30. March 2005 • Murph
Email this article
The News may be a little slow getting to the public debate party, but what they lack in speed, they make up for in quantity. Today’s news includes three full pages of letters on last week’s greenway resolution and on the DDA’s Three Site Plan.
The anti-resolution and pro-DDA letters (as two overlapping categories) seem to outnumber the pro-resolution and anti-DDA letters (most of these are both), with a few interesting twists – one writer supports the DDA’s plan with the suggestion that the side of the structure facing the park be used as an artificial rock climbing wall, and another suggests that the top level of the structure be turned into a dog park.
On the front page, Greenway advocates to seek public support (not available online?) discusses the next steps planned by the Sierra Club’s Doug Cowherd, who wants the City Council to hold public hearings in April, and who states that the greenway’s supporters will also be holding their own public forums; the DDA’s Susan Pollay, who says their plan won’t be up for a decision by the Council for some time, and that the DDA is “still listening to community discussion around this issue;” and City Councilmembers Easthope and Johnson, who say the Council won’t be touching either proposal again until after the budget is passed, at the very earliest. Johnson is quoted as saying, “We do public hearings on ordinances. It would be unprecedented to do one on a resolution.” Somebody has to set precedents, right?
Meanwhile, the News notes that the local Sierra Club’s 17 May meeting will focus on the greenway and feature Margaret Wong as a speaker, 7:30pm at Matthei Botanical Gardens; and the Women Progressive Activists will host an 11 April discussion of the greenway, 7pm, Church of the Good Shepherd, 2145 Independence Blvd. If you’re reading AU, you know that a workshop at Leopold Bros. (not in the News, yet) is also planned, date TBD.
« Previous Article Wireless Washtenaw Planned
Next Article Survivor Speak Out »
|
—Matt Mar. 31 '05 - 03:08AM #
—Brandon Mar. 31 '05 - 04:32AM #
I have two thing I keep in my mind all the time concerning issues like this. One,” Its of the people, by the people and for the people”, and two, John Kennedy proclaimed in a speech once,”Ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for your government.” Ask yourselves, “What am I doing for the good of my community? Not, What’s in it for me.” The letter from Sundays Ann Arbor News well written by Philip D’Anieri told it like it is and he should be congratulated for doing an outstanding job of writing. It is one of the most level headed letters I’ve read in a very long time. So time will tell and thanks to all who support both sides because it’s very important to hear from everyone about good idea’s. Good Night.Bob Dascola(born and raised in Ann Arbor and am still here!)
—Bob Dascola Mar. 31 '05 - 05:17AM #
I think one of my main positions in all of this goes along the lines of, ”(shaking head) boy, wouldn’t it be nice if they were right?” If we could evaporate 500 parking spaces and have the downtown be immediately better for it? Someday, we’ll have the transit system and the downtown density. . .
—Murph Mar. 31 '05 - 03:45PM #
Bob
—Bob Dascola Mar. 31 '05 - 05:43PM #
Bob, the more that I get into this debate, the more that I believe that your above statement is true. I am hoping that the charrette at our place will be a small step in this direction, and I am hoping that you will attend. I would very much like to meet you.
I agree with everything that you have said about both the council and the DDA. I really believe that we have people in place who will look after the best interest of the city as a whole.
—Todd Leopold Mar. 31 '05 - 06:08PM #
—Murph Mar. 31 '05 - 06:40PM #
—Bob Dascola Mar. 31 '05 - 08:44PM #
As for the current City Council, the interactions I have had with them have been disappointing, disillusioning, and (by their own admission) not in the best interest of the city as a whole.
—Julie Mar. 31 '05 - 10:58PM #
I just got off of the phone with Doug Cowherd. The reason that the Sierra Club didn’t get back to me was that it wasn’t clear to them that I was specifically inviting Mike Sklar or Doug Cowherd to come and actively participate. We have (and will continue to) donated to the Sierra Club on an annual basis, so they saw at the end of my email that I was offering to donate all profits from the Charrette to the Sierra Club, and assumed that I was simply alerting them about an impending donation.
I am very, very sorry for my ineptitude in drafting my invitation, and I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that is was entirely my fault that the Sierra Club did not respond to my invitation. My apologies to AAIO, Sierra Club members, Mike Sklar, and Doug Cowherd.
On a much happier (and less personally humiliating) note, Doug and I are actively working to come up with a format and a neutral moderator that would enable him to attend the charrette. Cool.
More later as I have more time.
—Todd Leopold Mar. 31 '05 - 11:24PM #
Where did that come from?
—Todd Leopold Mar. 31 '05 - 11:25PM #
—Bob Dascola Apr. 1 '05 - 03:45AM #
1. Whichever side can mobilize the largest group of supporters on a certain night wins.
2. The decisionmakers just ignore the folks who talk (or react, but in a merely placating, and not meaningful, fashion).
The Friends and/or Cowherd have demanded “2 public hearings in April” on the greenway. What exactly will this mean? That greenway supporters effectively filibuster for 3 hours (per hearing) and exhaust any opposition? That greenway supporters talk for 3 hours and Council takes the opportunity to catch up on e-mail? I think that they’re hoping for the former in demanding public hearings, but I don’t really think this is a particularly good way of accomplishing things. (I’d almost go so far as to say, “Ann Arbor is Overrated is a more meaningful form of community participation than is the standard public hearing.”)
I’ll let Julie take it from here on public hearings and placation (vs. meaningful action) by officials, since it seems like she’s fishing for an invite along those lines . . .
—Murph Apr. 1 '05 - 04:11AM #
Help me out…..where are these new opinions coming from?
—Todd Leopold Apr. 1 '05 - 02:57PM #
—Julie Apr. 1 '05 - 05:02PM #
Because the DDA presented only one plan, it’s much easier to say, “Developers and politicians are trying to ramrod something through.” Unfortunately, the News has jumped right on the Friends bandwagon and the DDA hasn’t been able to (hasn’t tried?) to counter the histrionics of the Friends.
When the DDA presented their plan to the City Council, they made it very clear that it was the first step of a long process – one that will include (and has quietly already included) real public input.
Ultimately, it’s much easier to publicize a reactionary viewpoint (e.g. money grabbing developers want to put parking lots EVERYWHERE, trample the fragile Allen Creek ecosystem, build SKYSCRAPERS in our green spaces) than it is to publicize a process of calm, thoughtful discussion.
I think the DDA plan is flawed, too. But I think it’s a good start. Now that the Easthope-Johnson resolution is out of the way, maybe the air of crisis will pass and people can approach the issue of how best to address those three sites more calmly.
—JustinW Apr. 1 '05 - 08:23PM #
The DDA plan already calls for developing the Kline’s lot on Ashley. A parking deck could be constructed under the Kline’s lot, under Ashley, and under the west side of Ashley opposite the Kline’s lot. The parking deck would also support denser development – three to four-story structures – on the Kline’s lot, and on the west side of Ashley, where several small businesses now rent space in houses.
The businesses could be relocated into the new structure on the west side of Ashley. Above them, three stories of apartments could look down into the Allens Creek valley, onto the park and greenway on the First and William site. The west side of the parking deck would be solid, and preserve the valley wall. Perhaps it could be a climbing wall, as one of the letters to the Ann Arbor News suggested, incorporated into the First and William park.
This scenario would be more expensive as it would involve excavation and property acquisition. It might also involve the City getting over its traditional reluctance to use eminent domain. Balanced against this added cost would be the benefits of not creating yet another floodway development hazard, of not having an unsightly parking deck destroy the elegant valley form of Allens Creek, and of preserving the First and William site for a park and greenway.
—Jim Nicita Apr. 2 '05 - 01:43AM #
—Scott T. Apr. 2 '05 - 04:53AM #
—Leah Apr. 2 '05 - 03:32PM #
By connecting under Ashley (and having parking there!), we get more parking spaces per ramp & other fixed costs. However, by building totally underground, we also push costs up. (Way up.)
If we want to sell development rights to the stuff on top of the slope-deck (in order to cover our costs of acquisition), though, wait, this is starting to sound scarily Hathcock; the only way to do it might be to buy the structures, but leave air rights to the current owners. So we offer a swap – upzone the strip along the top of the slope enough to make that worth letting the City tear down the existing houses.
We’d probably want some spacing between buildings on the top of the slope, rather than an Ashley Mews-style wall, to preserve some of the views. Allow a developer significantly increased density from what’s there now (say, up to three stories, zero setback on Ashley, much higher lot coverage) in exchange for preserving at least some pedestrian views into the valley from the Ashley sidewalk, as well as a pedestrian arcade through the block.
The edge of the underground parking into the valley I’d want, at least in some places, terraced (rather than solid, with the slope rebuilt over it) allowing some light and air to the interior. A pedestrian path could wind back and forth across the tiers (at an ADA-compliant slope) to provide access down the hill. The top tier would have a rainwater catchment to filter debris carried through from Ashley before draining to the next tier, with landscaping chosen on the lower tiers both for rain-garden water retaining properties and for oil-resistance (and possibly accumulative? that might require a lot of maintenance to replace every few years as biohazards).
Put a couple of sheer walls in there for rock climbing. I’m down with that idea.
Jim, if you’ve ten million bucks in initial equity, I’ll start writing up the papers for the LLC.
—Murph Apr. 2 '05 - 03:38PM #
I quite strongly feel that the DDA’s plan is not going to “ruin” that area for the existing residents; rather, the quibble is whether the plan will make a 75% or an 85% improvement for the area, and what that 10% difference will mean for other plans in the area. Given a straight-up choice between the options I’ve seen so far, I’m still going with the DDA’s plan.
Doesn’t mean I can’t fantasize, though . . .
—Murph Apr. 2 '05 - 04:00PM #
I could agree more. That 10% means the world to the rest of downtown and the County.
—Todd Leopold Apr. 2 '05 - 04:13PM #
—Todd Leopold Apr. 2 '05 - 04:14PM #
—Murph Apr. 2 '05 - 04:30PM #
“The businesses could be relocated into the new structure on the west side of Ashley.”
Not likely. Those businesses wouldn’t be able to afford the rent.
Could you say more about the nature of the proposed parking structure as a “floodway development hazard”, so that we have a common reference?
And could you also say more about what you mean by “having an unsightly parking deck destroy the elegant valley form of Allens Creek”? If I think about it for a while, I can picture the valley form of that area, but I don’t think “elegant” would come to mind, certainly not in its current state.
I’m asking by way of trying to begin (or continue) the task of clarifying various characterizations and perspectives in this discussion that will need to also take place at Todd’s proposed charrette (or any of the other public meetings.) Moving toward common understanding will be necessary in order to move toward consensus (whether on the current proposal or some compromise.)
—Steve Bean Apr. 4 '05 - 04:22AM #