Please, It’s Manhattanization
Last night’s public meeting about the proposed University Village development was a kind of preliminary attempt at the kind of neighborhood input sessions that would be required under Sabra Briere’s recent proposal. Without this kind of back-and-forth with the neighbors, she said, an “immediate hostility to change” is often the result.
So what does it look like when residents are asked for their opinions early in the process to defuse this hostility? “This isn’t Chicago!…This is becoming the Manhattanism of the city,” one participant was said to have “yelled.” Another complained, “It’s too much building and too many students.”
The meeting’s location near State and Eisenhower, nowhere near the site of the proposed development and difficult to reach without a car, certainly didn’t make it easy for the demographic that might actually live at University Village to attend. “If you were to ask them, I think most students would be very positive about this development,” said one alum who is working on the project. Doing our best Thora Birch in “Ghost World”: Yeah. That’ll definitely happen.
This was not an early meeting with residents/stakeholders. The developers have already been working with city staff for a year on this project. It goes to Planning Commission this month so it is way too late for any meaningful public participation. The developer has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this project, so not much is going to change at this point. In Boulder a developer is required to meet with neighbors before anything goes to staff, which is far more effective and useful for both sides.
I asked them why they had the meeting in that particular location because it really seemed to send the message that they didn’t want the people downtown to participate and the answer was that they thought the AV capabilities of the MITC room were important. It turned out that they weren’t particularly important, but I honestly don’t think they meant to alienate anyone.
posted by Juliew on March 6th, 2008 at 11:35 amThe building size argument for that area seems kinda dumb to me. The lone compelling argument seems to be this:
“whether there was a market for students who would pay about $1,000 a month each to share a four-bedroom apartment in exchange for higher quality living quarters”
I haven’t been a student in a long time. How does that compare to what students are paying for other types of housing?
posted by Me on March 6th, 2008 at 11:36 amI pay $1000 across the street from the proposed location (above No Thai) for a very nice 1 bedroom apartment. It’s got all updated and renovated rooms, central air, granite countertops, a skylight, etc. I don’t think I would pay $1000 to share an apartment when I could pay $1000 for my own of similar quality. Plus my rent includes cable, water, internet, and heat. I also signed for my apartment in March of last year, and there were several left, so I think my landlord has problems filling the apartments at that price.
posted by J on March 6th, 2008 at 11:49 am“…This is becoming the Manhattanism of the city”
http://www.annarborisoverrated.com/consider/
It looks like AAIO and that speaker are in agreement for a change.
posted by jcp2 on March 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pmI’d have to disagree with “Me” that whether students would pay the proposed price for the apartments is a valid argument in the approval process.
Before it’s built, the investors need to figure out whether they can make back the money they’ll spend, so the investors need to care how much they can get in rent. After the building is built, the money to build it will have been spent, and the apartments will rent for whatever people are willing to pay for them. If that’s higher than the investors predicted, the investors will make more money. If it’s lower than the investors predicted, the investors will make less money. If it’s less than required to pay back the construction loans, the investors will lose money and probably go bankrupt.
But even if the investors lose everything, the building will still be there. Somebody will buy it out of bankruptcy for a more realistic amount, and the neighborhood will still get more housing.
The better questions to ask would be whether the building would make the neighborhood a nicer place, and if not, whether the benefits of having more housing available outweigh whatever damage it does.
Having grown up a few blocks from there (although I don’t live in Ann Arbor anymore), the Village Corner has a lot of nostalgia for me. I’d hate to see it go.
posted by scg on March 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pmscg, I never meant to imply that I thought it was a valid argument. I just pointed it out as the only one that made any sense to me. I don’t know if I buy into it or not, but it is a valid question that the developers have no doubt spent a lot of time researching.
I agree with you though on the fact that when/if it’s built someone will eventually price it to what the market will handle. Either the current developers or someone else. I’d be willing to be that, assuming it goes through, the prices will end up being lower than that unless the housing market swings back the other way by then.
posted by Me on March 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pmMan, I’m charging too little for rent in my Kerrytown house.
posted by (former) OFWinsurgent on March 6th, 2008 at 8:33 pmArticle also said developers were looking for tax breaks because it’s a “brownfield development”. The Village Corner may be a little shabby but it’s no brownfield.
Sounds like it’s going to be way out of whack with the neighborhood. It’ll be surrounded by detached single family homes and two story apartment buildings.
posted by mojonixon on March 7th, 2008 at 4:07 amMojonixon,
except for the building across the intersection that is the second tallest building in the city…
Also the brownfield development tax breaks are valid for almost any type of property (may need to be commercial or industrial) that has already been developed. Certainly the Bagel fragel that has sat empty for quite a few years now would qualify. Damn I want a fragel now.
posted by Andy on March 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pmThe city spent approx. $90,000 of the farmers market fund (farmer’s $$$) to hire an architect. Came up with a beautiful new design and then city turned it down. so much farmers money just Wasted, gone .. sickening.
posted by sherry on March 7th, 2008 at 7:37 pmDear Ann Arbor,
You may NOT compare yourself to Manhattan.
Threateningly,
ES
posted by Earthshine on March 7th, 2008 at 9:28 pm