Comments on: Planning Commission: Project Meets Code

By: LauraB

LauraB — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:43:51 +0000

The Down South U. project was approved but I think it was only because it was a by-right project. The Avalon proposal on N. Main is still at the planning commission so you can still come out and support it.

The City Place proposal is now a by-right, the better looking PUD was turned down. I bet this version is approved. Obviously the case law cited here and at the planning commission does not, did not stand up to legal review by the city’s attorneys who study this stuff all the time.

The down payment on the much needed new courthouse and police headquarters came from a facilities savings fund the city had been building since the 1990′s. No dishonesty there.

Very little of it came from the fund balance. The fund balance is still above the target they set years ago. Besides, I don’t think it would be wise to spend the fund balance on recurring expenses, that is how governments get into trouble.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:01:13 +0000

But it also means I get sick to my stomach at the elistism of groups that scream ‘we love history’ and make homeowners on the Old West Side spend months begging to replace a previously brown down with a green door too. The key is a balance between the two extremes.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:58:04 +0000

The Zingerman house should have been approved, the scaled down South U and North Main Street projects should have as well. I don’t think the Germantown project should be. And the Courts/Police building I was opposed to cash coming from the budget surplus, carefully built up to be used as a funding source while services were being cut. I didn’t like the dishonesty.

Some of us who aren’t for a couple of projects on this list can’t be caged into being called ‘anti-everything’. I think affordable housing doesn’t mean just’rental’ apartments. It means being able to purchase a place of your own.

By: Young Urban Amateur

Young Urban Amateur — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:43:06 +0000

Yes, I recognize that nearly all the voices in the city (and even from the county) have a place in constructing the planning guidelines. Note I didn’t say exactly which piece of the process I found maddening ;) I hope that all involved parties can come to a consensus soon.

For the record, I support (with some strong reservations) the Near North proposal.

Let me also say that the City Place developer does seem to be making a good faith effort in being open with the city about the merits of his designs, and in working under the restrictions placed upon him by the city. It’s unfortunate that better coordination of efforts was not apparently possible under the circumstances.

By: my two cents

my two cents — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:03:29 +0000

The law is the law. If the new plan falls within the law the council has to vote yes. What kind of example is it if our own government to pick and choose which laws they want to obey. Citizens are not allowed to do that and I would hope our elected officials would not.

I think the original proposal was a much better proposal. When a group in town is anti-everything and fights tooth and nail against every planned development regardless of the merits of the proposal, they lose all credibility. Now the entire city must suffer with a proposal that is law abiding but not as appropriate for the city.

Be careful what you wish for…..

By: Ted Ancil

Ted Ancil — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:11:19 +0000

Young Urban Amateur – This proposal isn’t downtown but in case you haven’t noticed the whole community, or least all those who want to, has been involved in re-visioning downtown and doing it properly with a lot of public involvement takes time but it is almost there.

Anonymous Obs. makes a good point. It does not seem like there is anywhere in this town where change is acceptable.

Not on South U, Not on Fifth, not on N. Main even with Avalon Housing involved, not even Zingermans can replace a burned out building.

Sometimes people say “but there is no affordable housing.” But Avalon’s proposal is all affordable housing!

Zingermans is the best company, the most giving organization anywhere. Avalon has a sterling reputation. And yet not even these icons of the community can develop property to do more of what they do best.

Where in this town is it OK for people to develop the property they own and pay taxes on?

By: anonymous observer

anonymous observer — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:22:03 +0000

The initial proposal was for work force, affordable housing. The location allowed for residents to work at the University or Downtown.

Allegedly, this is a key desire in Ann Arbor (increased pedestrian traffic, reduced car emissions, more density downtown). Yet the project is rejected under the auspices of historic preservation (in a non-historic district), bad architecture (everyone has their own opinion) and the project is not in the character of the neighborhood (code for ‘I’m a NIMBY’).

This city is filled with people who do not want to see any change but are too intellectually corrupt to admit the reasons why.

By: Young Urban Amateur

Young Urban Amateur — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:09:39 +0000

I, too, oppose either proposal for the site, though not because it is student housing; most of those houses are currently student apartments. Instead, I oppose it for the same reasons as #11 above; they are awful designs that will contribute poorly to the historic streetscape. I sympathize with the developer’s efforts to create functional housing and increase residential density (even if it is just students). However I can’t sympathize with his (or his architect’s) inability to put together a building or buildings that have anything to do with Ann Arbor’s unique character, or that will aesthetically replace what’s being lost. I realize he’s trying; I also recognize he’s failing.

Having said that, Council’s continuing inability on their part to construct a coherent set of downtown development guidelines, after years of effort, is maddening in itself.

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:22:20 +0000

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I think this project should be turned down. While I think many times there is this push against NO new building in the city, that everything related to new housing is bad, and that people who claim to support ‘affordable housing’ start screaming when it’s in their neighborhood, the proposal approved last night was a mistake.

Has anyone looked at the developer and previous projects they’ve been involved in? Wiping out an entire block for ‘student housing’ with next to no parking shouldn’t be approved and city council should have some guts and reject it when it comes up for approval.

Hopefully my 4th Ward Council members will vote NO.

By: anonymous2

anonymous2 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:44:55 +0000

I would like to thank the Chronicle for covering this important story, and also to comment briefly on no 10 (anonymous). It is not that neighbors are afraid of change at all costs, it is the nature of the change that is at stake. The destruction of a whole panorama of old houses, a panorama that defines the very area, is a matter of great concern to many who live in the city, not just in the immediate environs. Add to that the fact that everything that has been proposed as a replacement for these lovely old houses is an architectural monstrosity, one by one, is also extremely troubling. There was a time, apparently, when architecture was an art; these proposals are simply a disgrace. There is plenty of room for reasonable development in Ann Arbor, and the plans that were drawn up at great cost describe where that development should take place. A few people want to destroy our neighborhoods for a few dollars, and this does not serve the public good. Mr. Whitaker, moreover, has demonstrated that there is a legal basis for turning down such monstrosities.