 at 5:32 pm eOWS is deemed historical neighborhood because during the 60s and 70s developers came to town and started razing the old houses then built ugly apartments and other buildings not remotely in the same style as the rest of the neighborhood. Before any more homes could be bought and torn down destroying the neighborhood further, people got together and put a stop to it. It’s not so much NIMBY feelings, but more like don’t build a butt ugly apartment building right next to my Victorian house. Think how the property value went down for those people.
posted by Biker on November 13th, 2006 at 6:27 pm eThat’s a fable.
The OWSA generally organized to protect property values and save the neighborhood for single-family homeowners. One specific development effort that spurred them was a proposal for a dense mixed-housing development comprising townhouses and two mid-rise residential buildings that would have cleared about 25 acres west of Main (but would not have displaced any residents and would have given very generous terms to sellers). They also mobilized to stop a low-income housing development.
However, their founders specifically acknowledged they were not against the four- and six unit apartment buildings that they claimed were in scale with the neighborhood.
posted by Dale on November 13th, 2006 at 6:59 pm epatrick, you nailed it! it seems that nancy j. goldstein’s property lives kitty corner from liberty lofts. furthermore, her home has increased in value tenfold in ten years.
posted by peter honeyman on November 13th, 2006 at 9:18 pm eoops on the sloppy editing. i’ll go stand in the corner now.
posted by peter honeyman on November 13th, 2006 at 9:19 pm eHow *interesting*. Thanks, Dale, for the information about the origins of the OWSA. I had heard the same thing about those “cashbox” apartment buildings being the raison d’etre of the OWSA, having rented one just around the corner from the Washtenaw Dairy for a time . . .
We moved here six years ago from urban areas (DC and Boston), and my significant other and I were thrilled to be able to purchase a home on the OWS that was within walking distance to downtown. It’s a home similar to the one I grew up in in rural Indiana, and the neighborhood is great. But we can actually walk to things and bike to work.
Looking around our neighborhood we can see considerable turnover in the OWS since the Association was founded, and I’d be interested to find out how most of the folks living here actually feel about increased density. I, for one, am not afraid of it. But then I used to live in an apartment building in a neighborhood full of rowhouses.
I hesitate lumping all the OWSiders into one monolithic group. Having said that, it is my understanding that several of our neighbors were none too happy about Avalon housing purchasing a house in our neighborhood before our arrival here. From what I gather, however, the house is in much better condition than it had been. So it seems there’s been resistance to change. . .
I was just in DC recently and was struck once again at how nicely small-scale apartment buildings can fit into a neighborhood. And by small-scale I mean under 10 stories or so.
Count me as an OWSider who approves of density.
All that being said, I think Ms. Goldstein is right to point out that the folks in Liberty Lofts are in a good situation. They can walk to parks or walk their dogs in neighborhoods while living in the most “urban” part of Ann Arbor. It’s pretty cool, IMHO.
posted by Young OWSider on November 13th, 2006 at 11:30 pm ei walked through a couple liberty lofts units last week — they are spectacular, albeit overpriced.
posted by peter honeyman on November 14th, 2006 at 12:28 am eI walk past the lofts almost everyday, courtesy of a job in the area, and I have to agree with Peter’s assessment. Of course, if they fail to put a grocery store in all that nice downtown living will be marred by the drive everyone will need to do to the ‘burbs to feed themselves, but whatever.
And Heidi, while people seem to have an explanation for the ‘trees that touch in the middle’ bit, I still think it sounds weird and faintly vulgar.
David
posted by David on November 14th, 2006 at 8:10 am eThat’s a fable.
We should come up with a fable for why the New West Side Association was founded! Like, angry OWS residents were chasing students with pitchforks from Downtown Home and Garden. Every political movement needs a good mythology.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on November 14th, 2006 at 8:57 am eif you’re not against change, and the change is increased population, then maybe you can see why ann arbor needs density.
posted by peter honeyman on November 14th, 2006 at 2:25 pm eThen, Arnold, what do you suggest?
posted by Young OWSider on November 14th, 2006 at 3:34 pm eLeave everything the same, forever.
“La la la la la…” (hands over ears)
posted by OFWinsurgent on November 14th, 2006 at 4:37 pm eWas Postdoc maybe being sarcastic ? I can’t believe somebody would say we need more condo’s.
posted by JJdl on November 14th, 2006 at 4:59 pm eEven if I wanted things to stay the same they wouldn’t but I don’t want that.
The increased population is in the surrounding twp’s and small towns like Chelsea and Dexter and Saline.I think A2’s population has been fairly constant not moving much one way or the other.
So where is the need for increased density ? The proposed bldg on Kingsley and N.Main is a good example of what Ann Arbor does not need and does not fit with what Ann Arbor is. Have you all seen the asking price on some of these places?
Ann Arbor is a city of neighborhoods. The UM campus central and north are both surrounded by neighborhoods. Why is it neccesary to create this density? I have nothing against density but I don’t see it being benficial to the city.
posted by arnold on November 14th, 2006 at 8:27 pm eIf neighborhoods don’t stand up for blocking low-income housing, increased housing supply, and mixed-use districts, who will?
posted by Dale on November 14th, 2006 at 8:35 pm eUm, Arnold, clearly you don’t rent an apartment in Ann Arbor. Greater density would have the effect of lowering the ridiculous rents people pay for crappy apartments there.
posted by Nick on November 14th, 2006 at 8:36 pm eI was not being sarcastic about my opinion that Ann Arbor would benefit from the addition of a large number - several hundred - units of downtown housing. One or two buildings won’t cut it. I do think that high-rises are inappropriate; we need a large number of medium sized buildings.
This would help to slow the sprawl at the edges of town and would bring down the absurd housing prices. It would also help dispel the current opinion, which I have heard very often, that it is better to live in Ypsilanti and commute than to find a place in AA.
Perhaps the lack of growth Arnold notes is not because of a lack of demand to come here but because of a lack of suppy in housing, which leads people to move to other towns instead.
Pushing growth to surrounding towns just increases sprawl and the need for daily driving, which our planners should be trying to reduce.
posted by UM postdoc on November 15th, 2006 at 11:45 am eUM postdoc — welcome to the club.
posted by Dale on November 15th, 2006 at 5:48 pm eIt is true that the proximity of churches and single family homes adds flavor to the gritty urban core of Ann Arbor; it is far easier to take a dump on those church grounds just up the hill on liberty street at 3AM than most places downtown, at least if one values privacy.
posted by Jerry Make Duty on November 23rd, 2006 at 4:15 am e