Comments on: Near North, City Place Approved

By: John Hilton

John Hilton — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:01:53 +0000

to answer Vivienne’s question about the existing houses, in the last couple of months Three Oaks has rented out most of them. The tenants behind Margaret Schankler are paying $1,000 a month, or $333/bedroom. My own former back-yard neighbor was amazed to hear they’d rented the house she used to have–she says she had to move out last winter because it was so drafty.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:02:02 +0000

The store at Near North would be to move the business from Summit Party Store. Apparently there are negotiations underway to demolish that store so that it is out of the floodway. That would enhance the greenness of NeNo.

By: Leviathan

Leviathan — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:22:52 +0000

Avalon’s already overwhelmed with the management of the Washtenaw Area Housing Corp’s apartments. To add the building of Near North at this time seems foolhardy.

I hadn’t heard about the plans to put in a store that sells alcohol at Near North. Can someone tell more about that? Aren’t there already places to buy alcohol walking distance from there?

Also, are those 27 affordable beds already on the property rented? If so, at what rent?

What will be the rent for the affordable units at Near North?

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:23:11 +0000

KInd of like Alex du Parry’s self inflicted blight on S 5th Ave.

By: Milo

Milo — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:11:28 +0000

Regarding the fate of the existing houses on N. Main: that the developer had boarded up some of the houses, then claimed that the area was blighted and that one of projects benefits was fixing up this blighted area (that they created!) should give a pretty clear indication of what plans they have for the existing houses. more “blight.”

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:09:54 +0000

Does anyone know what the fate of the existing buildings will be while the group is waiting for the sale of the tax-exempt credits? My information is that sales of these have been going badly. The whole business plan of this venture depends on them and I would hope that the present buildings are maintained at a minimum level until that is accomplished.

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:25:04 +0000

Because of the building’s non-fit with existing neighborhood architecture, the “done deal” aura of this process and approval, and the apparent zero value assigned to the loss of 27 units of affordable historic housing when concluding that the project has “Public Benefit”, my take is that the goal is simply to eliminate the look-and-feel of North Main completely; this PUD is a further step in that direction. Avalon was a handy thing to hide behind in furtherance of that goal. Like “environmentalism”, “green construction”, and “LEED Certification”, “affordable housing” seems merely to be another cynical cover to further the destruction of as much of historic Ann Arbor as is possible. If Avalon truly desires not to change the neighborhoods in which it operates, it missed the mark in this project -and missed it badly.

My judgement in this matter may be completely wrong on all counts; however, if the present regime wanted to create the impression that my judgement is correct, they could hardly have gone about it in a more effective manner.

By: Milo

Milo — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:15:33 +0000

While there was a lot of back patting and talk of the “this is the way things should be done” regarding the agreement between the neighbors and the developers of the Near North project, in truth it was more a question of making the best of a bad situation. The building is out of scale with the neighborhood (that’s why it needs to be a PUD), it does violate the Central Area Plan, it is going to cost $10 million dollars of tax payer money, it provides only 14 units of supportive housing (the remaining work-force apartments will rent for about $775/mo, basically current market rate), the developer does want to put a liquor store (but they’ve “agreed” to stop selling porn if they move in!) in a building with an at-risk population. Oh, and to qualify for a PUD exemption, the petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the provided benefit can not be achieved with the underlying zoning, but there were already 27 bedrooms of affordable housing on this site.

As soon as Avalon Housing was brought in on this project and the affordable housing tag attached to it, in the minds of most of the city council it was a done deal. There was no examining the financial reality of the project, the appropriateness of the building for its residents, the impact on the neighborhood, or the president it sets for near-downtown development. Facing a pretty certain 8-2 approval vote for the PUD rezoning, what do you do? Make the best of a bad situation.