The image I included came from a map generated with the city’s GIS system, printed in April of this year: Old Fourth Ward Historic District

The set of historic district maps generated around the same time includes a separate one for Ann Street.

If “Ann Street” and “Old Fourth Ward” are in fact one historic district, it would be helpful if the city’s historic preservation documentation didn’t treat them as separate — even if they might have been separate districts at one time.

If the study committee had been appointed, it could also have proposed the addition of the First Methodist Church to the district. At the time the ordinance was written, the church was not 50 years old since it was constructed in 1940. Mr. Berggren neglects to point out that all of this side of Huron is historic–even the Firestone Building! This too might be considered for an addition to the district–as well as the Ann Arbor News building which is an fabulous Albert Kahn building from 1936 (which has no historic protection). There are also immense oak trees at the eastern end of the block which give it a sense of history like nothing else can.

The Old Fourth Ward got its name through a contest. It was suggested by Milo Ryan, who wrote a wonderful book about growing up on Kingsley St. This neighborhood had been known as the Fourth Ward for many years. Thus the name seemed to fit.

The second of those.

I agree about the “district”. A big part of the problem is just the name. The property owners made the (specious) argument that their property isn’t even in the Old Fourth Ward. If “District” is left off the end of that name, it’s confusing. Why a historic district was named after a defunct political boundary is something I wonder about.

I think you’re right that (2) deals only with what must be shown if elimination of a district is on the table. And it’s modification that was meant to be on the table, not elimination.

The study committee considering modification of the district would simply “comply with the procedures set forth in section 3,” which are the procedures for establishing a historic district.

Seems to me that even though the impetus for establishing a study committee would be a desire on the part of the property owners to exclude their property from the district, the outcome of the study committee’s activity could be to recommend not just retention of that parcel, but inclusion of additional parcels as well.

I would think, though, that there’s some “probable cause” criterion that most councilmembers apply to this sort of thing: do we have some reason to think that the property — if analyzed again in the same way we would, if we were just now establishing the OFW historic district — would not be included in the district?

As an aside, the street trees along Huron aren’t helping the cause for this house, because they basically screen it from view along the street. As a layperson navigating Huron Street, it’s hard for me to perceive those three OFW properties on the south side of Huron Street as part of a “district.” So it might be worth it for the DDA to explore a way to make the streetside landscaping help those three properties look more like part of a “district”. Seems to me there was a DDA project for that stretch of Huron put forward within the last three years or so, but I haven’t had time to follow up to confirm.