ann arbor is overrated.

Seven, Seven for No No No Tomorrow

Who and/or what are the Ann Arbor Seven? It looks like it’s somehow related to the destruction of the neighborhoods of A2, which we’re always for, but the details are intriguingly scanty. The following remark does little to elucidate the issue:

Defend the Ann Arbor Seven
as if six were nine, well that means the developments will destroy not six, not nine but all they can

Wait, maybe it has something to do with the Dwarf-landlords in their halls of stone.

60 Responses to “Seven, Seven for No No No Tomorrow”

Maybe you should ask the dog.
posted by Laura on January 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am
The photo shows the houses along South Fifth Avenue (east side, south of William) that are the site of a recently announced development.

This block has never been included in any historic district, but really should have been. The houses are considerably fancier (more architecturally interesting) than the average of century-plus-old Ann Arbor houses. My understanding is that this vicinity was popular with Ann Arbor’s elite in the late 19th century. The downtown library across the street is on the site of the Junius Beal mansion.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on January 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Condo developlers suck. They should be tared and feathered and ran right the fuck out of town.
posted by Ann Arbor is a whore. on January 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
…or ran into Ypsi.
posted by Jack B Nimble on January 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I feel bad for those homeowners having their property condemned and their houses auctioned off to a developer without any say in the matter. Stealing someone’s right to do what they want with their property is very anti-American.
posted by Patrick Austin on January 7th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“Each house has been maintained and preserved in a respectful way”

This is not true. I know because I lived in one of them — 415 S Fifth Ave to be exact. That property dates back to the 1820s, but it has not been well maintained and is literally falling apart. Of course, I’m pretty sure my former landlord is the developer that wants to build the condo building (which might explain why it hasn’t been kept up), but the above quote is completely false.
posted by James on January 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I agree with James. I lived at 415 and the place was pretty much falling apart. We complained about the back staircase being broken and possibly dangerous and the landlord/developer simply told me that they weren’t going to fix it since they were going to tear the house down in a couple of years.
posted by 415 on January 7th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
sorry it was late, just to send y’all over to Defend the Ann Arbor,
7 historic architectural landmark structures are in imminent danger of destruction, if the Ann Arbor Planning Commision decides to re-zone this area, so that developers may proceed to build a 100 unit, 5 story mid-rise condominium. So preserve the 7, if they want to tear these houses down, and allowed to, they won’t stop, might as well be nine…..10, 20 30 and so on and so on.
posted by jeff on January 7th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Come on guys I lived at 415 and have fond memories….the kitchen in that place had some of the cutest recessed woodwork even if it had been painted white. But the best thing was how hot that house got in winter….
posted by christina on January 7th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Some people see a cracked plaster ceiling in a dwelling from the 1820’s as a lack of maintenance. Just put up some new drywall! Some see a chipped rusty sink or wavy glass in a double hung wooden window as a lack of upgrade to help an aging house. Tear them out and put in a plastic sink and vinyl windows. Indeed, those “faults” are the thinning hair and wrinkles of a survivor. A structure that has managed to survive the abuse of hundreds of neglectful owners and residents. If only that plaster could talk. Patina doesn’t come in a can and character is not an available option.

That stretch of 4th Ave, that residential strip of typical two story and an attic homes converted to icky rental property is the last of it’s kind in downtown. It’s not as remarkable as some of the houses along N. Division, but those houses along S. 4th were not built to the same standards and can’t be expected to survive as long without help and respect from their owners and residents. Hmmmmmm.

Mucho Gusto feels contradicted on the proposed development of this site. If 30 years ago, those houses had been gentrified and returned to single family owner occupied dwellings, like many homes in the OWS, that block might have been worth saving today. But that block has really suffered from Alex De Parry’s lack of interest, purposely or not and the icky renters who have not shown those houses the respect that their age deserves.

I think there is merit in redeveloping that site, but the design must be complementary of the remaining structures along the street and try to retain some essence of that part of downtowns history.

I mean who wants to see a low rise, clustered mondo concreto that is conducive to short term leases by icky renters?
posted by mucho gusto on January 7th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Get the facts straight! Disinformation being widely disseminated to foment opposition is intellectually dishonest. The project is not a condominium project rather it is a rental project targeted at those who make between 75% and 120% of the area median income thus making it possible for middle income workers to live in the downtown – all previous downtown residential projects have focused on providing high-end condos for the rich. Greater diversity in the make-up of those living in the downtown area is a positive contribution to the city. The proposed new building is not “built up to the street” but rather has the same average front set-back (over 20 feet) of the existing structures. The existing structures are no better examples of historic architecture than can be found in the other existing historic districts in the city in which there are plenty of such examples. None of the existing structures have been “maintained and preserved in a respectful way” – they all have been crarved up into multiple student apartments, most with numerouse additions, by a series of owners over their existance and are part of the “student ghetto” bounded by Fifth, Packard, Division and William.
posted by Jimbo on January 8th, 2008 at 10:14 am
The most extreme preservationists would lay in front of a bulldozer over at those two basic, wood-frame houses on Glen St. (where the Glen-Ann development is planned), so they will definetly fight this to the death. I’m continually irked by the fact that most of the same people also fear height in the city, regardless of where it’s being put. For example, there’s the 26-story development proposal at VC/Bagel Factory site, which would house students more centrally and relieve the outward motion of students into historic neighborhoods. But, of course, this would be too much of a “change,” even if it didn’t result in any setback related to preservation.

Jimbo, I agree with you but I’ll say that these houses are particularly nice and much better than average. On the other hand, street upon street of similar neighborhoods remain and are protected, and this location lends itself to density.

I thought one land-owner owns all of these homes…is someone really getting property taken from them?
posted by Anonymous on January 8th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Condos suck. They flat out suck. Please don’t insult people by saying that these “rentals” are for the middle income workers. How is 75% and 120% of the area median income equate to middle income? That is the biggest load of shit. Just call it what it is, student housing for snot nose UofM brats from the east coast. All you folks fighting to keep the old school character of A2 may as well give up. Money beats soul every time.
posted by Ann Arbor is a whore. on January 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
“How is 75% and 120% of the area median income equate to middle income? That is the biggest load of shit.”

Are you serious? Do you know what the word “median” means?
posted by todd on January 8th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
They aren’t building condos or even apartments at the Village Corner/Bagel factory location, they are building a 500 unit privately owned dorm complete with RAs and a “retail mall” on the ground floor. People complain about “icky neighbors” because of a few beer can left on a porch every so often, but when it’s an entire section of downtown made “icky” it’s development and progress. South University is already difficult enough to walk down without getting harassed or vomited on, why make it worse?
posted by VCer on January 8th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Median (disambiguation).
In probability theory and statistics, a median is described as the number separating the higher half of a sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half. The median of a finite list of numbers can be found by arranging all the observations from lowest value to highest value and picking the middle one. If there is an even number of observations, the median is not unique, so one often takes the mean of the two middle values.

At most half the population have values less than the median and at most half have values greater than the median. If both groups contain less than half the population, then some of the population is exactly equal to the median.
posted by Ann Arbor is a whore. on January 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
As always, anti-student feeling remains. A2 would be nothing without them.

Trust me, the wealthy east coast students aren’t the ones living over on 4th and Packard. From my experience, they are disproportionately concentrated SE of the Diag, including the place where the new highrise, clearly targeted at them, will go. This means that the student “ickiness” will be concentrated more. You townies want to have it all ways. You want to keep students out of Lower Burns and the Main St. area, but you cry whenever a developer has a proposal that will preclude this.

Ann Arbor is a college town; some of you don’t get it. Most college towns are way more “icky” then A2.

South U is difficult to walk on? What the hell? It is a patented student strip and nothing else, so you should expect certain things, but really, what’s so bad about it?
posted by Anonymous on January 8th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
There’s already precedent for high-rises in A2. U Towers and Tower Plaza are both quite successful. The former might be an eyesore, but it’s still full.

It’s the economy, stupid.

The City has zoning limiting height, there are historic preservation standards for many great neighborhoods, and developers should be allowed to do whatever they want to within those limitations. The City allows 26 story buildings, and the VC is not historic, therefore, that project is totally legit, even if some residents don’t like the way it looks. The “Ann Arbor 7″ are not in a historic district, so the preservationists need to get them that status, or else a landlord will be completely within his rights to demo them and build new, no matter how sad the loss of that architecture may be.
posted by Brian on January 8th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
South University is already difficult enough to walk down without getting harassed or vomited on, why make it worse?

Oh please. This is just nonsense.
posted by tom brandt on January 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
What’s wrong with South U? China Gate, NYPD, Maize & Blue Deli, a higher concentration of korean restaurants than any other place in the universe (including Korea). What’s not to like?

Ok, the bars suck. I don’t like that, but I’ve never been anything close to “harassed or vomited on”.
posted by James on January 8th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Not to mention Saigon Garden, Red Hot Lovers, Pizza House and No Thai!

South U. architecture sucks, but the assortment of cheap restaurants is better than anywhere else in town. Ironically it’s the crappy, low rent buildings that allow the cheap local restaurants to thrive.

And honestly I have nothing against dollar pitchers of beer. Especially if I’m going to turn right around and throw it up.
posted by Parking Strucutre Dude! on January 8th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Forgive me but I’m submitting again just so that I can get my web browser to remember the correct spelling of my nom de plume.
posted by Parking Structure Dude! on January 8th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Forgot “Seven For All Mankind” jeans by the way, aaio. Sheesh.

…Nice Landord of the Rings reference, too.
posted by David Boyle on January 8th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I caught AAIO’s Tolkien numerology, but not “Landlord of the Rings”, heh.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on January 8th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
the dog stopped barking about the houses, but still there is plenty about defense of the Ann Arbor seven here, as the meeting approaches at city hall, of the planning commission, Jan. 15,
this is the ann arbor 7, s 5th ave. between williams and jefferson.
http://jefflamb.wordpress.com/
thanks,j
posted by jeff on January 9th, 2008 at 12:07 am
mucho-disrespect, neglect and disrepair is not a justification for demolition of s. 5th ave, of any historic architectural resource, it is just an excuse. One so easily used by the those who and those who want to demolish for development. Tougher standards, and historic district guildelines, oversight of maintenance and protection from unsympathetic re-use adaptations,would help to “gentrify” as you called it, this block, even it were to remain multiple unit housing, doesn’t have to be single family. condoize the preservation, i don’t care. When they are gone, there will be little to look back on.
posted by jeff on January 9th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Walking along South University has had a surprisingly small impact upon my rate of being vomited on.

I’d recommend never having little babies, ever, as the best solution vis-a-vis avoiding personal vomit contact.
posted by byproxy on January 9th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Just curious … are there any artisnal builders in Ann Arbor these days who could produce new homes in this seemingly popular old style?
posted by A Different Jon on January 9th, 2008 at 8:46 am
“As always, anti-student feeling remains. A2 would be nothing without them.”

Don’t confuse what the U of M has contributed to the livability of Ann Arbor with the deleterious effects that students have on the city.

There are students who actually respect themselves and their surroundings, but the majority of them are spoiled slobs who can’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the bottom.

Very few animals shit where they live. Just look around and see how much shit there is in the student dominated neighborhoods.
posted by mucho gusto on January 9th, 2008 at 9:57 am
“Just look around and see how much shit there is in the student dominated neighborhoods.”

Uh, none?

And this is from someone living in a predominantly student apartment complex that allows dogs.
posted by Bruce Fields on January 9th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Like, shit. As in, “look at all this shit”. Litter, trash, filth… What people waste or leave behind. The stuff of human habitation that normal people use, then put in the trash or recycle. What anthropologists use to determine how people lived in the past.

Trash, broken glass, overstuffed dumpsters, ubiquitous red and blue cups, orange, beige, blue and clear bags of frozen, wet newsprint, broken bicycles, bottles and barbeques, broken fences of a variety of material, unrecycled and unreturned for deposit drink containers, snowplowed in dead cars, broken glass, half burned porch couches… Shit. The kind of stuff one might find in residential neighborhoods adjacent to an institution of higher learning.
posted by mucho gusto on January 9th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
“Like, shit. As in, “look at all this shit”. Litter, trash, filth…”

Oh, I see, got it.

How does that work with the thing about animals again?
posted by Bruce Fields on January 9th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Mucho’s self-parody continues: is someone who can’t stomach the idea of having college students living in his college town really calling someone else spoiled?

I’m not sure I’m old enough to say this to anybody, but . . . grow up!
posted by Nick on January 10th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Animals… as in the human animals who trash the place in which they live without regard to those around them.

Bruce, are you as dense as you let on or is this just an act? If it is, you deserve an Academy Award nomination.

Nick, you can have your dessert when you finish your vegetables.

Jeff, you’re right. Good point and I agree.
posted by mucho gusto on January 10th, 2008 at 8:47 am
“Animals… as in the human animals who trash the place in which they live without regard to those around them.”

Bear with me, I’m not getting it: “Very few animals shit where they live.” So you’re saying “shit” here means “Trash, broken glass, overstuffed dumpsters,”, etc., which, is a usage I’m familiar with when “shit” is used as a noun but not when it’s used as a verb. OK, whatever. So I assume you meant something like “very few animals leave around trash, broken glass, overstuffed dumpsters”, etc., where they live. Is that true? (References?) If so, why is that fact relevant?
posted by Bruce Fields on January 11th, 2008 at 9:28 am
my guess is that pretty much all animals shit (in the mucho gusto sense) where they live.
posted by peter honeyman on January 11th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I suspect you’re right, Peter.

Also, I’d've thought that what with modern plumbing and all, your modern human is probably able to shit (non-mucho-gusto-sense) quite a bit closer to where they live than they would otherwise, making the ability to shit (non-mucho-gusto-sense) in the place where you live a mark of civilization, so I’m not seeing how the original comments makes sense with either the mucho-gusto or non-mucho-gusto sense of the term. Well, I’ve obviously gotten myself muddled up.

Several items in that list of “that normal people use, then put in the trash or recycle” were interesting to me, by the way: take “overstuffed dumpsters”. I’m sorry to hear that some students are now hoarding their overstuffed dumpsters instead of putting them in the trash like normal people. I hope such behavior is the exception, and not typical of college students.
posted by Bruce Fields on January 11th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Bruce, you are dense and have little understanding of metaphor or allegory or the ability to make simple observations of your surroundings.

Yes, I poop where I live (and I flush it down), but I don’t trash the place where I live. I recycle, compost, reuse and take care of my nest, as it were. I’m aware of my environment and the people around me who might be affected by the choices I make. I am aware that we are all connected. Decisions that we make, no matter how small, such as littering or smoking, have an effect on our quality of life. Students may be here for a short time, but their effects linger long after they leave and the long term residents who have a stake in this town must live with those effects.

This is relevant in the respect that there are neighborhoods in this town where the residents don’t care where they leave their shit (junk, trash, call it what you like). These are neighborhoods of mostly middle and upper middle class and educated young people who should know better. This is relevant because it demonstrates that my generation and my children’s generation bore and raised overindulged, spoiled slobs who don’t seem to give a rats ass about the conditions in which they live or how other people who may be affected. To me that demonstrates a lack of respect for themselves, their neighbors and their environment. But you can’t blame the parents (or landlords), because these people are allegedly adults and supposedly have the ability to think for themselves. However, they are either unconscious or worse, acting in the manner of mammals with much smaller brains lacking the capacity to reason or think beyond the next moment.

This is also relevant to the concerns over the proposed development on S 4th Ave, the rezoning of parts of Burns Park, high rise dorms and how young people and students are perceived and why there is fear and overreaction to these issues. There is no doubt in my mind that students, and the ways they treat the neighborhoods they populate, have left an almost irreversible bad taste in many people’s mouths. I’m sure that the few are ruining it for the many, but the perception is there and we all know that in today’s world, perception is reality.

Ask yourself why residents of neighborhoods and long time residents react in ways that appear to be anti-student? Could it possibly be because there is ample evidence of what happens to a neighborhood when “icky renters” move in?

The claims of anti-student bias by Nick and his ilk is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction, not unlike someone claiming racism, sexism or ageism at a perceive slight. There’s usually more to it than just simple prejudice without any basis in fact.
posted by mucho gusto on January 11th, 2008 at 11:40 am
But do townies live on Hill St. or South U. or vicinity? The neighborhood belongs to the students, not the townies who live a distance on the west side, in Burns Park and beyond, or sheltered somewhere out on Geddes, or worse, in a subdivision on the outskirts. Why do the townies feels they should have free reign over the student districts? Why are they talking like suburbanites who left Detroit upon returning to their old city: “look at what THESE PEOPLE did to my neighborhood?” That’s an analogy only inasmuch as students are being looked down upon much like the urban poor, and being seen as “the other.” Other than that, don’t read into that analogy.

Unlike neighborhoods in Detroit, these so-called filthy A2 neighborhoods are still commanding something like $5000/month for a nice sized house, or $1000/month per apartment in a house with 10 apartments. Sounds like the market is having no trouble clearing, and in fact producing profit, in spite of all the filth. Sounds like the townies who decry it really have NO SAY WHATSOEVER because they are not part of the market. Perhaps m-g’s conclusion is simply that young people are willing to pay a lot of money to live in filfth. That would be a little generalized. I’m sitting in a lovely, clean student apartment in a house on Hill St., looking out my window at a nice lawn without litter. The only mess in the neighborhood is down the street at a frat house, but we can excuse them for that. Sure someone came and took a piss in the bushes next to the house last night, but was I offended, no, not so much. She was drunk. Are you offended, as you sit at a distance in Georgetown or West Liberty or some shit and think to yourself “look at what these people are doing to MY city?” Live and let live, pal. Also, to all those other people who are reverting to provincialism and fear of people from the coasts or the money-centers in the Detroit suburbs, knock that shit off. The University of Michigan has been attracting wealthy out-of staters since the 1800s. I sense that the townies are pining for the 60s when the students were all rejecting their capitalist-class upbringing and living like hippies (oh yeah, those students of the 60s are the townies complaining right now), and this is a cause of tension. The rest of them just fear that which isn’t white and midwestern and gentile. Once again, imagine how decrepit the local economy would be without money infusions from Westchester, LA, or Grosse Pointe, and without the professors and administrators that dine out of Main Street, who they employ by spending up to 35k to go to classes here.

The students aren’t going to be invading the outer neighborhoods anytime soon. Finally, you’d be well-served to support any and all high-rise development near campus because that might actually have the effect of shrinking the student rental market area, perhaps freeing up the Ann Arbor 7.

Something tells me that, without student renters, those 7 houses would have been plowed under a long time ago. If they didn’t make money in a rental neighborhood, they surely would have been replaced already.

Here’s to saving the 7 and building higher-density housing for those filthy snot-nosed students closer to campus!
posted by Brian on January 11th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
The jungle drums are saying that the Planning Department staff has recommended *denial* of both the rezoning and the site plan for the South Fifth Avenue project.
posted by David Cahill on January 11th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“The jungle drums are saying that the Planning Department staff has recommended *denial* of both the rezoning and the site plan for the South Fifth Avenue project.”

For now, until the furor dies down. denial of a site plan means that the developer gets another shot.

For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with students living in my neighborhood if they have the same respect for their neighbors as I do.

Brian. “No say whatsoever”?? Do you actually believe that student ghettoes have seceded from the rest of the city? Do they exist in a vacuum? Are they part of their own little world, with their own rules, answering to no one? Those neighborhoods do not belong to the students, they belong to the entire city, all residents share in the associated costs like fire, police, trash and recycling pick up, snowplowing, street and sewer repair, etc. the houses belong to the property owners, the renters only own the air between the walls. but that does not give them carte blanche to trash that house or disrespect their neighbors or themselves.

Like I said in another thread. Very few animals shit where they live and eat. Pigs come to mind.

I live here and never left. Most students are temporary residents with little stake in the city. And who pays their rent? I seriously doubt that every student pays their own $1000 a month. Mummy and Daddy subsidize many of them I suspect. So, indeed it is their parents and scholarship granters who are paying for them to live in filth. Their lack of ownership and responsibility breeds contempt and waste. I don’t owe students, or icky renters, anything! In fact they owe me, because my personal habits make my place and the world around it a little more pleasant. I will leave this place in better shape than when I arrived. Can you say the same thing? My legacy to Ann Arbor will be a home that I literally rescued from the trash heap, with my own hands. Because I take care of my space, I make everyones life a little better, even Brian’s.

Have you ever been to the basement of a student house where the guys dump their sweaty, sweetly molding, unwashed sports gear? Or the rec room that reaks of cigarettes, beer and barf, worse than any bar in town? Or repaired a toilet that’s been leaking for 6 months, rotting out the wooden floor because the tenants never bothered to tell the landlord? I have been to and witnessed first hand, more than once, these self and community destructive habits.

And where does that 35K tuition go? Not to the city of Ann Arbor, bub.

Why should the frats get a pass on their bad domestic habits? Frankly, they should be setting the example (HAH!) Why should we excuse public drunkenness that results in public urination? I’m as much in favor of live and let live as the next person, but I refuse to be an enabler or condone people’s bad habits. Brian is so short sighted. There are long term consequences to peoples actions and young people do not have the wisdom, life experience or foresight to see them mostly because they imagine that the world revolves around them. Just think about the consequences of your actions BEFORE you act. In principle, that tiny cigarette butt you threw on the ground is no different than falling asleep with lit candles on the couch ending up torching the house and making everyones lives a mess and we all end up paying for it one way or another. Live and let live? How about showing some respect for the place in which you live and let live?

I did not attend the U of M, nor was I ever a student here.

Even when I was a hippie we had an ethic that we all shared in our mutual well being. Sure we weren’t perfect but we made an effort and at least understood why it was important to be more than just an individual. We looked out for each other and the places we lived. Well this hippie grew up learning that we are all in this together, there is no us vs them, we all owe each other and society our best efforts to respect each other and the places in which we live. And that includes the 35,000+ students of the U of M.

Brian, as Nick advised me, you really need to grow up.
posted by mucho gusto on January 11th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
“I did not attend the U of M, nor was I ever a student here.”

I don’t see why that should keep you from pontificating about students, student life, student finances and the like. (You’re complaining about sweaty sports gear? Really?)
posted by Dale on January 11th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Geez, now I have to deal with Mr Winling? Him of the Ivory Tower and overstuffed thesis?

As far as complaining, nothing is below me. Everything is fair game. Just because I didn’t make any babies, does that mean I don’t or can’t have an informed opinion and express it? Just because I’m left leaning does that mean that I can’t complain about conservative right wingers? I blame my sickness on AAIO.

Yes, stinking sports gear is a sign of the moral degradation of our society, much like rock and roll.

Uh, not cleaning up after yourself shows a lack of respect for self and those that live with you.
posted by mucho gusto on January 11th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I have to say many students should treat their homes better than they do…cleaning up trash and the such more than they do. However I have just as much concern about the behavior of many of the sleazy landlords and rental companies in Ann Arbor. If your landlord doesn’t respond in any type of timely manner you don’t end up calling about the messed up toilet or bother cleaning up your yard. It’s a two way street. If students are a problem then so are slum lords that take their rent checks and don’t care about the appearance of their properties.

You want to make sure students keep their properties nice, then make sure they are nice the day they move in…if the community doesn’t care what slumlords that make money provide, then why the hell should students feel any need to not leave their student ghetto house or apartment as a dump?
posted by Andy on January 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Wait til you see my dissertation.
posted by Dale on January 11th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
“then why the hell should students feel any need to not leave their student ghetto house or apartment as a dump?”

Because two wrongs do not make a right. See? This is what our culture is teaching you? Get you own and screw everyone else before they screw you. Blame everyone else, even though you are part of the problem. Andy, YOU own your reality. You can be selfish and look out only for #1, or you can leave it better than when you arrived. Which is it?

I lived in some pretty dodgy places back in the day, but we took care of them because it was the right thing to do for ourselves and it was better and healthier regardless of how dilapidated it was. Just because your landlord is a greedy pig does not mean that you have to live like one to get back at them. All the people who complain about and blame landlords should be required to own rental property in a student neighborhood. Your landlord didn’t make you a slob.

Every rental property gets inspected to minimum standards of the law. I think ti’s called something like tenants rights and responsibilities. Every landlord and tenant is subject to those laws. You’re a fool if you sign a lease on a place that isn’t in compliance. Sheep.. baa, baa, baa.
posted by mucho gusto on January 11th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
If you hate students so much, why are you living here? There have been disproportionately high numbers of young people here since the 1830s. I’m gonna puke if you tell me that students were different or something when you moved in.

I don’t contribute to any litter in this town, I only pick it up. Enough with the generalizing.

btw, what snow removal were you speaking of?

Anyway, I was kind of getting into devil’s advocate earlier. I do believe in the all-for-one approach to making A2 livable, but it only goes so far in practicality. The town is self-segregating. I’m just not seeing any non young-people living around me or hanging out on South U. It’s not unreasonable to say that this truly is a student’s domain. And please don’t tell me that people are threatened and don’t live here because it’s littered and barf-encrusted (which it hardly is). They don’t live here because they want to buy, not rent, a home, and because they don’t want to come over here to get cheap food and drink when they could be on Main St. or in Kerrytown.

M-gusto, to sum up, I absolutely agree with your earlier take on the 7 (that it would be ideal to save them but a redevelopment wouldn’t be all bad if it was held to high standards), but I disagree that their possible demise was brought on from them being engulfed by the student ghetto. The fact of the matter is that their location begs for higher density housing. A2 is slowly, steadily growing, and the demand for urban living rather than fringe living on new greenfield developments outside of town is high. More A2 sprawl would be a bad thing. Now, there are plenty of places to put density in Ann Arbor outside of the site of the 7, i.e. the old Y site and plenty of parking lots around town, but we shouldn’t be totally surprised if we lose the 7. With these market facts in mind, we have to attribute less blame to the fact that these became student rentals, and more to other factors. Plus, if I may say, these rentals were available to anyone, not just students, and they became students rentals because rents are high near campus and supply should be higher (we need more mid- and high- rises near campus)…and rentals in general are abused much more, regardless of who is living in them. And this is a segway to my final point: stop hating on students so much.
posted by Brian on January 11th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
“And this is a segway to my final point: stop hating on students so much.” This would reduce mucho gusto’s sole purpose in life to the size of a pea.

segway= two wheeled electric transportation device for lazy urban dwellers who don’t have the balls to ride a bicycle in traffic.

segue= segue |ˈsegwā; ˈsā-|
verb ( segues , segued |ˈsegwād; ˈsā-|, segueing |ˈsegwā-i ng; ˈsā-|) [ intrans. ]
(in music and film) move without interruption from one song, melody, or scene to another : allowing one song to segue into the next.
noun
an uninterrupted transition from one piece of music or film scene to another.
ORIGIN Italian, literally ‘follows.’

NEXT!
posted by mucho gusto on January 11th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Mucho Gusto unfortunately for you, I do own my house, I keep the yard very clean. I haven’t been a student since the mid 90’s so your assumptions about me based on my post are wrong.

What I wrote was largely based on my experiences post college, leaving in the same house for almost six years in an area that would have to be considered student ghetto…

The problem is the city either doesn’t have enough inspectors or chooses not to send them out to rental properties. Somehow a wall that clearly had water damage at one time was fine for the first four and a half years…and then an inspector required it to be patched and repainted. This was something minor and since my housemates and I felt responsible we did keep the yard clean. However many young people seeing the living conditions that the city and landlord felt were fine might be less inclined to keep their homes to the level of cleanliness you expect.

Yes two wrongs don’t make a right, but which wrong is worse…a young adult who upon finding their apartment/rental house is already a hell-hole that doesn’t make any effort to keep the outside nice. Or an adult landlord that is making a profit by keeping the place as a hell-hole in the first place and a city that allows the property to remain in this condition either from understaffing or lax enforcement of rental property maintenance code.
This whole arguement reminds me of the attempted couch ban. Tell me which do you think is more likely to cause a fire, a couch on a porch or shoddy wiring. Instead of actually dealing with slumlords and requiring they improve the condition of their properties, the city tried to make the students the scap-goats. Based on your anti-student posts I would assume this would also be your approach.
posted by andy on January 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Not a student since the mid 90’s, have a mortgage and keep your yard clean? Isn’t that special! You bought near the peak of local housing prices. How does that mortgage feel now, kiddo?

Allow me to say, from decades of personal experience, that you know next to nothing about how the city inspection services and codes work.

Adult? By age only.
posted by mucho gusto on January 13th, 2008 at 8:31 am
So is the story about animals not shitting where they live metaphor or allegory? I’m just here to learn!

The one time of year when my student-dominated complex can be a mess is the week or two when most people move out. It used to be cleaner a few years ago. So what changed–did we suddenly get a lower quantity of students? No, the difference is that the old management used to order a couple extra dumpsters for that time. The new management stopped. I have no idea why–it seems entirely reasonable that no matter how responsible the residents, they’re going to produce more trash in August (when, surprise, all the leases end) than in another month.

So if you really want to figure out why campus-area complexes are messier than single-family homes, I’d suggest considering a wider variety of causes: more frequent moves, more complex shared responsibility (whose fault is it exactly when a dumpster overflows?), etc.

And, sure, part of it’s younger residents. Probably younger residents are (on average!) less responsible. But there’s a lot of reasons for that too–probably mainly just inexperience. Of all the possible explanations, the bizarre generational argument strikes me as the least likely and least useful.
posted by Bruce Fields on January 13th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
So I’m not an adult because I can see that the problems in student areas are not just the students but also caused by the slumlords and city officials. Well I guess you’re right until I’m some crotchety old man yelling at all the damn kids to get off my lawn I won’t be an adult in your eyes. I can certainly live with that. I’m also not particulary concerned about my mortgage at this time…I have a fixed mortgage and plan on living in my home for quite some time…plenty of time for my home’s value to grow, and even if it doesn’t I’m still not paying much more than A2 rent.

Sometime you’ll have to try to explain how something that was at least supposedly inspected two or three times and only on the last time was it an issue when it hadn’t changed. I’m sure you’ll find some way to blame it on a student.

The real point I was trying to make is for my time leaving in the student ghetto area it was definately landlords and city officials that I had the biggest problem with…not the students who no doubt should do a better job of picking up after themselves.
posted by andy on January 13th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I used to live in Hoboken, NJ and there was a lot of litter, and it was barf-encrusted (more bars per square block than any other city in the US), and there was no college there at all. Believe it or not, adults litter and barf. I saw it with my own eyes.
posted by Just a homeowner on January 13th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
hold on a second: i used to teach grad courses at a college in hoboken … you know, the one alexander calder attended …?
posted by peter honeyman on January 13th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Hmmm…Hoboken is a pretty nice town that’s growing in popularity while retaining historic character, no? Makes you think that maybe A2 could go forth in a similar manner.
posted by Brian on January 14th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Stevens Institute is there, but the enrollment is under 5,000.
posted by Brian on January 14th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Whoops, you are right. Stevens Institute was there. But, honestly, it was a place where engineering geeks went to learn how to design boats and stuff. Lotsa pocket protectors. Not a ton of fraternities.

The folks doing the littering and barfing were, more often than not, Wall Street types. Adults with BIG salaries. They littered and barfed while wearing suits and ties.

Hoboken was, when I lived there, half hipster Yuppie and half old-time resident, with a smattering of Hispanic immigrants. It is now all hipster Yuppies. It’s historic, but it’s sort of like Disneyland for twenty-somethings.
posted by Just a homeowner on January 14th, 2008 at 7:47 am
So we all know that andy wasn’t a making a typo… Two times in two posts.

“leaving” = living

“definately” = definitely (this one is a pet peeve)

“Disneyland for 20 somethings” = Ann Arbor
posted by mucho gusto on January 14th, 2008 at 11:00 am
MG…
Nice, pull out the internet spelling nazi card instead of actually debating the merits of my post. Doesn’t surprise me, I’m guessing when you were growing up school was all about memorizing things instead of developing any critical thinking skills. Clearly your students are the cause of all ills position is an example of a lack of thinking beyond lets just blame the outsiders. This contrasts with someone who actually takes some time to examine the problem and see that a combination of student, city official, and slumlords actions are at fault.

By the way in case those pesky Russians start World War Three, your duck and cover lessons won’t have you prepared to face the world’s problems in a nuclear age.

I also notice that in checking my spelling you didn’t bother to address my legitimate question to you and your decades of city inspections experience.

ps…please tell me how many spelling errors I have in this post, I want to find out if I can have my gold sticker for the day or if I will somehow have to continue living (or should I say leaving again) without the approval of a slumlord/slumlord’s handyman.
posted by Andy on January 14th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Internet, not internet.

Nazi, not nazi.

debating the actual merits, not actually debating the merits

It doesn’t surprise me, not Doesn’t surprise me.

developing critical, not developing any critical.

“students are the cause of all ills,” not students are the cause of all ills.

“let’s just blame the outsiders,” not lets just blame the outsiders.

sees, not see

slumlord or slumlord’s, not slumlords

i leave paragraphs 2-4 as an exercise.
posted by peter honeyman on January 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Seven, Seven for No No No Tomorrow

60 Responses to “Seven, Seven for No No No Tomorrow”

Leave a Reply