Burned Out on Density
It used to be that neighborhoods had to do a little work to get rezoned as R1D (R1D of the Students and Renters). Put up a website with some plaintive-folk-soundtracked videos about the destruction of the neighborhood, give impassioned speeches to city council about how your high school kids can’t find a place to park their RAV4s on the street — something. But the residents of Lower Burns Park appear to have got their pro-sprawl proposal to appear before council with merely a well-placed word to Councilmember Higgins or Teall. Neighborhood residents, the resolution says, “have requested that portions of the Lower Burns Park Neighborhood area be rezoned from R4C (Multiple-Family Dwelling District) and R2A (Two Family Dwelling District) to R1D (Single-Family Dwelling District) to preserve the existing single-family character of the neighborhood.” Council will vote on the resolution as soon as they make a decision on the Oxbridge neighborhood’s proposed “pony for every household” plan.
FYI there was an other voices piece against the zoning in the paper yesterday: http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbornews/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1197906241137310.xml&coll=2
posted by Nancy on December 18th, 2007 at 12:12 pmWHAT IS THIS OX BRIDGE THING??? A PONY FOR EVERY HOUSEHOLD??? FROM THE CITY??? LAST I HEARD PONIES WERE A PRIVATE SECTOR FREE ENTERPRISE PRODUCT, AND WE SURE DONT NEED BIG BROTHR GOVT BUTTING IN ON OUR BIZ AND STEELING OUR CUSTOMERS!!!
A PONY IS A LUXXURY!!! ITEM!!! THAT FAMILYS EARN!!! WITH HIGH INCOMES!!! NOT A WELFARE PROGRAM TO HAND ONE OUT TO EVERY TOM-DICK-HARRY!!! WHO WILL WANT A PONY THEN??? DID YOU THINK ABOUT THAT???
STOP!!! STOP!!! STOP!!! THE OX BRIDGE SOCIALIZED PONY PROGRAM!!!
SIGNED OSCARS PONY BARN-GET YOUR PONY HERE-VISIT OUR WEB SITE!!!
posted by OSCARS PONY BARN on December 18th, 2007 at 9:30 pmToo bad that Other Voices column was full of mistaken information about Ann Arbor zoning policy. And really, how much denser to you want Lower Burns Park to be? The houses are tiny, the lots are tiny, and wedging in six undergrads with six cars is nuts.
posted by Clem on December 19th, 2007 at 8:54 pmIf you ever wanted a neighborhood zoned for density, this is your one.
I went to the planning commission hearing on this, and staff recommended that only the Golden Ave section of the neighborhood be rezoned from R4C to R1D, leaving all of the rest in current zoning. The planning commission approved this.
There were some numbers thrown around in the meeting about “% of non-conforming lots”, with something like 90%+ of the lots being too small for the current zoning.
What I don’t know (and what census numbers would back up) is whether current human population in the area has changed much since it was settled in the 20s and 30s. Back then Dewey St was a family neighborhood (Ted Heusel grew up there) and I’ll bet you donuts to dollars that there were 6+ people in some of those houses, all related.
The density issue quite frankly is regarding parking, not people. As you get closer to campus, the streets get more parked up. 6 people, 6 cars on a small lot with a narrow street is packing things in pretty close. It’s a bigger issue than any zoning will fix.
This would be an ideal neighborhood to test a chicken ordinance that allowed domestic poultry, since it was agricultural land within the last 100 years.
posted by Edward Vielmetti on December 19th, 2007 at 11:04 pmI’m certain that there were 6 or more people in those houses, especially during the Depression, when some of the larger properties were rooming houses. However, we have higher expectations of privacy now, and as you say, the parking density is getting to be an issue. Landlords who convert to a six bedroom house are paving their backyards to provide off-street parking. Don’t tell me that having a garbage-strewn parking lot next door is going to increase my property values, Richard Fisher.
Chickens, however, would be cool. Roosters, not so much. They are mean birds.
posted by Clem on December 20th, 2007 at 11:57 amWhat about the goats?
posted by from a REAL oldie on December 20th, 2007 at 12:41 pmI’m a student (gasp! the horror!) who lived in that neighborhood last year and I honestly don’t know what the fuss is about. It’s a remarkably quiet area, even on game days and at the start of the fall semester (now I’m living a few blocks north and on the other side of Packard, and it’s a huge difference). The houses are kept up nicely, there are lots of kids and elderly folks (like the guy on Granger who got his house rebuilt with volunteer labor when it was condemned, and will donate it to the city when he dies–it was like Extreme Makeover Home Edition but even sweeter), and even a crossing guard on the corner of Granger and Packard to help kids get to school.
My major problem when I lived there was an (owner-occupied, as far as I could tell) house on Rose whose cranky, yapping dog was always loose on the street, and who parked a decrepit old hearse in front of the playground. Can we zone against THEM?
posted by SB on December 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pmI had no idea the hearse and the cranky, yapping, crapping dog went together. The hearse is far preferable, as my kids have never stepped in hearse droppings on the playground.
There is now a large “undergrad” conversion complete with paved backyard across from Mr. Doyle (the gentleman referenced above). I think the planned (and foiled) overall rezone was to help preserve the present neighborhood, which is student, family, and elderly friendly. Chicken friendly? Goat friendly? Remains to be seen.
posted by Clem on December 20th, 2007 at 8:27 pmI’m not living in the 7th Ward of New Orleans, in an area that is sometimes called the Treme, but the real Treme is said to end any number of blocks away. The houses are over 100 years old. There is an abandoned neighborhood police station on the corner from 1902. Homes are mostly double shotguns, with some palacious multi-story homes here and there, like the house I live in. I don’t own it, no.
A block away is Broad St, wider that Huron St in Ann Arbor, and across it is Mid-City. This is the center of the City of New Orleans.
There is domestic poultry everywhere. I wake up at dawn to the sound of roosters crowing. Roosters and hens run around the yard and the street. At times, the hens are dodging traffic with chicks in tow.
I have no idea where the chickens come from, who cares for them, what becomes of them. I don’t know if they are kept for meat, eggs or ambiance.
They are pleasant enough. They are pretty to look at. They no longer seem so out of place. They are a reminder that I’m not in Ann Arbor anymore.
Strange to think that Ann Arbor would entertain this anachronism.
posted by Alan Gutierrez on December 20th, 2007 at 10:04 pmHeck–just rent out rooms in your single family home–that makes an R1D at least an R2A. It’s what I do, but more for financial reasons.
posted by Monica on December 21st, 2007 at 11:30 amTo zone areas of the city within walking distance of UM and downtown as low density sounds like a classic example of Ann Arbor conservative government. We might pay lip service to environmentalism by running biodiesel buses, but when it comes to accepting pedestrian or bike-friendly lifestyles and the concurrent density, the city is in denial.
posted by Greg on December 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pmSorry for being off-topic, here, but argh, biodiesel is a shell game. As much as I think Ann Arbor is underrated, I would have thought that the well-meaning environmentalists in town would be smart enough to see why biodiesel really doesn’t solve any problems whatsoever (except maybe geopolitical ones, but it creates a host of new ones, to boot).
posted by Anna on December 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 pmPro-sprawl? Knee-jerk. Stop twitching.
posted by Ace Tomato Company on December 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pmI am a Lower Burns Park homeowner, and we have loved living in this neighborhood for 20 years. As “SB” says above, it is quiet, with a mixture of families, students (mostly grad students, I think) and elders. The point of our petition to the City Council was to maintain the current mixture. Right now, with real estate prices low and properties not moving, landlords have a great incentive to expand their investments by converting single-family homes to high-density student housing. If the balance of our mixture of residents shifts significantly, this will no longer be such a nice neighborhood to live in. I have nothing against landlords, but we would like to at least slow this process while Ann Arbor real estate value recover from the current market conditions.
I love living in a college town, and I find young people to be creative, energetic and refreshing. However, the typical undergraduate, even in a group, is unprepared and/or unable to maintain a house in a neighborhood. My experience of walking through the student area north of Granger is that some landlord-owned properties (by no means all) are unkempt, with sidewalks that are, in the winter, un-shoveled. I can’t believe that scattering such properties through Lower Burns Park is going to bring up either the renters’ or landlords’ standards for maintenance. Thus, our property values will go down. For many homeowners, the value of that “biggest asset” is an important component of their retirement planning, and deserves some protection from unnecessary, avoidable risk.
In discussions with others, I keep pointing out that no investment, short of U.S. Treasury bills, is risk-free. Because existing rental properties’ zoning is “grandfathered,” any potential costs to current landlords lie in the future, when the properties are sold. The potential for values decreasing is a legitimate cost of doing business.
I love the chickens and goats discussion…
Amy
posted by Amy T. on December 29th, 2007 at 2:52 pmAnna: I think the environmentalists at the city understand that the current source material for bio-diesel is a stand-in for what will come later. It is important to develop a supply line and even more importantly a market for bio-diesel in order to spur the next generation of bio-fuels. The potential exists for creating fuels out of almost any bio-degradeable waste product. With bio-diesel at they at least get a lot more energy out than what is put in. The same cannot be said for ethanol.
Engines using bio-diesel burn cleaner and ofter get better milage than on regular diesel. Engines on ethanol get lower milage and of course it takes a lot more energy to make.
Still, there is promise in the research that is going on for cellulosic ethanol.
Brasil produces so much ethanol from sugar cane that they can run the whole fuel cycle on it but of course there is an evironmental price to pay with all that cane production.
posted by Ted Huey on December 29th, 2007 at 11:29 pm“Thus, our property values will go down. For many homeowners, the value of that “biggest asset” is an important component of their retirement planning, and deserves some protection from unnecessary, avoidable risk.”– Amy T.
This is an entirely understandable position. However, this position has consequences. If you’ve been here for 20 years, you know by now what those consequences are.
posted by todd on December 30th, 2007 at 1:11 pmExplain for those of us who just moved into the neighborhood in the past five years.
posted by Clem on December 30th, 2007 at 3:07 pm“It is important to develop a supply line and even more importantly a market for bio-diesel in order to spur the next generation of bio-fuels…”
This argument doesn’t make any sense. Why is it important to develop a market for biofuels? The end-goal is a renewable source of energy with low environmental impact. Biofuels are only good insofar as they achieve that end.
“With bio-diesel at they at least get a lot more energy out than what is put in.”
Not true. The average ratio of energy-in versus energy-out for biofuels is 1.7. Sugarcane is an exception, in which case I believe the ratio is 1:1, but still, for most sources, biofuels cost more energy than they create.
“Engines using bio-diesel burn cleaner and ofter get better milage than on regular diesel.”
The fact is that a combustion engine is a combustion engine. The putative carbon savings for biodiesel are all due to the plants themselves, not lower emissions.
Please don’t get me wrong — I don’t think we should continue using fossil fuels. But biodiesel is a well-intentioned distraction.
posted by Anna on December 31st, 2007 at 12:15 amIn response to a previous post:
“Right now, with real estate prices low and properties not moving, landlords have a great incentive to expand their investments by converting single-family homes to high-density student housing.”
Not so. Real estate is still way over-priced from an investment standpoint. That is why they are not moving.
“If the balance of our mixture of residents shifts significantly, this will no longer be such a nice neighborhood to live in.”
How nice would the neighborhood or the city be without a $3 billion entity invested therein? Has everyone forgotten about taking the bitter with the sweet?
“I love living in a college town, and I find young people to be creative, energetic and refreshing. However, the typical undergraduate, even in a group, is unprepared and/or unable to maintain a house in a neighborhood.”
There is some truth in that, but it comes with the territory. Living in a community involves compromises. It is not as well mannered and well manicured as you like, it is not as free and easy as they like. What do you expect in a college town?
“For many homeowners, the value of that “biggest asset” is an important component of their retirement planning, . .”
Landlords don’t need to retire? They don’t need finances to be able to do so? What do you think is their biggest asset?
“The potential for values decreasing is a legitimate cost of doing business.”
We can say with equal validity that the potential for values decreasing is a legitimate cost of owning a home. In the last 20 years your home’s value has soared. Would that have happened without the UM? In South Lyon and a lot of Detroit property values have taken hits. A lot of people there wish they had our problems.
Ed Vielmetti wondered about the change in population since the 20s and 30s. We don’t have to go back that far. I bought my first house in 1974, still live there and rent out part. The statistics that I have seen are that between then and the end of the 70s the UM didn’t grow much, perhaps 10%. However, it grew at the graduate level. With the older group of students came an increasing desire for privacy, now shared by all. There was less sharing of rooms. Population density around campus decreased by 27%. It has since decreased further in all neighborhoods, including Burns Park and Oxbridge. This in the face of burgeoning growth at UM. I do not have numbers for the period from the 20s to the 70s. It may not be tabulated, and I doubt census data would be helpful. There is no question that density decreased in that period, as well.
Amy T says that she has nothing against landlords and likes the young, and then she and others are only willing to countenance actions that reduce their number.
We need more density, not less. That does not mean damaging the quality of the neighborhood. If we doubled it we would still not be at the level of 60 years ago. Accepting R4C as a maximum, or even a high, value which we can only reduce is a laughable position. Parking is indeed a problem. People are not.
posted by Nick Contaxes on January 13th, 2008 at 11:35 pmMy teenagers think a high-rise on South U is a great idea, cool and hip, makes AA seem more like real city.
Maybe it’s just the oldsters who want to encase in the place in amber.
posted by Just a homeowner on January 14th, 2008 at 7:50 am