————————————————————————-
What the City of Ann Arbor has been saying for the past 35 years…
In the past 35 years, Ann Arbor’s population has grown by only 14%, or
14,000 people. During this same time period, Washtenaw County has grown
by 38%. The City of Ann Arbor needs to grow to stay competitive and
healthy. We need to stop promoting sprawl and encourage smart growth.
The good news is that we have a plan to do it. The Calthorpe Report
outlines a series of recommended goals and policies for smart growth in
downtown Ann Arbor. Current downtown zoning codes and development
strategies often work against our community goals and vision for a
vibrant, diverse, attractive, pedestrian-friendly, sustainable downtown.
Instead they produce suburban-style, car-focused developments and ugly
office buildings. If we want to make downtown better, we need to take
action.
Ann Arbor needs your help! E-mail the Mayor and City Council ( downtown@ci.ann-arbor.mi.us
) and let them know that you
support for the Calthorpe Plan. See the attached documents to learn more
about the Calthorpe Report and how you can show your support. Please
pass this message on to everyone you know that cares about the Ann Arbor
community, we need to show City Council there is widespread support for
the Calthorpe Plan by February 6th, 2006.
Contact Erica Briggs, 734.214.0100, for more information.
To view the entire Calthorpe Report, go to http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/downtownA2/downtown.html
——————————
E-mail Petition to Support the Calthorpe Report. Please add your name
and forward this message to other Ann Arbor residents. The goal is 1,000
signatures by February 6th! So please pass this along quickly. Thanks
for voicing your support for this plan. (Every 50th person to sign this
e-mail should also send a copy to erica@annarborchamber.org
& all copies should be sent to Erica
for compiling by Feb. 4th.)
Petition:
We, the undersigned, ask the Ann Arbor City Council to not only adopt
the Calthorpe Report, but to actively implement the recommendations. We
encourage City Council to provide frequent opportunities for public
involvement as the City enters the implementation phase of the project
in order to ensure that the community remains involved, invested and
informed in shaping the future of our downtown.
Name, Address, Phone #, E-mail address (optional)
1. Erica Briggs, 717 West Jefferson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48103,
734-213-1697, erica@annarborchamber.org
2. Mike Lydon, 806 Catherine Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104
I don’t know if this assertion was ever true, but in a post-Peak Oil world (yes, I think we’re there) it’s very questionable. Without putting it into a broader context of sustainability I don’t think we can make good decisions about growth, “smart” or otherwise.
The old saw that growth is coming and it’s only a matter of how we do it is an accommodating of unsustainability that we can’t afford to make anymore, unless we really don’t mind people suffering in ways similar to the victims of Hurricane Katrina—or worse.
The information in the Plan is valuable, but not every component will necessarily be valuable if implemented. We need to be clear about not only ‘how’, but ‘how much’, when talking about downtown (and citywide) growth, and we have to look at the region in terms of sustainability in the absence of fossil fuels, not just in terms of transit or retail sales or housing costs.
We didn’t explicitly tie core urban (re)development to the greenbelt proposal. Let’s not make a bigger mistake by not tying downtown redevelopment (and everything else we do from this point on, really) to a goal of sustainable existence for our community, including as many of those alive today as possible.
“our community goals and vision for a
vibrant, diverse, attractive, pedestrian-friendly, sustainable downtown.”
The other adjectives are desirable, but let’s move “sustainable” to the front of the list when describing our vision of downtown and the city as a whole.
—Steve Bean Jan. 9 '06 - 01:54PM #
healthy. We need to stop promoting sprawl and encourage smart growth.”
Man does that ever sound Republican! Especially that “smart growth” thing. Those are code words for “get out of the way and give the developers what they want” regardless if it’s good for the city or desired by the residents.
Ask yourself why our city council hired Roger Frazier, a known sprawler (Polo Fields) paid him a housing allowance to live outside the city and then pays him almost $5k to drive his SUV? Are these the actions of politicians who are concerend about sprawl? Geez! We’ve got the best bunch of Republicans ever elected in Ann Arbor. No wonder they support Calthorpe and that “smart growth” crap. It’s pablum for planners and blind voters.
In whose opinion is 14% growth bad when compared to Washtenaw County? Some pie in the sky buzzword spouting “New Urbanist? Don’t let Disneyland come to Main street fer cryin’ out loud! Since when does everything have to be bigger to be better? Man, you “planners” have spent far too much time in your ivory tower. Come down to earth sometime and mingle with the folks, k?
You guys are going to kill the frickin’ goose that laid the golden egg. Go ahead and BUILD BUILD BUILD and when those 20 story buildings are EMPTY EMPTY EMPTY, downtown Ann Arbor will resemble a place that no-one will want to live.
Get it through your thick skulls, everyone who’s polled for those Top 10 lists says that Ann Arbor isn’t too big or too small, it’s just right. So go ahead and make it Aspen-lite or a mini Chicago by the Huron.
Makes me wanna puke!
Buh bye!
—Downtowner Jan. 9 '06 - 02:01PM #
—Brandon Jan. 9 '06 - 02:14PM #
—Brandon Jan. 9 '06 - 02:17PM #
I’m not sure which lists you’re referring to, but the ones I’m familiar with don’t employ polls at all, instead relying on criteria that are usually most relevant to middle-aged homeowners and are almost always statistically questionable.
—ann arbor is overrated Jan. 9 '06 - 02:44PM #
Steve, I think you need to lay off Kunstler’s blog.
—Dale Jan. 9 '06 - 02:44PM #
—Dale Jan. 9 '06 - 02:45PM #
some goose.
—peter honeyman Jan. 9 '06 - 04:33PM #
Fossil fuels are used for the vast majority of all transit and transport to and within Ann Arbor, as well as heating (for a 5+ month heating season) and much of the electricity generation. And more buildings with more occupants that rely on the same once-cheap energy aren’t going to change that significantly, let alone provide food to the occupants. Does that mean that more downtown residents is a bad idea? Of course not. It just means that it isn’t a solution to the much larger problem we face. Like much of what environmentalists have done over the last thirty years (granted, with most Republicans and much of the oil-addicted public fighting at every step), it’s an incremental step to ‘better’. We can’t afford to spend resources on a long, slow road to ‘better’. That ‘better’ (much like the affordable housing in AA’s future that gets so much play here) doesn’t exist anymore. We don’t get to relive the 1950s through the 1990s over and over again.
Dale, my natural gas bill rose 60% last month compared to a year before. I don’t expect it to ever go down from there. (I already work at home with the temp at 56 during the day.) Meanwhile, the state will only be able to pay to keep the heat on for poor people and those on fixed incomes for a short time (as the Republican legislature was in the process of doing today.) You tell me what will happen to those people next year.
Unlike the downside of the petroleum peak, the end of natural gas will be a cliff. Until that time, maybe as early as 10 years from now, the price is just going to keep climbing. Then it will be essentially gone. Tall, healthy, young, priveleged, white men like you and I (and you, Brandon) need to be leaders on this.
So, no, let’s not just implement the Calthorpe plan. Let’s put it in the proper context and make wise decisions about our future in a very different world.
—Steve Bean Jan. 9 '06 - 06:41PM #
ugh. sweet dreams,
—Brandon Jan. 9 '06 - 07:25PM #
—David Cahill Jan. 10 '06 - 04:36AM #
—Dale Jan. 10 '06 - 05:26AM #
“So go ahead and make it Aspen-lite or a mini Chicago by the Huron.”
“Man does that ever sound Republican!”
Geez. It is depressing to think that you really believe this.
“Go ahead and BUILD BUILD BUILD and when those 20 story buildings are EMPTY EMPTY EMPTY, downtown Ann Arbor will resemble a place that no-one will want to live…...Man, you “planners” have spent far too much time in your ivory tower. Come down to earth sometime and mingle with the folks, k?”
OK. You want real world numbers and experience? Boulder citizens acted the same exact way that you are: no growth. Fight the “developers”. No density. They followed your path for 20 years.
What did they get?
Median new home cost is $500K.
Median income is through the roof. (lots and lots of beautiful wealthy people)
Conservative and wealthy population (the Aspen lite you refer to).
Tract homes just outside the city for miles and miles with their concomitant strip malls.
Influx of corporate chains (the Disneyland you refer to), and the death of many local businesses.
And what do you supposed the vacancy rate is for downtown Boulder? Ann Arbor is currently at around 12%. What’s your guess for Boulder? Using your no growth plan, they should be just about full, right?
22%. Nearly one out of every four offices in Boulder is vacant. Sweet.
Local and national developers grew tired of dealing with people like yourself, and simply installed their buildings outside of town. Now taxes are higher, and it no longer makes sense to have a downtown office. They’re too expensive.
What good does your path accomplish?? Well, I guess that those who own one of those downtown homes that were purchased in the 80’s are jumping for joy, but that’s about it…..
Your path, downtowner, is going to make Ann Arbor the exact opposite of what you want it to be. If anyone has his head in an ivory tower, it’s you. I find the fact that you can’t see this depressing.
—todd Jan. 10 '06 - 09:41AM #
—Brandon Jan. 10 '06 - 11:00AM #
Not scientific at all, but hey, are those folks lying? I guess “science” trumps real peoples comments.
>I’m not sure which lists you’re >referring to, but the ones I’m >familiar with don’t employ polls >at all, instead relying on >criteria that are usually most >relevant to middle-aged homeowners >and are almost always >>statistically questionable.
—ann arbor is overrated Jan
Most telling is how the pro development, build in the floodway, pro Calthorpe (DDA) posse cast their argument and define those who oppose their pie in the sky new urbanist concepts. Here’s a hint. It’s little to do with reality. It’s really about straw men and red herrings. It’s not about preserving what’s best about Ann Arbor or sustainable growth. Frankly most of the people who support the Calthorpe plan, building in the floodway, 20 story buildings and parking structures are pawns of developers.
1) They blame the baby boomers for buying a house in Ann Arbor 20 years ago. (jealousy and self loathing for not being born in the 50’s, I guess)
2) They define the argument as the “haves” (home owners) against the “have nots” (renters, students, low income)
3) They cast the argument as NIMBY’s against the forces of “Growth”, “Progress” and “Reason”.
(Man, that old “blame the boomers for everything” argument is getting long in the tooth.)
4) They base their assumptions of the city “needing to compete” and that “it must grow” to remain vibrant and relevant in the region. Their assumptions are based on somones “business model” or some class or seminar they took at their institution of higher learning.
HELLO? Is there any other “downtown” in Washtenaw County that can “compete” with Ann Arbor? Dexter? Chelsea? Ypsilanti? Stockbridge? Like I reallywant to go to the newest strip mall in Scio township to hang out, drink coffee or get some sushi.
> 9, 6:44pm #
># Downtowner, the heart of your >objection is clear in the words >“golden egg.” The city of Ann >Arbor, in my mind, is more than a >real estate investment scheme for people who moved here before 1998.
—Downtowner Jan. 10 '06 - 12:34PM #
—John Q Jan. 10 '06 - 12:59PM #
Is that you, Doug?
—Brandon Jan. 10 '06 - 01:26PM #
Let’s not even assume the county is going to grow by some projected percentile. Let’s grant Steve’s point that a fuel/energy crisis may give our autocentric life style a severe blow.
Still, I ask…
Taking the PRESENT, not the projected, situation…
Isn’t it environmentally responsible to build more residential units throughout the city (not just downtown) to house at least SOME of the 50,000 people who work in Ann Arbor but don’t live here? (Yes, some would still choose not to live in town but many would, if they could afford to do so.)
Wouldn’t making that housing expansion a civic priority be a way to begin to reduce the environmentally toxic carbon emissions caused by the million miles a day (my guesstimate) these commuters who work in town travel?
Wouldn’t building this housing for people who work here be much more beneficial to the overall environment than making the city even less affordable by levying even more taxes on city residents for greenbelts, greenways, and other amenities that are both costly and unnecessary (the city being already, demonstrably, a wonderfully attractive place to live with the abundant parkland it has)?
The crux of this debate is what is, today, here and now, the environmentally responsible thing to do. And not just for those of us who live here, but for the entire region and planet. (Isn’t that what’s meant by “think globally, act locally”?)
—Michael Betzold Jan. 10 '06 - 01:27PM #
A lot of Whole Foods-loving BoBos like yourself might love to do just such a thing when they build all those “Lifestyle” center faux-downtown-esque malls in the townships.
—Brandon Jan. 10 '06 - 01:29PM #
—Dale Jan. 10 '06 - 01:33PM #
I like my coffee from the Dairy and my fish cooked.
“A lot of Whole Foods-loving BoBos like yourself might love to do just such a thing when they build all those “Lifestyle” center faux-downtown-esque malls in the townships.”
And if you don’t watch out, that’s exactly what the Calthorpe plan will bring to downtown. Think it’s boutiquey right now? Just wait. Calthorpe even made recommendations for more national chains. Sterility and homogeniety. A Starbucks on every corner. You won’t have to wait much longer, we’re almost there anyway.
—Downtowner Jan. 10 '06 - 01:51PM #
There is an appropriate and productive place for chains in downtown Ann Arbor.
—Dale Jan. 10 '06 - 02:17PM #
Arguments weeded out and repackaged from Downtowner’s comments:
1. People like downtown Ann Arbor as it is. Any change, and certainly the significant increase in density proposed by Calthorpe, will change how people (both residents and visitors) view the city, possibly in a negative way.
2. While change is certainly inevitable, the city government has a responsibility to represent the residents, especially in large-scale proposals such as adopting the Calthorpe Plan. This responsibility stands whether or not the residents “deserve” the benefits that they have gained from the increase in housing value. Supporters of the Calthorpe plan are incorrect to assume that by not adopting the plan it is intended, or even possible, to “freeze the city in amber”. There are many ways in which the city could change other than via the Calthorpe plan. Refer to Steve Bean’s post for a more productive version of this argument.
3. The assumption that Ann Arbor “needs to compete” should be more critically analyzed. While Downtowner limits his reference to within the county, I might add that the Ann Arbor area is currently one of two cities in Michigan that is actually growing (sorry, I don’t have a cite for this. Can anyone back this up?). Further, Ann Arbor is weathering the cuts in state funding far better than other Michigan cities.
4. The assumption that Ann Arbor needs to grow is not convincing. The debate has been framed as pro-“all the great and obvious benefits of density” vs. anti-“all the great and obvious benefits of density”, before such benefits have been proven to result from densification (Is that a word? How about increased densificity? Dense-o-rama?).
a. Ann Arbor should not be held responsible for the township decisions that lead to sprawling suburbs. Voters should not be swayed by a moral obligation to take on a burden imposed by those outside the city’s jurisdiction.
b.Growth in Ann Arbor does not equal a decline in township suburbs. In fact, the increase in services, goods, and livability that is claimed to come from increased density may well attract more suburbanites to the surrounding townships.
c.As Steve pointed out, there are a host of issues that may be more pressing or required in order for the recommended growth to achieve it’s stated goals.
5. Slaves! You’re all a bunch of f**king slaves to developers!
Sorry, that’s about as concise and well-versed as I can make this argument. Perhaps a kinder version would be “while I recognize that we are all free-thinking people trying to make decisions based on solid reasoning for what we feel is best for the larger community, we should recognize that a decision to increase density is an opening that developers will capitalize on. Therefore their contributions to the discussion should be considered critically.” …or something.
—Scott TenBrink Jan. 10 '06 - 08:02PM #
“1. People like downtown Ann Arbor as it is.”
You can’t freeze time, and you can’t ignore demographic and economic surroundings. It doesn’t work. My parallel example (Boulder) tried this. It failed miserably. The biggest reason that Ann Arbor cannot refuse to grow as a town like, say, Dexter could is (drumroll please) the University of Michigan is here, and it keeps growing. Check the stats as Umich.edu. The city isn’t gaining population while employment and enrollment is consistently rising. The town has to react to this. It has no choice in the matter.
2. I agree with this statement
3. “While Downtowner limits his reference to within the county, I might add that the Ann Arbor area is currently one of two cities in Michigan that is actually growing (sorry, I don’t have a cite for this. Can anyone back this up?).”
Well, Ann Arbor isn’t growing. The fasting growing town in the area is Ypsi Township. I can tell you as someone who knows many of the retailers and other businesspeople in the area, most of us think that downtown is going to have a rude awakening in the next few years if we don’t act quickly. The Calthorpe retail expert confirmed my theories on retail demand in Wash. County. It’s coming. If we don’t put it downtown, downtown local businesses are in for a real hard time.
“4. The assumption that Ann Arbor needs to grow is not convincing.” Well, I’ve played my broken record enough on this subject that you probably know I diagree with this view.
I again point to the 600 lb gorilla that is the University of Michigan. It keeps growing, and, this is important, they don’t pay taxes. UMich, and therefore Ann Arbor grows whether City Council likes it or not. And then there’s all the ancillary services that emerge and grow as a result of new UMich projects, programs and record enrollment figures. Ann Arbor isn’t Dexter or any of 1,000 Michigan cities that don’t have a major university in it.
This is why I keep using Boulder as an example so often. The city of Boulder has to grow because of the University of Colorado and all its ancillary businesses. Boulder citizens said “University? What University?”, and based their absurd planning decisions using this head in the sand approach. Oops. That doesn’t work.
Do you know what the biggest project is in the Boulder City Planning Department? A plan to revitalize and rebuild a failed shopping area in the dowtown area, and to try and find a way to reduce the 22% office vacancy in their city. Sweet. Where do I sign for that?
As for Michael B.’s appeals to environmentalism…..there’s no greater reason than that one to simply remove all height limitations on buildings in the downtown area. Let the market decide how tall they can be, and focus on good, pedestrian friendly, sustainable design. But I stand alone on this point.
—todd Jan. 10 '06 - 10:53PM #
I watched about half an hour of the Planning Commission public hearing last night. I had expected a long line of speakers touting the virtues of the report. I got a big surprise! Most of the people I saw were either quite negative or noncommittal.
Steve Thorp, the former chair of the Planning Commission, said essentially that the report was a waste of money and should be disregarded. He read a nonsensical passage from page 46 to emphasize how sloppy the report was. Thorp was supposedly the eyes and ears of Mayor Hieftje when he was on the Commission.
Fred Beal, who was one of the biggest boosters of Calthorpe, and who invented the figure of 2500 new housing units, said the process should move ahead, but he said the report contained a variety of recommendations “good, bad, and indifferent.”
Did anyone else watch this hearing? Or attend it? Did I get the wrong impression? What is going on here?
—David Cahill Jan. 11 '06 - 05:21AM #
—Parking Structure Dude! Jan. 11 '06 - 06:02AM #
David! Back to take another cut at the math, eh? OK.
Explain to the class how it is you figure that your plan to limit building heights across the downtown area isn’t going to cost the city millions of dollars in tax revenue, new jobs, new residents who can walk to other businesses, etc., while at the same time a parking garage that we charge people to use and eventually turn a profit on and will own as a tangible asset is a “big public subsidy”.
Oh, and David, you can’t use your magic calculator that subsitutes the faces of various characters from the Muppet Show™ for various numbers. You have to use a real one. Gonzo isn’t equivalent to the number 7, no matter how much you like it. I will admit that Gonzo the Great is funny…but that’s as far as it goes.
Yes, I’m being sarcastic, but you’ve got the floor. Let’s see the math.
—todd Jan. 11 '06 - 06:48AM #
In previous comment threads Cahill attempted to sidestep the subsidy claims – saying that it was not he who was crying subsidy, but that it was an article by Armentrout. Now here comes Cahill wearing his subsidy allegations on his sleeve…
David, why, despite evidence and lucid explanations to the contrary are you still going on about subsidies?
—FAA Jan. 11 '06 - 08:08AM #
The square root of Gonzo the Great is exactly 3.574 Miss Piggy’s.
Hope that helps.
—todd Jan. 11 '06 - 08:56AM #
You’re not alone on building heights. I’m with you. In many respects, the taller the building is, the better it is for the environment (more density on the available land).
Given the scarcity of land in Ann Arbor, building up makes sense. A lot of sense.
I don’t understand the opposition to building tall buildings here. It’s always masked in terms of aesthetics but I wonder if that’s the real objection. Buildings of any size can be ugly or beautiful.
Can someone explain why some taller buildings would be bad for Ann Arbor?
—Michael Betzold Jan. 11 '06 - 10:27AM #
Today’s AA News story on the Planning Commission public hearing indicates that my comment #25 above was right. It even quotes Steve Thorp prominently.
I had expected the Calthorpe Cheerleaders to do a lot better job at lobbying than what we saw yesterday. Of course, Calthorpe set itself up as a target by having obvious errors in the report….
Maybe the report will sink of its own weight. Very curious.
—David Cahill Jan. 11 '06 - 10:45AM #
That’s a very good question, Michael.
Here are the reasons/explanations/concerns that I’ve heard or have myself:
– Taller buildings create a wind tunnel effect. This is a valid though relatively minor problem, and someone here probably knows whether it can be mitigated in some way.
– Taller buildings ruin the view of people living in other, adjacent tall buildings. You can’t have everything—where would you put it all? Seriously, I think it would be reasonable to give weight to the viewshed concerns of multiple residents of multiple buildings (e.g., part of a residential neighborhood), and maybe as well to all the residents of a single building, but not to only some of the residents of a single building. Also, as Mike points out, buildings can be beautiful. Let’s make them that way.
– Taller buildings aren’t “human scale.” Now we need someone to tell us why taller than “human scale” would be bad for Ann Arbor. ;-) I can imagine that for someone who can’t get away from such scale, it might have some psychological effect, but our city is broken into many areas of human scale and natural features within walking and even wheelchairing distance.
– Taller buildings cast long shadows. Now this one may be a valid issue, especially if passive solar energy is to be used for space and/or water heating or active solar for electricity generation on other building roofs/facades/awnings/etc. I’m less concerned about the electricity than I am the heat. I’d appreciate hearing informed opinions on how downtown buildings will be heated in the absence of natural gas.
That’s all I can come up with.
—Steve Bean Jan. 11 '06 - 11:00AM #
Wow. I see you’ve installed a fresh set of batteries in your Muppet Calculator™.
I hope those weren’t subsidized batteries, because, you know, if the makers of Muppet Calculator™ don’t provide batteries, then the batteries that the public is forced to buy are subsidized.
Oh, wait, I forgot you actually pay for those batteries, kinda like the parking. Or are you just about to go one step further and explain that things like metered parking in Ann Arbor are subsidized by the public too? Or are people filling the meters with MuppetMoney™?
If you follow your absurd logic to its asburd conclusion, you’d be asking yourself why aren’t there meters in front of your driveway? Those spaces are subsidized, aren’t they? Those greedy homeowners! What gives?!
—todd Jan. 11 '06 - 11:05AM #
In addition, “human scale” does not mean “human size.” The Calthorpe report recommends stepping back buildings above a few stories to reduce the visual and wind impact, while giving a “Main Street” feel.
Finally, on the notion of passive heating, creating a larger building (or greater set of buildings) increases the total exposure to the sun. That, in addition to the efficient effects of having more shared walls and ceilings, yields an even greater efficiency for larger buildings.
Some of my cohort does research on this type of thing (though it’s a pretty basic issue), if anyone has questions or wants references.
—Dale Jan. 11 '06 - 11:12AM #
Without going into each of your points, all of the cost benefit analysis (whether the costs and benefits relate to capital or environmental sustainability) needs to take this key point of information into account:
It isn’t a question of “do we build in Ann Arbor, or do we not build in Ann Arbor?” The question is “do we build this downtown, or do we rip up fresh farmland for new one and two story tract homes, condos, and strip malls just outside of Ann Arbor?”
This is the key element that I believe people like Dave C. miss. Even though I give the guy a hard time, I don’t think that he has a black heart. I just don’t think that he’s looking at the whole picture.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, if the best argument that you can come up with is “it gets windy and throws shadows”, then I have to say that I can beat those arguments using a junior high school debate squad.
“Taller buildings aren’t “human scale.”” I don’t know who came up with this one, but I’m not buying it. How about this? Every story we lose in a tall building equals another half block of tract home?
Unless you somehow think of ripping up endless amounts of farmland is somehow human, or all those beautiful “human scale” one story big box stores and strip malls are more human, then I’ll take a pass on this particular non-starter.
Remember, it’s not this or nothing. Choosing not to build up has serious consequence. You’d think a city as supposedly environmentally conscious as Ann Arbor would understand this intuitively…...
—todd Jan. 11 '06 - 11:17AM #
You’ll have to parse that one for me, Dale.
For more perspective: if I’m the resident of a third-floor apartment and one taller building blocks my winter sunlight from 10am to 11am and another blocks it from 2pm to 3pm, am I going to be shivering all winter? If so, the owner of my building is going to have a high vacancy rate. That’s the sort of consideration we may need to make in response to Michael’s question. It may not be a matter of how tall or how many, but where the buildings are located.
Do any of your cohorts know about district heating? Building efficiency is a necessity, but the heat has to come from somewhere. Are we going to be burning coal, wood from our parks, or what?
—Steve Bean Jan. 11 '06 - 11:30AM #
I agree we don’t know what will happen in the future. But what will [i]probably[/i] happen, at least in the short term (let’s say next 100 years) is growth. Does growth have to mean greater-than-replacement birth rate? No—it can (and most likely will) include immigration (not to mention intra-national migration).
Yes, growth should be sustainable, if for no other reason than that again, you can’t count on growth forever. I think both goals can be met simultaneously.
I don’t know of anyone who’s calling for 20-story buildings in Ann Arbor yet. If the Y site is redeveloped according to plan, that will be 15 stories. Tall buildings can certainly be human-scale. Look at any major city that works, and you’ll find a place where people [i]enjoy[/i] the urban environment. You certainly don’t need tall buildings to accomplish it. It’s merely one way of doing so. There are others.
Supporting higher-density residences in downtown Ann Arbor doesn’t in any way mean you’re “pro-Calthorpe”. Why on earth can’t there be a middle ground on the report? Surely disagreeing with some of the report’s conclusions doesn’t mean one has to reject all the concepts motivating it wholesale. Isn’t this blisteringly obvious? I find the rhetoric here completely unhelpful.
I think that arguing whether Ann Arbor should be held within certain population limits is missing the point: the city isn’t just the city. By now it’s the entire county (actually it’s now a three-county metro area), whether the townships (and the city) realize it or not. This growth affects the city, and it will happen whether the city likes it or not. Supporting downtown retail, for example, doesn’t mean you support Calthorpe’s suggestions that the city woo chain stores downtown. It simply doesn’t. Obviously. It [i]might[/i] be that no other option makes economic sense. In other words, Calthorpe might be right. Or they might be wrong. What’s more important is, trying to find [i]some[/i] solution that gives us the city we want. In my opinion that means a city where, among other goals, people can walk someplace downtown to get what they want. Of course we all want to maintain the things that give Ann Arbor its identity as much as possible. We’re not talking about gutting the downtown and replacing it with five Tower Plazas and Somerset Collection West. I think all some people want are a few more pedestrian-friendly shopping options, and more opportunity for living near them (and for living near work.) You don’t have to throw out the entire Calthorpe plan (or if you want to throw it out, fine—in which case, what’s your alternate plan for guiding Ann Arbor through the growth that is [i]already happening[/i] around it? What’s your plan for the regional development of Southeast Michigan?)
If you don’t support growth, or change, alright. But Ann Arbor used to be a place where people did everyday shopping downtown. That is much more difficult now (with a nod to those downtown business which still offer such goods. Buy local, shop Acme, etc.) If you support the status quo, then why aren’t you afraid of more malls and subdivisions? Do you think we can keep such things away by doing business as usual?
Let’s say Klines and Jacobsons were major chains. Let’s say the city brought them to the current downtown. Would that be an outrage? If so, why wasn’t it twenty years ago, when there still [i]were[/i] a Klines and a Jacobsons downtown?
—Young Urban Amateur Jan. 11 '06 - 11:42AM #
I like the township. I drive past farmland and wide open spaces every day and see deer, cranes, rabbits and lots of nature. I don’t want to go to trendy bars or coffee houses after work. I’d rather sit on my patio and look at the pond and view of the trees. I wouldn’t shop at chain stores in downtown Ann Arbor because I prefer not to deal with the traffic and parking problems. I don’t shop at the “trendy” independently owned shops for the same reasons and also because I can’t afford the high prices. I shop at Wal Mart and avoid the city for the most part. Go to a couple of lectures a year, maybe a couple of restaurants.
I have a house that works great for me. Problably costs less than half what it would sell for in Ann Arbor and certainly has about half the tax bill. I don’t need a downtown. When the sprawl reaches my neighborhood, I’ll move out further. With 95% of the country uninhabited, I don’t think we run out of room for at least the next 5 thousand years. I prefer the quiet solitude of a commute than high density urban living.
I don’t know who decided that our community goals were for a
vibrant, diverse, attractive, pedestrian-friendly, sustainable downtown but it’s never been a goal of mine. I very much prefer my quiet peaceful neighborhood. When I’m in the mood for the city life – I visit Chicago. Nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there either.
—Karen Luck Jan. 11 '06 - 12:02PM #
—John Q Jan. 11 '06 - 12:11PM #
—Dale Jan. 11 '06 - 12:18PM #
The sprawl is your neighborhood. Having denser housing downtown might prevent it from being more crowded sprawl, though.
—ann arbor is overrated Jan. 11 '06 - 12:23PM #
Now as to views… what views count? from whom, and where? IMO well-designed tall buildings can be a heck of a lot prettier to look at than, say, another Ameritech addition.
Tall buildings can be human scale. Think of the building on the SE corner of Washington and Fourth Ave. In your minds, imagine that corner, with the cell phone shop and the rest of it. Now tell me how many stories it is. Don’t know? it’s seven stories – but hardly anyone notices because the first floor is very pedestrian friendly. There is lots of clear glass for the shops; they have canopies and an interesting corner entrance; there is a good deal of architectural detail. All these things make that building a nice building, no matter the height.
Tall buildings do cast shadows – but the taller and thinner the building, the longer, skinnier, and faster that shadow will move. Which do you want: short squat buildings that put the streets in shade all day, or tall thin buildings that shade the street for a few hours? the latter is better for getting us the most sun possible, which is why the Residential Task Force Report emphasizes “point towers” in certain locations around town.
—KGS Jan. 11 '06 - 12:24PM #
vibrant, diverse, attractive, pedestrian-friendly, sustainable downtown but it’s never been a goal of mine.”
Karen, if you don’t live in the City, your opinion on the City’s goals, while “interesting” are probably irrelevant to the decision-makers in the City. While you may not think you need the downtown, it would be interesting to see what your tax bill would look like if it wasn’t subsidized by taxpayers across the state. Too many township residents seem to think that their subsidized tax bills are a result of their lifestyle and not the diversion of tax dollars from urban areas to suburban ones.
—John Q Jan. 11 '06 - 12:24PM #
For an interesting look at Ann Arbor’s past, check out Clan Crawford’s pictures that Ed Vielmetti posted on Flickr. Especially interesting to me are the “modernization” of the Municipal Court Building (where One North Main now stands), and the buildings that were taken down to put in the post office.
—Juliew Jan. 11 '06 - 01:09PM #
Many advocates for better urban living like nature, too—they just fear that some habitats can become endangered as a result of uncontrolled low-density growth. For that matter, some of them also love superstores. Again, as John Q says, it’s a matter of providing options and choices.
And when it comes to running out of room, sure, there’s plenty of room left. (Though I should point out that same space could be, and is, used for farm production, or is reserved for recreation, or is needed by either industry or the government, or is uninhabitable.) But it’s not all freely available. Tell your story to the residents of Northfield Township, for example, who are doing everything they possibly can to prevent housing from being built there. Your preferred lifestyle is completely valid, and even quite attractive—it’s just that not everyone shares a preference for it.
—Young Urban Amateur Jan. 11 '06 - 01:10PM #
Actually, Dale should get credit for that but I agree with the sentiment.
I’m not opposed to rural and suburban living. But people who make that choice shouldn’t expect the rest of us to subsidize it through state revenue sharing (which makes up the majority of many Township budgets), freeway interchanges in Palookaville and other such nonsense that allows township taxes to be kept artificially low.
—John Q. Jan. 11 '06 - 01:15PM #
That’s why I gave up and moved to Philadelphia. If things remain frozen in time, lots of people/businesses will give up and move their tax/spending dollars away.
—RJ White Jan. 11 '06 - 01:55PM #
I still think that this argument relies on the provision of some evidence that downtown density will reduce development pressure around the city. It seems to me that sprawling suburbs surround most dense cities. For example, miles of suburbs surround Chicago. Despite urban boundaries, the areas around Portland continue to grow.
While the severity of the impact may be debatable, there is certainly some “induced suburban development” that results from a denser central city. I think there are lots of other good reasons listed throughout this thread (Todd’s post #24, for example) for increasing downtown density, but this particular argument doesn’t stand without more support.
I’m expect that Todd can lead a response to this concern.
—Scott TenBrink Jan. 11 '06 - 07:33PM #
—Steve Bean Jan. 11 '06 - 07:56PM #
Some exerpts:
From Austin to Boston, Tampa to Portland, cities want to make their downtowns lively 24-hour districts that will enhance their image and tax base. Austin and some other cities also are hoping that more downtown housing options will reduce sprawl as their populations grow.
...
Like Austin, Tempe, Ariz., is a college town, the home of Arizona State University. With 160,000 people, it’s far smaller than Austin, but just the same, the density debate is near the top of the public agenda. Developer Avenue Communities wants to build four residential-retail towers in the heart of downtown, one with 22 stories and three with potentially 30 stories.
...
You are facing large rapid growth going forward,” said John McIlwain, senior fellow at the Urban Land Institute, an urban planning think tank in Washington, D.C. “You want to capture as much of that growth downtown as you can. It’s a much more sustainable housing pattern than pushing the new housing out into the far suburbs.
and I admit I smiled at this one
Betty Baker, chairwoman of the zoning commission, says that she does not oppose density but questions whether very tall buildings — Spring would rise 400 feet — should be allowed close to traditional neighborhoods. Spring would be just two blocks from the Old West Austin neighborhood, where some residents say the project would be too tall and would add much more traffic to an already congested area.
Does this sound familiar?
—KGS Jan. 12 '06 - 06:43AM #
I don’t think we are allowing enough development downtown currently, in the lower price ranges (below $300K). Let the market bear what it will, but we need to free up some policies before the market can even show what it will bear! Getting rid of the extra fees and parking requirements would be a good first step.
—KGS Jan. 12 '06 - 06:53AM #
—Juliew Jan. 12 '06 - 07:36AM #
I didn’t say that sprawl would be magically stopped. I will stongly argue that it will be slowed, and the demographics can be manipulated (i.e. hold housing costs firm, allow for workforce housing). Currently we’re allowing the REIT’s to manipulate demographics, and I’m not real happy with the results.
“For example, miles of suburbs surround Chicago. Despite urban boundaries, the areas around Portland continue to grow.” I am not sure if this has occured to anyone, but do you think that there’s a chance that American cities keep making the same development mistakes over and over and over again?
If you recall, there was a post a few months back on Arbor Update that had Boston officials and Urban Planning experts complain that citizens have an unnatural fear of tall buildings. Peter Pollock, the Boulder City Planner I keep referring to said that his citizens had the same problem. He said it was near impossible to get his downtown residents to understand that density in their neighborhoods was in their best interest.
Now we have KGS quoting that the same citizen interference has happened in Austin. Anyone want to take a stab at what the vacancy rate is for Austin? Yep, another Socratic trap here:
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2002/03/25/daily22.html
They are forcing the demand to the suburbs. I’ll go so far as to say that nearly all finanically healthy cities pull the same crap again, and again, and again.
“Hey, here in Boulder, Austin, Ann Arbor, (fill in the blank), things are great. There’s a University to hold the real estate market firm no matter what. The party is never going to stop, and we don’t have to react to market forces because we don’t think that they apply to our city. The cost of living just keeps going up because, well, our city is just a swell place to live. It has nothing to do with the fact that our infastructure is overstressed, the natural laws of supply and demand are out of whack, the ratio of jobs to homes are pushing into the 3:1’s, and the population isn’t evey reacting to the increased enrollment from the university that’s just down the road”.
Have you ever noticed that only financially unhealty cities vie desperately for large development projects (which can include the dreaded tall buildings)? Now why is that?
Is it a coindence that all of you think that sprawl is inevitable and uncontrollable, while at the same time we see that, time and again, citizens who have a choice to build downtown while the city is relatively healthy don’t?
This is just the world’s biggest coincidence, right?
I can’t give you an example of a medium or large city that has avoided sprawl because they all keep repeating the same predictable bad behavior.
I’m an idiot for thinking that Ann Arbor would buck this trend, but I honestly thought that we were smarter than that.
I don’t care what anyone says. Housing and retail demand is limited. If you buy a quart of milk at a downtown store, you aren’t going to suddenly wake up in the middle of the night and drive to Ypsi and buy another one. The same can be said for housing. If you buy a home in downtown Ann Arbor, you aren’t going to buy another one in Ypsi township the following week. The same can be said for retail. If you put a Bed Bath and Beyond or a Nordstrom’s downtown, they aren’t going to open another location in Briarwood mall.
It’s just simple math, folks.
—todd Jan. 12 '06 - 07:40AM #
Scott, Chicago is not only home to America’s first planned suburb but many of the current ‘burbs there were farming communities intentionally turned into sprawl in the beginning of the twentieth century. They were making suburbs before anyone else and before they were nearly as dense in their downtown as they are today, so I would not use this unique situation as evidence for or against the argument at hand.
Portland is sort of unique as well. They stopped the sprawl in Oregon, but their neighbor to the north, Washington, picked up all of the sprawling slack and then some. The reason behind it looks to have a lot to do with price, so if there is any argument/lesson to be learned it is building half-million dollar condos downtown doesn’t stop people from buying McMansions™ on the outskirts of town for half the price.
—FAA Jan. 12 '06 - 07:59AM #
Nothing wrong with that, obviously. So, it’s just a question of the kind of urban lanscape that’s created in the suburbs. Suburbs have some good things going for them, so they’re not in any way a problem per se. So instead, I think it’s, again, just a question of: how could they be better? They could be better by being somewhat denser, better connected to their business areas, more walkable, more community-oriented, better integrated with their surrounding cities, and so forth. That’s not something the cities can control—it’s going to take initiatives by all governments to successfully pull off. I guess in Ann Arbor’s case, it’s just a question of: how can we do our part? So maybe it’s the beginning of a larger effort, rather than an isolated effort.
—Young Urban Amateur Jan. 12 '06 - 08:01AM #
—Young Urban Amateur Jan. 12 '06 - 08:03AM #
And some conservatives have argued that Portland’s UGB pushed the sprawl into Washington. For me, Portland is a difficult case. I think its UGB is a good thing just as I think the Greenbelt will be a good thing for Ann Arbor. But cities that are successful enough to become destinations where people want to live then face the challenge of accepting everyone who wants to live there while maintaining the qualities of life that gave people a reason to want to live there in the first place. Such cities also face affordable housing problems because the demand for housing always outpaces the supply.
If Portland abandoned its UGB, it could accomodate more growth and more residents but would probably no longer be as desirable because of the impacts of sprawl. Unfortunately, I haven’t heard any good solutions that really address this dilemma.
—John Q Jan. 12 '06 - 08:06AM #
Totally disagree. Denver did not recover from its recession (caused by an oil pullout) until the 90’s. The whole city exploded after that, I’ll grant you. No question there.
The high tech firms began their infiltration near Boulder in support of the University (Aerospace, Comp Sci). Outside of a very few firms (Martin Marietta comes to mind), the high tech growth started in and around Boulder.
“Boulder’s land value is now very high in large part because it is one of the few cities left on the front range that actually has green space.”
Completely untrue. Most Metro counties have a very aggressive greenspace program. Jefferson County, where my Dad lives, has miles and miles of greenpaths, parks, and preserved natural features. How do I know this? My dad helped design them.
“It wouldn’t have changed the overall sprawl in the Front Range of Colorado, except that the greenbelt would now have buildings in it. Boulder is looked at by many people as one of the cities that has actually managed to contain sprawl (and yes, in so doing, has caused themselves some problems). ”
Again, I disagree. I have no problem with Boulder’s greenbelt program. In fact, I think it was nearly flawless plan….except they forgot to mandate infill, just as Ann Arbor did. Have you been to Boulder County lately? How in the heck can you say that they controlled sprawl? All the surrounding cities and towns have completely exploded with population, and there was a fairly long period where you literally couldn’t legally build anything in Boulder…leaving new homeowner/businesspersons with no choice but to create sprawl.
So if Boulder had another, say, 2,500 citizens living dowtown, your assertion is that it wouldn’t have moved 2,500 people and the ancillary services from the surrounding areas? The demand is infinite?
I just disagree with this. I also think that infill would have curbed (not cured, but curbed) many of the serious problems that plague Boulder today. Job to home ratio. Workforce housing. Traffic. Stuff like that.
The same can be said about Ann Arbor, except the *hit hasn’t completely hit the fan here just yet. There’s still time to adjust our path for many of our problems.
—todd Jan. 12 '06 - 08:27AM #
I think this is similar to Ann Arbor, only there is even more legitimately buildable land here. I think YUA’s comment in #55 is exactly right. It is more about what we can do in Ann Arbor to do our part. That might be adding more housing units, it might be building more sustainable buildings, it could be working on lower-income housing, it might be cutting our resources to the townships so they actually have to pay for services at the same level as people in Ann Arbor do, or some combination of the above. And it has to be part of a regional effort because Ann Arbor, like Boulder, is just a very small piece of the problem.
—Juliew Jan. 12 '06 - 11:52AM #
Mayor and council For all their multitudinous reasons, (low income housing, tax base, political back scratching, etc.) had to figure out a way to take away power from the Planning Commission and silence the planning professionals in City Hall. This would allow them to roll out the red carpet for the developers (For the politically naive, developers have deep pockets for contributing to campaigns) To achieve that end, Hieftje stacked the Planning Commission with his appointees and figured out a way to get rid of Karen Hart. He pulled that off. Step one achieved.
The second step was to have the city administrator put some toady in charge of the newly reorganized Planning and Development Services department and hire another toady (do your homework and add the names of the guilty) to carry out the plans and pave the way for Ann Arbor to become a developers playground. The reorganization successfully gutted the input of planning staff. Step two achieved.
While this was happening the DDA waited in the wings with their 3 site plan and Susan Pollay’s smile to quietly slip their plans by the public with little or no public review. That included a $600k payoff to the Eaton factory developers to prevent them from supporting any other option for First and William other than the 3 site plan. (The Eaton factory developers aren’t even in the DDA area, what’s up with that?)
But the unexpected happened. Public outcry (more than a mile wide and inch deep with apologies to Ray Detter) made them step back from the 3 site plan, particularly First and Washington. Then the politicans figured out a way to committee to death any plans for a real Green Way by hiring Calthorpe, thus making it look like the professionals of Calthorpe know what’s best for the city. (They’re purposely trying to wear down the opposition.) This strategy gives the politicians a scapegoat if their plans turn to a pile of crap. Blame Calthorpe. Then Chris Easthope want to put it on the ballot. Don’t blame council for the fiasco! Blame the voters!!
Tune in tomorrow for the next chapter of Ann Arbor, Developers Gone Wild.
—T.H.E (OutSiDeR) Jan. 12 '06 - 12:03PM #
Building more housing in Ann Arbor isn’t going to end suburban sprawl around AA. But anti-growth sentiment and policies in Ann Arbor do nothing to stem the environmental damage caused by commuters who work in town, and building more housing in town would certainly mitigate some of that damage.
As for wind tunnels and viewscapes and building shadows, those don’t seem to discourage millions of people from living in (and enjoying) Chicago, New York, San Francisco and other real cities. (And the ugly tall buildings mentioned here haven’t created any disinterest in Ann Arbor’s downtown, have they?) I suspect these non-issues are just masking the real reasons why many Ann Arborites don’t want tall buildings—a fear of urbanism. I suspect that’s so, but I’m not sure, because no one’s yet advanced a reason to oppose taller buildings that makes an ounce of sense to me.
—Michael Betzold Jan. 12 '06 - 12:21PM #
That’s just a great sentence, right there. Take your standard boilerplate about eeeevil and corrupt politicians hamstringing the checks and balances so that they can pillage at will without the good-hearted planning commissioners or noble professionals standing in the way, and then throw in “affordable housing” and see if anybody notices. Oooh! Evil moneygrubbing council! Always with their plans to stick it to the common man with their dastardly plans for affordable housing! Boo! Hiss! Toss the bums out! We don’t want any of their affordability about here!
Um, no, wait. That doesn’t parse quite right.
At any rate, I eagerly await Part Two. I’m sure this little history of deep-pocketed developers paying off the Council to allow affordable housing is going somewhere good.
—Does that make me an insider? Jan. 12 '06 - 12:25PM #
Nice conspiracy theory. But it’s already broken down because at least three of the Townships (Ann Arbor, Scio and Webster) have gone ahead and approved their own PDR millages to complement the greenbelt. In English, that means that they’ve approved raising THEIR taxes to help build the Greenbelt. So much for a payoff!!
It also ignores that there was a Countywide millage proposal to protect Agricultural land (passed in the City but failed county-wide) and the approved Countywide millage for acquiring natural areas. Hmm, sounds like you need to get your Wayback machine checked out. So far, it’s generating bunk, not real history.
—John Q Jan. 12 '06 - 12:29PM #
U of M is the educational center of the region (yes, there are others, but U of M is well, U of M). Ann Arbor should be the residential and economic center of the region as well. They go hand in hand.
We can debate all day about the specifics of the plan. The bigger picture is, we have the opportunity to get what we want as a community—affordable housing, parks, arts if we are willing to grow. It’s not easy, it’s not going to make everybody happy, it needs to be done right. It’s not bad and it should happen.
Karen, I admire you for posting. I’m not going to argue about whether you are right or wrong, because you didn’t really argue for anything. Kudos for bringing a perspective that this group hasn’t heard from enough.
—Brandt Coultas
—brandt coultas Jan. 12 '06 - 12:36PM #
Isn’t the mayor’s job to “stack” the planning commission? To become a planning commissioner you apply at the mayor’s office – the mayor then nominates candidates at his discretion per the city code to the city council who makes the final selections.
I think T.H.E (OutSiDeR) saw Hieftje on the grassy knoll in ‘63, but we’ll have to wait for the next chapter to find out…
—FAA Jan. 12 '06 - 01:15PM #
Do your homework, check the chronology of events, John Q.
Karen Hart was perceived as an obstruction because she served the Planning commission and thus was insulated from the politics of city hall. The Mayor thought the planning staff was offering too much and too many of their profesional opinions regarding development. Shortly after that, a couple of commissioners left the PC and the mayor apppointed new commissioners who better fit his ideas. The City hall reorganization of the Planning dept was done to essentialy to reduce staff input,gain control the planning process and grease the skids for development. Those are the facts, Jack, err, John.
The Planning Commission is now ready to rubber stamp the kinds of development that the pols desire, not necessarily what the public wants or needs. (The single party dominance in A2 allows this to happen). I guess it’s the Mayors prerogative to appoint anyone he wishes, but I would hope he would try to appoint a balanced board who represent many interests and encourage open debate. That is not what’s happening. I suggest you ask the commissioners who are no longer on the board. I think you’ll get a similar answer although much more politically correct than my take on the situation.
—T.H.E (OutSiDeR) Jan. 12 '06 - 01:41PM #
—Does that make me an insider? ”
Part 2 has aready happened. And don’t be disingenuous. No politicians have been paid off. No smoky back room deals needed to be made. The politicans are buying the bunk of the developers who tell them that they can put more affordable housing downtown (do you sincerely believe that’s possible or do $250,000 600 sq ft studio apartments fit your definition of affordable?) Most reasonable folks no longer believe that affordable housing is possible downtown. Land is just too costly.
—T.H.E (OutSiDeR) Jan. 12 '06 - 01:56PM #
This reminds me of an e-mail that Doug Cowherd sent off yesterday. He attacked opponents and skeptics of the Greenway proposal as “development interests and their political cronies”. Assuming that “development interests” were behind the opposition to the Greenway proposal, is there really that much real estate at stake that it would be worth the time of “development interests” to try and block the proposal? It’s not like were talking about major development opportunities flowing from the properties being disputed. Sure, someone would likely make money if portions of those properties are developed. But it just seems like a bit much in the rhetoric department when in the grand scheme of things, this stuff really isn’t. But I blame it on a full moon – check for yourself, it’s out.
By the way, my chronology does check out. The history of the greenbelt dates back to 1995 and includes such developer interests as Barry Lonik, Mike Garfield and Doug Cowherd(!).
http://www.mlive.com/columns/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-0/113457480949710.xml&coll=2
—John Q. Jan. 12 '06 - 02:15PM #
Double? Why not talk about real density? Googling around a bit…. The population density of Boulder is 1,500/km2. The densest arrondissement of Paris is at 40,000/km2. At that level you could absorb something like 2/3 the population of Colorado into Boulder.
With all of them in the much larger city of Denver, it looks like we’d end up with 10,000/km^2.
Too late for that, I guess. But there’s a lot of beautiful country in Colorado. Surely you can see why an environmentalist might enjoy the idea of populating .1% of it at 10,000/km^2 and then leaving the other 99.9% unpopulated? As opposed to spacing everybody out evenly and having them commute across the state?
—Bruce Fields Jan. 12 '06 - 03:08PM #
Your understanding of the working of our local government over the last couple of years is naive at best and ignorant at worst. It’s not the chronology of the greenbelt, it’s the timing of the Hart firing, changes to the planning commission and the city hall reorganization that lead to the precipice, uh, current state of affairs… Calthorpe.
Now try again until you get it right.
IMO, Doug Cowherd was as much a dupe of the so called greenbelt initiative as the voters who passed it. He tends to get caught up in his king maker role sometimes. Hearts in the right place, but, hey we all make mistakes. At the time he was helping Heiftje get elected. Go ask Doug how he feels about about Hieftje now. Believe me, there is no love lost there. Doug helped him get elected, coined Hieftje’s slogan “Nature and Neighborhoods” and actually believed the mayors support of the greenbelt proposal. The mayor was shucking and jiving Doug. Doug didn’t realize what the mayor really wanted from the greenbelt initiative and that was a step toward Lansing. I know he has no regrets about the greenbelt, but the mayor is another story.
Heiftje takes us from “Nature and Neighborhoods” to the Concrete Jungle.
—T.H.E (OutSiDeR) Jan. 12 '06 - 05:06PM #
As for “pols”, it’s a funny thing we got in this down—democracy. Voters are free to vote out of office any of their representatives that they don’t feel are representing them.
Outsider, let’s assume that you mean well, and give you a chance to contribute constructively to this conversation—what do you think should happen do the downtown area instead of the several ideas that have been discussed here?
—Young Urban Amateur Jan. 12 '06 - 05:37PM #
I’m sure the Mayor can speak for himself but other than not blindly endorsing the Greenway proposal, please point us to the examples of how the City is being turned into a “Concrete Jungle”. The reality is that the City continues to acquire parkland within the City and preserve the Greenbelt properties outside the City in partnership with those wicked Townships.
I won’t claim to be able to speak to all of the mechinations at City Hall that you allude to in your posts. But since I’ve already highlighted how you distorted or ignored history, I would say the burden is on you to back up your claims with some real examples that match your rhetoric.
—John Q Jan. 12 '06 - 07:51PM #
The only way you can vote someone OUT of office is if there is a viable alternative to vote IN.
I am not anti growth, but am afraid of government overreacting and then not acting deliberately and responsibly. What do I like? I like some of the projects that are going in downtown. Ashley Terrace on Huron (if it wasn’t so ugly), the old YMCA plan, Liberty Lofts, the condo thing next to Seva and even the one that was planned for near the hospital (I forget the name). I think that the Klines lot should be a parking structure with plenty of underground parking. The Library lot needs a 10-12 story mixed use project that includes a new city hall and underground parking. I think JC Beals Mayer Shairer project is good. I am not in favor of anything in the Allen Creek floodway and very limited use of the floodplain. I think a REAL greenway is a great idea, but the city should use some of the land along the greenway for pocket developments including dense low rise housing. I think First and William south to Jefferson along the west of AShley towards Main, across from Leopold Bro’s is a great location for a larger urban public space along a greenway. It could be multi-use for public events. I think that tall building must be proportional to their surroundings with taller building requiring more open space around them. Syndeco/DTE (Ashley Mews) is a great example of where NOT to locate a high rise. The Greek Church proposals next to Kerrytown are terrible. I think before building high and dense downtown, the city needs to explore alternatives and change the zoning to allow the granny flats and studio apartments in the close in neighborhoods including David Cahills neighborhood and the OWS.
Most of all I believe that these things will fail if they are forced in reaction to a wrongly perceived need. Development needs to happen naturally. It’s not a build it and they will come. I just think that Ann Arbor isn’t in any great need to reinvent itself. It’s a midwest college town with all the good and bad that come with that. I believe that it’s better to play to your strengths and improve what you already have instead of trying and failing to be something you’re not.
Don’t believe developers or builders when they say that developing in Ann Arbor is a nightmare. Frankly. it’s not the regulations, it’s the schizophrenic nature of our politicians. For all the whining, they still want to build here. There are plenty of places a whole lot worse. The problem occurs when people leave barn doors wide open and the fox gets in. (Don’t ya love mixed metaphors?)
—T.H.E (OutSiDeR) Jan. 12 '06 - 08:15PM #
(hey, this is a weblog, ya gotta allow for poetic license and hyperbole. I’m not the only one who does it)
I distinctly remember the mayor stating that he thought folks in Ann Arbor don’t really know what a tall building is. That, in Chicago 15 stories isn’t tall. I think he even mentioned 20 stories. Those weren’t houses of cards he was talking about. If the ball is set rolling now, 20 years from now there will be a lot more concrete (but you probably won’t be living here then and I’ll most likely be dead.) It’s like the frog in the pot of water on the stove. It’ll happen before you know and then it will be too late.
Killins is licking their lips.
—T.H.E (OutSiDeR) Jan. 12 '06 - 08:34PM #
Sorry, I missed your yellow highlighter.
In order for YOU to accuse me of distorting history, YOU have to have been around this town long enough to experience it and put it in perspective.
—T.H.E (OutSiDeR) Jan. 13 '06 - 03:45AM #
60. This would allow [Council, Mayor] to roll out the red carpet for the developers (For the politically naive, developers have deep pockets for contributing to campaigns)
The natural response to this would be, “Oh? So you’ve got the campaign finance reports to back this up, right?” Except I don’t even need to ask you for such easy proof, because you go and shoot yourself down without my even trying:
67. And don’t be disingenuous. No politicians have been paid off. No smoky back room deals needed to be made.
Wait, so, we’re supposed to believe that the elected officials are in cahoots with the deep-pocketed developers who have lots of money to contribute to campaigns, but then you wave off any suggestion that the developers did any such thing? Interesting. Before you go calling anybody else schizophrenic, you might want to try a mirror.
And then, of course, there’s the gem,
73.The only way you can vote someone OUT of office is if there is a viable alternative to vote IN.
So…What you’re saying is that the people of Ann Arbor agree with what’s going on? Because otherwise, you agree with YUA that an opponent would appear and get voted in in their stead. Interesting.
And then, of course, you go and say that you like pretty much every private project that’s been proposed in the last few years – even the ones that most people around here have panned for poor design (LoFT 322, by Seva) – in the same breath that you’re saying we should stop looking to increase the density of downtown and ditch the Calthorpe plan.
Yawn. I liked listening to Cahill’s dissents better; at least he has a rational position that’s coherant enough to agree or disagree with.
—Does that make me an insider? Jan. 13 '06 - 05:02AM #
Whoa there, insider, let’s not go overboard just because someone in comparison to T.H.E (OutSiDeR) appears to be okay. Cahill does post his opinions in a (mostly) coherent manner. He has, however, never been known to justify his position or rebut anyone else’s… For now I’d leave rational out of his description.
—FAA Jan. 13 '06 - 06:00AM #
—Parking Structure Dude! Jan. 13 '06 - 08:45AM #
“The only way you can vote someone OUT of office is if there is a viable alternative to vote IN.”
Fair enough. Come November I guess we’ll all find out.
“What do I like? I like some of the projects that are going in downtown. Ashley Terrace on Huron (if it wasn’t so ugly),”
Haven’t seen the drawings yet. Are they online?
“the old YMCA plan”
Which one was that?
“Liberty Lofts,”
Ok.
“the condo thing next to Seva”
Ok, though I agree the original design was better (the slightly Disney-ish “old-style” architecture—though it was retro, it looked pretty well-done)
“and even the one that was planned for near the hospital (I forget the name).”
Sure—and that one was shot down (for now) by the historical commission. Maybe they had good reasons, but isn’t that the kind of thing you’re asking for?
“I think that the Klines lot should be a parking structure with plenty of underground parking.”
Though I wish it’d be retail on the top.
“The Library lot needs a 10-12 story mixed use project that includes a new city hall and underground parking.”
Sure!
“I think JC Beals Mayer Shairer project is good.”
Yes.
“I am not in favor of anything in the Allen Creek floodway and very limited use of the floodplain.”
But why? Aren’t there already buildings in the floodway/floodplain? What if South Main Market got redeveloped—would you be against that or for it?
“I think a REAL greenway is a great idea, but the city should use some of the land along the greenway for pocket developments including dense low rise housing.”
But…that’s building in the floodway/floodplain, isn’t it? Also, why is a greenway that straddles a railroad a good idea? I realize Geddes Park is also along a railroad, but there’s plenty of space to fence it off. (I’m not necessarily against the Allen Creek greenway, I just don’t understand some of the rationale.)
“I think First and William south to Jefferson along the west of AShley towards Main, across from Leopold Bro’s is a great location for a larger urban public space along a greenway.”
Great, but again, that is building in the floodway/floodplain. Unless you’re talking about green space?
“I think that tall building must be proportional to their surroundings with taller building requiring more open space around them.”
Sure, proportional, but proportional is in the eye of the beholder. And I do not like mandating open space around tall buildings—that can create concrete plazas and useless land that just drives up the cost of other parcels. It can work, but only in some places.
“Syndeco/DTE (Ashley Mews) is a great example of where NOT to locate a high rise.”
It would be better if there had been more planning around it. If the Mews are there, then there needs to be a plan for South Main.
“The Greek Church proposals next to Kerrytown are terrible.”
Well, as I understand it the biggest problem is with their footprints. I don’t understand enough about it to know why they can’t fix that.
“I think before building high and dense downtown, the city needs to explore alternatives and change the zoning to allow the granny flats and studio apartments in the close in neighborhoods including David Cahills neighborhood and the OWS.”
I would also argue for changing the zoning, but not necessarily for “granny flats”. I guess because I see those as primarily serving a student population, and I’d like to see more options for all kinds of populations.
“Development needs to happen naturally. It’s not a build it and they will come.”
Sure. But you don’t think 20% growth in Washtenaw county over the last 14 years is something to pay attention to? What about the fact that the Ann Arbor MSA is now over 600,000?
“I just think that Ann Arbor isn’t in any great need to reinvent itself. It’s a midwest college town with all the good and bad that come with that.”
Well, I hope no one is talking about “reinventing” Ann Arbor. That’s not what I’ve been hearing, but that’s just my perspective.
“I believe that it’s better to play to your strengths and improve what you already have instead of trying and failing to be something you’re not.”
Sure, agreed. I’ve said I’d prefer piecemeal development. But you need to look at the larger view, otherwise you can get trapped. To me, that’s what the report is about.
“Don’t believe developers or builders when they say that developing in Ann Arbor is a nightmare. Frankly. it’s not the regulations, it’s the schizophrenic nature of our politicians.”
Wait—so is it a nightmare, or not? :)
“For all the whining, they still want to build here.”
Yes, and…again, why wasn’t the Glen/Ann proposal approved, the one that you yourself say you favored?
—Young Urban Amateur Jan. 13 '06 - 10:11AM #
—Young Urban Amateur Jan. 13 '06 - 10:45AM #
Oh yeah. The citizens of Ann Arbor were following Karen Hart’s suggestions to the letter until the current Mayor stepped in and ruined everything. We don’t need a city planner. Citizens haven’t and probably never will follow the lead of a professional planner. Look at your reaction to Calthorpe. They’re pro’s, and you think that they are the worst thing to happen to this town. Citizens like yourself want to have control over each and every project. Until you step out of the way, all the planning in the world is utterly pointless.
“The Planning Commission is now ready to rubber stamp the kinds of development that the pols desire, not necessarily what the public wants or needs.”
Ok, how about we have at least enough development that we can at least handle the increase in enrollment at UMich. How about that? The city was static, population-wise, over the past ten years. That’s absurd. That’s zero growth, no? The public needs things like police and fire protection, and we’ve had to cut those services in a wealthy city because our tax base is insufficient. We aren’t even covering our basic needs, let alone pet projects like the greenway.
“Development needs to happen naturally. It’s not a build it and they will come.”
Ah, I see. So you’re in favor of letting market demand drive development? That’s what “naturally” means. That means if a property owner thinks that the market can handle a 20 story builiding, that’s what he/she builds, with no government (ie. citizens like you) interference. Works for me.
“That, in Chicago 15 stories isn’t tall. I think he even mentioned 20 stories. Those weren’t houses of cards he was talking about. If the ball is set rolling now, 20 years from now there will be a lot more concrete (but you probably won’t be living here then and I’ll most likely be dead.”
I have to admit that I really liked this one. This is the kind of math that would make even Cahill blush. So in your world, a twenty story building with 10 residences per floor is going to pave over more of the earth than 200 tract homes in a new development outside of town? The environmental movement needs more people like you! Oh wait, we already have them: we call them Texans.
“The Greenbelt was a payoff to the township residents and the land speculators when hizzoner had his eye on higher office in Lansing.”
Ah, I see. So people who push for setting aside greenspace are only doing so because they are plying for the favor of those who own property near the greenspace? Does that mean that, as an example, Margaret Wong is corrupt because the greenbelt runs alarmingly close to here home? Or heck, it’s supposed to run by my place of business. Does this mean that I gave money or favors to the Friends of the Greenway?
Interesting theory. Of course, the problem is that I’m against the greenway as it is proposed. I’d prefer to see the money used to augment the one that we already have to the north of town. Or we could put parks in poorer areas in Ann Arbor that don’t have one. Naah. You’re right, it must be a conspiracy.
“And if you don’t watch out, that’s exactly what the Calthorpe plan will bring to downtown. Think it’s boutiquey right now? Just wait. Calthorpe even made recommendations for more national chains.”
Actually, it’s local business owners like myself, Bob Dascola, and Rene Greff who are asking for a handful of National Chains to be installed in new construction to help to stablize the areas retail sales by providing an anchor for demand.
The problem isn’t having a few national chains in town…the problem is that because you have stopped any meaningful development downtown, the rental costs have skyrocketed to such levels that a local business couldn’t possibly survive here….and this is the doing of citizens like you who don’t want new construction.
So in other words, we haven’t operated using the Calthorpe plan as of yet….look around you. Are there more chains downtown than there were ten years ago, or fewer?
We tried it your way for the last twenty years, and as a result we have an economic environment where only national chains have a meaningful chance of long term survival. Way to go.
Yeah, things were clearly going gangbusters in Ann Arbor before this conspiracy theory you allude to wrecked everything.
—todd Jan. 14 '06 - 08:13AM #
If the citizens of Ann Arbor are so uniformly opposed to development in general, and buildings above four stories in particular, why is it that a proposal to add three more stories to the Collegian (on Maynard) breezed through both CPC and Council without a peep of protest?
Well, not quite zero – the new site plan involves 27 studio apts, and one speaker wanted fewer, larger units; another asked about parking. But also praise – the owner of NYPD is quoted in the CPC minutes as saying that “three more floors of residential units was a good idea, as it would be a boost to the businesses in this area”.
One would expect David Cahill, Outsider, Downtowner, and the Silent Majority they claim to represent would be up in arms about a new 8 story building with 27 new residential units and no on-site parking. (The agreement requires the developer to provide 15 parking spaces to receive Occupancy Certs, expected to be permits in a DDA-run facility.)
The Council meeting at which this 8 story building passed without protest was, interestingly, the same Council meeting at which the proposed Lower Town Historic District hearing drew dozens of comments against, strongly outnumbering supporters of the new district.
I had been looking forward to the revolution that Cahill keeps promising, but I’m starting to think there won’t be much to see. Oh well.
—...Insider? Jan. 14 '06 - 02:09PM #
As to revolutions – the Calthorpe Report seems to have laid such an egg that City Council may largely ignore it. So the torches and pitchforks may be superfluous. 8-)
—David Cahill Jan. 14 '06 - 06:02PM #
What would a large downtown mixed-use building look like if it were designed according to the maximum values allowed by the Calthorpe Report, without any negotiations with the City? What income would it generate? What about parking? This is an attempt to answer these and similar questions.
I am calling this building “Calthorpe Place”.
I – Building Design
On page 54 of the Report, Calthorpe recommends: “Develop the Brown Lot at 1st and Huron Street as a gateway feature for the Downtown. The development proposal should include a mix of uses.” So I am locating Calthorpe Place on the Brown Block. This block is an almost-perfect square, 263.5 ft. x 264.0 ft. So from the area within the lot lines is 69,564 sq. ft.
Calthorpe Place is in the Huron Corridor area (p. 53) and so the zoning overlay form requirements are from page 20, figure 20, second line:
Minimum Height (Stories) = 3
Maximum Height (Stories) = 10
Maximum Lot Coverage = 100%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = 660%
Upper Floor Setback – Front (Feet) = 10 – 20
Upper Floor Setback – Side (Feet) = 5 -10
These upper floor setbacks apply to floor above the minimum height; i.e, above 3 stories (p. 20).
Figure 20, on p. 24, lists a variety of FAR bonuses for design features that meet a variety of community goals. Our hypothetical developer chooses only one:
Ground Floor Retail 100% FAR Bonus
Our developer isn’t interested in any of the other community goals. S/he doesn’t want to bother with affordable housing, open space/pedestrian amenities, tower design, transfer of development rights, or underground parking. S/he isn’t including any parking at all. S/he wants to just walk into the Building Department with the plans, not negotiate about anything, and say “give me my building permit”. And, under Calthorpe, the developer would have a right to the permit without any quibbling by the Planning Commission or Council.
Our developer chooses the following mix of uses:
First Floor: Ground Floor Retail
Second through Fourth Floors: Office
Fifth and Higher Floors: Market Rate Condos
The developer decides to allocate space to the various uses according to these calculations:
The first floor is built to the lot lines, as figure 20 allows. Some square footage will be used up with walls, a lobby, elevators, stairs, maintenance, building management, an atrium or other means to provide light to interior spaces, and other areas which cannot be rented out. Let us assume that 75% of the gross square footage can be rented to retailers. That is 69,564 sq. ft. x 0.75 = 52,173 sq. ft. of rentable retail.
The second and third floors are built to the lot lines, giving us 69,564 sq. ft. x 2 = 139,128 sq. ft. Let’s keep the same 75% availability figure. This gives us 139,128×0.75 = 104,346 sq. ft. of rentable office space for these floors.
The fourth floor requires minimum setbacks of 10 feet on the front and rear, and 5 feet on each side. So the maximum dimension of the fourth floor is (263.5 – 20) x (264 – 10) = 61,849 sq. ft. Available office space = 61,849 sq. ft. x 0.75 = 46,386 sq. ft.
Total available office space for rent = 104,346 sq. ft. + 46,386 sq. ft. = 150,732 sq. ft.
How much space do we have left for our market-rate condos? The maximum FAR is the basic 660%, to which we add 100% for our ground floor retail = 760% of the lot size = 7.6×69,564 = 528,686.4 sq. feet of total floor space for Calthorpe Place.
We have already used up 69,564 sq. feet for each of the f