I’m With the Bandemer Ridge
Two residents of the neighborhood where the proposed Bandemer Ridge condo project would be attempt to correct the perception that they are “a group of NIMBYs.” The evidence: “[M]any of us feel this massive development is out of scale for our neighborhood and would have significant negative impacts on our quality of life.” Isn’t that more or less the definition of a NIMBY?
the proposed development is literally in the backyard of one of the letter’s authors. (the one who was my college housemate!)
posted by peter honeyman on December 26th, 2006 at 3:22 pmI was actually far more impressed with the brass balls James F. Lancioni demonstrated in the letter just below this one, where he argues that he shouldn’t have to pay towing fines for driving past the parking attendant without paying because his quarter got stuck in the machine. And he was late for work! Self-inflicted tardiness apparently trumps all other social obligations.
Having to work on a Friday night is no fun. However, if it’s a regular schedule, it seems like James could be more aware of his parking (and driving alternative) options. The DDA is offering evening parking passes for some structures now.
He whines, “the parking situation continues to be a nightmare, and yet city officials want to give free parking to all Google employees. Playing favorites, are we? Welcome to Ann Arbor.”
I agree, at least, that Republic Parking should give him his quarter back.
posted by Scott on December 26th, 2006 at 9:40 pmThe “parking situation” is a joke. There’s plenty of parking. You just have to pay for it (a little) and/or walk a few lousy blocks.
posted by Anonymous on December 26th, 2006 at 11:40 pmPeter, every NIMBY has a backyard…or at least a perceived backyard that belongs to somebody else. I live next door to a halfway house
posted by OFWinsurgent on December 27th, 2006 at 12:14 amOFWinsurgent — so do i! but i don’t have a backyard
posted by peter honeyman on December 27th, 2006 at 1:09 am“The strong opposition… is motivated by the desire to maintain the diversity, stability and uniqueness …”
Possibly should be read, “We’re done. No more is needed here. This place is perfect and it should stay this way forever.” Yes, this is the classic definition of a NIMBY. The town will and should continue to ‘grow and change’ or ‘shrink and change’. In this case projections are toward growth and developers know that and are searching for ways to provide more housing. I applaud this developer for trying to make a project within the city on what is clearly a challenging site. I hope they come up with a good project though as the previous thread and others imply that they did not impress anyone with their first stab.
Also invoking ‘stability’ is interesting; will building this building (or hopefully a better one) cause the neighborhood to be unstable; in what ways? Will there be a dramatic traffic or safety problem? Will this project attract the wrong sort into the neighborhood? It is just a larger building and it is just more housing. Or is the ‘luxury’ concept a problem? Would it be better if it was a low income housing development? I am sure then that the units would be smaller and more plentiful.
To be a bit simplistic, in order to have higher density we have to introduce bigger buildings where smaller ones are now. Personally, I like having larger apartment-like structures mixed in with single family houses; they can add character to the neighborhood and are very common in eastern towns. I think if the Argus Building (Williams & 4th – I think) were proposed today it would cause the same or worse response, and it is a four story commercial building in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Do the neighbors there want to tear it down?
Now I am not defending the specifics of the Bandemer Ridge project; I have not seen them. But the letter is not asking for a better design, they seem to be asking for nothing to be built.
As far as their back yard is concerned, they describe their community as composed of ‘modest one- and two-story homes’. Well for some years now the modest homes (on presumably modest lots) on the north side of Sunset have enjoyed the views of the water and / or the city looking over their neighbors land. Because they have enjoyed that in the past should not prevent the neighbor from using their property to the fullest. If the neighbors want to preserve this land as open land, they are free to buy it.
posted by abc on December 27th, 2006 at 7:21 amThe parking situation IS a joke. There are very few spaces available for companies located downtown during the daytime. Businesses do not want metered spots, they want parking passes or their own spots, which both of which are very hard to come by. Until the parking situation is remedied, it will be almost impossible for business to expand downtown. And James has it right (the James who wrote the letter to the A2 News, I’m a different James), the city council is in for a rude awakening when Google moves into downtown demanding 100s of parking spots.
posted by James on December 27th, 2006 at 1:11 pm“Until the parking situation is remedied, it will be almost impossible for business to expand downtown.”
Why? Because people never go to any city because of having to pay for parking? Over-the-top rent and preventing real density downtown stifles business, not shelling out a few bucks a day for parking. Or walking a few blocks from the OWS. Or taking a bus.
posted by Pants Rule on December 27th, 2006 at 5:23 pmUhhh, I wasn’t saying paying for parking is the problem. The main problem is the lack of parking for business. There isn’t a 700 space waiting list for spots in the city lots for no reason. I know the small business I work for would love to buy more spots, but there’s none available within a few blocks of our office, and if we can’t expand our business downtown it’s likely we will move our entire operation to the outskirts of town.
posted by James on December 27th, 2006 at 6:17 pmCan the employees not walk to work, take the bus, or carpool?
posted by Young OWSider on December 27th, 2006 at 6:38 pm“Can the employees not walk to work, take the bus, or carpool?”
Some of my coworkers do and I do, but unless you employee primarily students, it’s simply a pipe dream to assume that you’re going to have a high percentage of workers walk, bike or use public transit to commute to work in Ann Arbor.
posted by James on December 27th, 2006 at 6:50 pmIs that a cultural issue or a problem with AATA? Or something else? I’ve worked in “real” cities with parking problems that were far more severe. I bused in, other employees bused in.. it really just didn’t make sense to drive, so it was no big deal to hop on a bus to go to work. But that’s a real city, not a glorified suburb like Ann Arbor.
Parking problems don’t really seem to stifle business elsewhere. I’m wondering why you think this is such a big problem. High rent and property taxes do tend to drive business outside of cities, but not so much a lack of parking..
Google needs to get bent if they think they’re getting free parking, of course.
posted by Pants Rule on December 27th, 2006 at 8:24 pmI don’t get it, either. When I lived in DC without a car, I took the subway out to the burbs and then grabbed a bus to the office. And lots of my coworkers did, too. Of course, the public transportation system was pretty darn good, but I still walked 20 minutes from my apartment to the Metro station at Woodley Park.
My guess is it’s a cultural thing. When I grew up in small-town Indiana (a 20,000 person town with a bus system!) we felt that only crazy people or poor folks took the bus or lived in apartments. I don’t think Ann Arbor or other midwestern cities outside of Chicago are all that different from the little town I grew up in.
posted by Young OWSider on December 27th, 2006 at 10:25 pmWhy do people need parking spots? Well, I have coworkers who commute from Chelsea, Gregory, Canton, Westland, and even Fowlerville. They’ll be waiting a long time before AATA ever services their area.
About 350,000 people live in Washtenaw county, and tons of people come from outside our county to work in A2. A comprehensive public transit system simply isn’t as feasible in this area in comparison to a major metropolitan area like DC. AATA provides an important service to our community, but even with its limited service it is still heavily subsidized. For a widespread public transit system to become more feasible in Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor needs to become denser and larger, and I don’t see both those things happening without maintaining a business friendly environment downtown, part of which means more parking right now. If parking does not become more available downtown, then more businesses will choose to locate out in the surrounding townships. That means more sprawl and less chance of A2 ever having an excellent public transit system.
posted by James on December 27th, 2006 at 11:45 pm(With apologies for unintentionally hijacking this thread)
Increase parking to support better public transit? You lost me there, James. I don’t see how more parking does anything but support more peole to live outside town and commute in, thus furthering the parking problem.
The recent parking study shows that about 80% of structure parking is consumed during week days. This is consumption is largely attributed to permit parkers. So there are parking spaces available, if not permits. The long waitlist for permits is inflated by student requests. The really popular weekday structures (Williams and Ann) are tough to get permits for because long-time landlords and employers never let them go.
James might do better to argue for a better way to find the currently available parking than to call for an increase. Another option would be for his company to participate in the go!pass program, offer non-driving tax-free transportation incentives, and teach employees where the park and ride lots are. I’ll admit that I’m not all that keen on trying to keep companies downtown who aren’t interested in alternative to parking. I think A2 has the potential to replace such employers with companies who support our alt-trans efforts.
This idealism is, of course, vastly deflated by the city’s decisions to 1) offer Google 200 parking spaces if they move downtown, and 2) continue their HR policy of offering free and discounted parking to city employees. Look for more on the latter at cfa2.blogspot.com soon.
posted by Scott on December 28th, 2006 at 1:53 am“James might do better to argue for a better way to find the currently available parking than to call for an increase. Another option would be for his company to participate in the go!pass program, offer non-driving tax-free transportation incentives, and teach employees where the park and ride lots are. I’ll admit that I’m not all that keen on trying to keep companies downtown who aren’t interested in alternative to parking. I think A2 has the potential to replace such employers with companies who support our alt-trans efforts.”
The alternative for most companies will be to locate their business where parking is available. Google is about as progressive minded company as they come, yet they are undoubtedly twisting the city’s councils arm into giving them free parking or steep discounts on parking.
Maybe my vision for downtown is different. I want to see it grow, prosper and become a place where more and more people can live. I can’t see that happening without increased parking. As downtown grows and more and more vital services become widely available downtown, then a smaller percentage of people will need a car or a place to park it. Note, “Smaller Percentage” does not mean “less parking will be necessary”.
If your vision is to maintain the status quo downtown, then the current parking situation will suffice.
posted by James on December 28th, 2006 at 12:18 pmIronically, these issues are intertwined.
We will never have a truly convenient mass transit system that covers the region’s/city’s geography without sufficent population density. We can never have sufficent population density when NIMBYs stall or kill any multi-family development outside of the DDA boundary.
posted by marcel on December 28th, 2006 at 8:28 pmNo, you’re all wrong. It’s the THIRD letter that’s most worthy of comment, wherein:
“I live on Sharon Hollow Road in Manchester. Last night I left a bag tied to our garbage container with money and some cookies in it. Someone stole it. ”
A. Yum!! O lucky garbage collector to discover delcious cookies left overnight on a garbagecan!
B. I bet if you go to the nearest 7-11, you’ll find a couple raccoons walking out with a big bag full of candybars and Boones’ Farm Strawberry Hill wine. They’ll have already eaten the cookies, but they might let you have a swig of the Boones Farm Strawberry Hill wine.
posted by Nitro on December 29th, 2006 at 8:57 amI meant delicious.
posted by Nitro on December 29th, 2006 at 8:58 amIt makes me sad to see so may people wanting to change A2 into something other then what it is. A2 has worked fine for quite some time.Now we have a certain agenda being foisted upon us.It is the agenda of anti-suburb(Ann Arbor is not a suburb) anti-automoblie and a push to somehow get people to use mass transit.
AATA actually works quite well subsidized as it is. If there are only 350,000 people in the county with more than a 3rd in A2 it is unrealisitc to expect more.And I guarantee that people in Chlesea or Manchester and outlying areas want to keep things as they are_ there will be no population increase of any significance. So those people will continue to drive into town.
How about other forms of transit? Jitneys, private co’s etc. In big cities that was how black people got around years ago.
I watched the planning comm mtg with all the area residents squawking about the Elks proposal. The developer made good points about gentrification and how it has driven people away and that the Elks are in fact the areas top resident in longevity. Could it be that the neighbors resistance is really a rejection of the attempts being made to change A2?
I am not against change.I even like the Elks proposal as presented by the developer.I don’t like the sentiment that somehow A2 must fundamentally change to be a desirable, viable locale.
One writer above mentioned living in a midwest town of 20, 000 or so.Well essentially that is what A2 is and has been; a midwest college town.Why change that?
posted by eberbach on December 30th, 2006 at 10:40 amAATA does not work well as it is. At the ridership level, it’s lousy. I still can’t believe that buses stop running at 6 on Saturdays, and 10 on weekdays. That’s just insane to me. At the municipal level, it’s a consistent loser too. It would cost just as much per rider to give everyone a cab. So, what’s a public transit organization to do in a subub of the motor city? Private transit is an unnecessary strain on the roads, and is pretty expensive on a day-to-day basis.
Yes, ann arbor IS a suburb. No, it doesn’t “work fine”–it has many problems, even aside from the public transportation. I find that one of the biggest problems is that complacency. I loved the last city I lived in (Pittsburgh), but it certainly had its problems. The thing that really kept it alive was that the residents loved it and kept working hard to change it for the better. There, that meant diversifying industry (had to be done after steel left), keeping public transportation alive and well, increasing draws for younger people (such as funding for artists), etc. Here, the attitude is “our industry is fine, public transportation is for losers anyway, young people come here because they think it’s the best place in Michigan”, etc.
posted by Pants Rule on December 30th, 2006 at 11:03 amI can tell you aint from A2. A2 has not now and has never been and never will be a suburb of Detroit.A2 does not rely on Detroit for anything.At one time it did but not at all now and when it did it was for very few things.A2 is not manufacturer based. A2 has zero Detroit auto co related factories in fact it has not for a long time the only one being King-Seeley which became Chrsler introl which has been gone siince the 80’s.
Not one of the Main drags out of Detroit Woodward, Michigan ave Gratiot, nor do any of the mile roads go thru A2 at any point. It is simply not a burb and those of us actually from A2 with a sense of history of A2 know this.
I am curious what you base the statement that AATA does not work.Because you see empty busses? Have you ridden the bus during weekdays? I have. Not often but that are always at least 3/4 full at those times. Are you in the transit business? Do you attend AATA board mtgs? I really wonder because you make such an absurd statement re AATA. I am no shill for AATA I don’t work for them but they have won more than one award for excellence based on the size city they serve.
The reason AATA is not 24/7 is there is no demand for it.It would cost too much. That is why there is nightride administred by a cab co; to take those few riders that do want to go at a fixed price late at nite.
Pittsburgh is a big city.It can not be compared with A2. I have been to Pittsburgh a few times and it is a lovely city. But there is no complacency here in A2.If there were we would not be the great town we are.I have been here a very long time and A2 has changed but it has maintained a level of quality that has not wavered.The neighborhoods are as nice now as they were forty years ago.That is hardly the result of complacancy.
posted by eberbach on December 30th, 2006 at 4:24 pmGiven the current state of the Big Three, I wish eberbach were correct about A2 not being at all dependent on Detroit, but it’s just not true. Many people who live in A2 are affliiated in some way with an auto company or a supplier, or one of the many secondary service sectors (lawyers, financial services, IT) that have developed to serve them. Certainly UM provides some buffer from the rest of Michigan’s economy, but if the whole region is in a slump, A2 will feel it.
Detroit’s economic woes are already reflected in the cooling-off of the once ridiculously overheated A2 housing market. That in itself is not a bad thing, I guess, unless you happened to buy your house at the peak of the market like we did–oops!
posted by Carolyn on December 30th, 2006 at 11:05 pmeberbach:
I had a long talk with one of the AATA board members about this recently–not the same as attending board meetings, I know, but this is my source.
I agree, AATA is not 24 hours because there is no demand. There’s also no demand in any real city either, but at least they run past 10:00! Even with buses that are sometimes 3/4 full (it certainly depends on what you mean by “full” and what lines you’re talking about), ridership IS a problem.
Ann Arbor cannot physically become anything more than a suburb without becoming more dense. It cannot become more dense without, among other things, either building a city of parking structures (which eliminates spaces for non-parking related businesses) or beefing up public transportation. People don’t ride public transportation because it isn’t convenient, and AATA can’t become convenient without more ridership. Kind of a catch-22.
The complacency I was talking about is evident in your remarks.
“It makes me sad to see so may people wanting to change A2 into something other then what it is. A2 has worked fine for quite some time.Now we have a certain agenda being foisted upon us.It is the agenda of anti-suburb(Ann Arbor is not a suburb) anti-automoblie and a push to somehow get people to use mass transit.”
Another one:
“I don’t like the sentiment that somehow A2 must fundamentally change to be a desirable, viable locale.
One writer above mentioned living in a midwest town of 20, 000 or so.Well essentially that is what A2 is and has been; a midwest college town.Why change that?”
posted by Pants Rule on December 31st, 2006 at 10:52 amCarolyn have you been to Detroit lately? And then have you been to downtown A2 say on a Fri night or any summer night? A2 is am oasis from the ghost town Detroit is. Sure the housing mkt is calming down.It should calm down. The ridiculously high prices of houses reflects imo the illusion some have of A2 being something other than what it is.A2 is not Chicago or NYC or Seattle or San fran_ it is a mid sized college town. There has alway been some people lving in A2 that have auto related jobs. I am willing to bet that the percentage is no different now then it was thirty years ago.
Pants, thanks for the kind reply. Could what you call complacency be an effort to keep things as they are because it has worked? What I am fearful of, is what I perceive as a desire among some to change A2 fundamentally. That would be wrong.Because fundamentally A2 has worked for may years. Why change what has worked?
The worst thing I can think of is the gentrification has moved lower middle class and poor people away. But that is another topic.Even what have traditionally been lower middle class neighborhoods have maintained incredibly well.
Talking with an AATA board member is good and probably more informantive then going to a mtg. I think that there will be no great change for mass transit in Wash co.Because there are not enough people in the outlying areas to increase the ridership. And those same people do not want to subsidize AATA nor do they want where they live to change very much.
You say A2 is a suburb.I have always thought to be a suburb there has to be a city to be a suburb of_ if that is true what is A2 a suburb of? So if A2 is suburban like or what I would call a tyown rather than a city what is wrong with that?
Anyhow thanks for the discussion.
posted by eberbach on December 31st, 2006 at 11:35 amReally? How much it costs to buy a house in one of those “lower middle class neighborhoods”?
posted by Bruce Fields on December 31st, 2006 at 1:50 pmunder 200K - check realtor.com
posted by LittleB on December 31st, 2006 at 2:09 pmWhen I watch the house sales in the Ann Arbor news, the sale prices I see downtown seem to run in the mid 200s up; most seem to be well over 300k. Lower middle class affordability would be well under 150k, based on the “three times your annual income” rule of thumb.
posted by UM postdoc on December 31st, 2006 at 9:07 pmNot downtown. Downtown is large money. I was remarking on the South East corner. Still, the prices are not under 150K, though. They are between 150 and 200, which *seems* like lower middle class(ish) to me . . . The dwellers therein are teachers and cops and stuff like that.
posted by LittleB on January 1st, 2007 at 8:50 amAt http://www.annarborspark.org/site-selectors/income/ I found some actual figures. “The estimated median household income of Washtenaw County for 2000 was nearly 19% higher than that of the state of Michigan. Michigan’s median household income was $37,410 and Washtenaw County’s was $51,990.”
So using the very rough three-times-annual-income rule, this puts housing affordability for the median Washtenaw county household at about $156k, and the median Michigan household at $120k, adjusted up a little for inflation of income (not for inflation in housing value!) in the past 6 years.
By downtown, I pretty much meant north of stadium blvd and south of the river, including the westen parts. It is true that there are houses for sale under 200k south of stadium on the east side.
posted by UM Postdoc on January 1st, 2007 at 10:29 amIs there anything intrinsically wrong with living just south of Stadium or just north of the Huron River? Anyhow, if you look hard enough, there are a few small houses within walking distance just west of downtown that are priced below $200,000. If you are willing to cross Stadium and go a few blocks south along Packard, similar homes can also be found. There are also a few condos that are even closer to downtown that are priced in that range. If you are looking to live in Ann Arbor Hills or Burns Park for that price, or for that matter, a larger and/or more updated house in the Old West Side, good luck.
posted by JCP2 on January 1st, 2007 at 11:16 amOf course nothing is wrong with it; I decided to live at the southern edge of town after seeing the state of the rental market downtown.
I was just pointing out that there are no “lower middle class” neighborhoods in Ann Arbor. There may be a few isolated, small houses listed under 200k, but these are still out of reach of lower middle class households, and the ones I saw at realtor.com seemed too small for families with multiple children. There certainly are not “neighborhoods” of them around.
posted by UM postdoc on January 1st, 2007 at 6:35 pm