Luxe Life
Ann Arborites are pretty savvy about marketing. They don’t consider a jar of President’s Choice salsa to be the height of cuisine just because it’s labeled “gourmet,” and they’re well aware that “light” doesn’t mean healthy. Even “organic,” which has a specific legal meaning, is often criticized for not being a stringent enough label, and it’s a safe bet that many A2 residents are up on all the nuances. They’re far too skeptical to be taken in by glib advertising-speak. Except when it involves housing.
Marketers of apartments do not generally advertise “pretty okay” or “more or less adequate” housing units. They like to tout their product as “luxury.” And where University Village is concerned, A2 has completely fallen for it. Today’s Daily plays right into the hands of the anti-”Manhattanism” crowd with an editorial blasting the proposed housing development for its alleged lavishness. “Ann Arbor doesn’t need its own Trump Tower … housing blatantly targeted at wealthy students creates class segregation.” With student advocates like these, who needs neighborhood associations?
“They said they’re afraid of turning South University Avenue into something resembling Chicago.”
Um, which part of Chicago? The very dense skyscraper-ish part that’s built up over 140 years, or the rest of it that is, well, a city?
Man.
posted by thecitydesk on March 10th, 2008 at 11:56 amconsidering rent in the cornerhouse apartments 600/person for 2 people per room and they don’t have the flat screen tvs, washers and dryers, fitness center or RAs, I’d agree with this being a luxury apartment that’s would be expensive anywhere outside of ny.
posted by a on March 10th, 2008 at 1:40 pmsorry for all the grammar mistakes. lagging computer.
posted by a on March 10th, 2008 at 1:41 pmWon’t somebody please add an intro econ requirement for these fledgling journalists?
What’s going to bring down rents for students is greater supply of housing near campus. Suppose 1400 wealthier than average students live in University Village, so what — that would mean those same students would stop helping to bid up the prices of other apartments near campus.
Let me also suggest that these projects might also help to bring down UM dorm rates (UM housing rates are on the high side and my understanding is they’re having a bit of trouble filling all the dorms now even before North Quad is built).
posted by mw on March 10th, 2008 at 2:15 pmThis development is new. Of course it will be nicer than older apartment buildings. Unfortunately, just like no one’s going to sell me a cell phone like the one I had in 2002, even though it would be totally adequate, no one’s going to build an apartment building that’s equivalent to older ones. Flat screen TVs and washer/dryers are nice, but they are consumer items, the prices of which decreased or stayed the same while the price of housing skyrocketed. So I’m not sure that has much to do with the rents.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on March 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pmThe number one thing that these apartments will have, which will definitely keep them competitive (more than flat screen tvs or washer/dryers or Segways or whatever) is the old “roll out of bed at 9, be in class on the Diag by 9:10″ location. Demand for them may be high, and as a sensible poster pointed, may loosen demand — and thus lower rents — a block or so further away.
posted by Clem on March 10th, 2008 at 3:43 pm“roll out of bed at 9, be in class on the Diag by 9:10″
posted by jcp2 on March 10th, 2008 at 3:55 pmAdd a few minutes for elevator waits when everybody tries to get out at the same time.
When I used to go to Ann Arbor, it was pretty quaint (I guess that was in the late 1960’s). I was in High School in Detroit and they had just lowered the voting age to 18 and the new A2 City Council was suddenly all college students, pot was decriminalized and the whole town was a fun, mellow non-stop hippie party. Rent was CHEAP!
That reputation, plus 40 years, plus a much more “conservative” perspective, flight from the “city”, resultant real estate values (plus greed of course) and all I guess have made it’s impact.
Now, as artists and members of a minority religion that performs tattoos and piercing as two of several spiritual services living in Utah, we find ourselves under attack by FBI trained terrorists who trample on constitutional protections as if there never had been civil and religious liberty.
I’m a bit surprised that college students are supposed to be impressed with flat panel tv and such and are expected to pay through the nose if they want to live near school.
It seems that a more rational city council would again be in order.
In fact, now that I am living back and forth between Utah and Michigan I find that Michigan went a bit nutty with their laws and standards of social expectation while I was away.
I wonder why (I suppose) established adults would attempt to financially rape students rather than reduce the burden that acquiring an education presents.
I mean, all proto-geezers are depending on the good education and sense of fairness of today’s student body for their safety and security during their fast approaching senior years.
I’m sure a group of organized and brilliant student social strategists could fix all the problems of A2 without making it credit only, valet parking preferred.
posted by Doc Loco on March 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm“Class segregation”? Oh, jeez, the upper middle class kids won’t get to mingle with the upper class kids. I mean, please, have they actually taken a look around here?
posted by The Squid on March 10th, 2008 at 11:16 pmIf this is a luxury blog, why does in only come in black, like the Model T?
posted by David Boyle on March 11th, 2008 at 1:21 am“why does IT”, not “in”. Sorry.
My question is the same, though.
posted by David Boyle on March 11th, 2008 at 1:22 amClass segregration? You’ve got to be kidding. The kinda rich versus the super rich? Let the wealthiest kids rent in this building and it will bring down the cost of the ratty apartments in Burns Park and that Golden Ave area they just rezoned. Good for everyone.
Gee, AA might be like Chicago? Horrors.
posted by Living Large on March 11th, 2008 at 8:45 amLike the North Side of Chicago, even. Ghastly.
posted by HNG on March 11th, 2008 at 9:33 amStudents “would pay about $1,000 a month each to share a four-bedroom apartment.” That’s definitely luxury.
http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/03/residents_split_over_universit.html
posted by Jordan on March 12th, 2008 at 3:38 amStudents “would pay about $1,000 a month each to share a four-bedroom apartment.” That’s definitely luxury.
And yet it is comparable to what the U charges for a single in the dorms:
http://www.housing.umich.edu/info/rates.html
A single is $10K for 8 months or $1250/month. The U includes meals, of course, but I think a college student could eat for $250/month when living in an apartment with a kitchen (especially when you add in what most dorm residents spend going out and ordering pizza).
If you’re rich enough to live in the dorms, you’d be rich enough to live in University Village.
posted by mw on March 12th, 2008 at 10:20 amAnd if you’re not rich enough to live in either the dorms or University Village, you can have a great college living experience in the co-ops. Friendly people, good food, and the NY Times delivered every morning. What more could you ask for? During the years I was in college, my sister had a horse. My parents paid about the same to support me and the horse. Flat screen tv–bah!
posted by Carolyn on March 12th, 2008 at 10:56 am10K a year for a single in a dorm?!! What kind of racket is UM trying to run? Back when I was in college at a big state school (only about ten years ago) my parents paid $1200 a semester for my single room, which was in a dorm close to all the major academic buildings. Even if you take into account the cost of inflation, prices should not have increased that much. UM should be ashamed. The university should be trying to provide affordable housing to students, not make a ton of money off of them.
posted by liza on March 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am