Comments on: Hieftje Urges Unity on Fuller Road Station

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 03:33:27 +0000

Thanks, Dave. I’ve signed up for email notifications for FRS. It’s easy, by the way. There’s a link at the top of the city’s home page.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:10:29 +0000

Re: [56] The meeting has been postponed to date uncertain. Wendy Rampson mentioned the postponement last night at planning commission, but it had come through the city’s automatic email notification service much earlier. My apologies for not updating the article.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 23:39:40 +0000

“Another public meeting on the [FRS] project is set for Wednesday, June 2, from 7-9 p.m. at city council chambers, 100 N. Fifth Ave.”

No one was there at 7:00. Mary or anyone know if it was cancelled or postponed?

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Fri, 28 May 2010 19:39:25 +0000

I gave a talk in 2003 at the height of the Greenbelt debate at St. Mary’s chapel about “ethical housing.” Some folks from Religious Action for Affordable Housing were there and we had an interesting discussion about how it was hard to want to keep housing affordable and be pro-Greenbelt (which a lot of them were) unless you were prepared to increase density. It wasn’t a very popular thing to say, but nobody thought it was a surprising connection to make. I think it’s safe to say that people were very aware of the linkages between the various issues.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 28 May 2010 19:06:38 +0000

Chuck is absolutely correct that discussions about building more densely downtown were going on concurrently with the greenbelt millage effort. However, I interviewed a number of people who had supported the millage, including one of its originators, Doug Cowherd, for my 2005 article in the Ann Arbor Observer [link]. These supporters denied that they had intended to support density as part of the greenbelt bargain. Others (including some who are also quoted in the article) did intend for the two issues to be linked and thought of them in that way. But what was presented to the voters was actually an anti-development scenario, including suggestions that the greenbelt would reduce traffic congestion and protect local (city) parks. Again, Chuck is correct that there were discussions ongoing at the same time that linked the two subjects. It probably depended on within what circles one was discussing the subject. Still, to say that the greenbelt millage was a vote for density is not correct.

By: Chuck Warpehoski

Chuck Warpehoski — Fri, 28 May 2010 16:00:24 +0000

re: the Greenbelt millage, while Vivienne is correct that the millage language and official lit did not talk about a stop sprawl/increase density bargain, such a bargain was a big part of the discussions in the News and community during that time (I cite some sources for this in my comment on Vivienne's post. re: the role of commuter lots and intermodal transportation, since many people in the region afford housing with a drive till you qualify approach, I see an economic justice reason to to provide diverse transportation options, including park-and-ride, bike trails, buses, AND parking (and ideally regional commuter rail). And just to feed the rumor mill, I have heard that the city plans to revise the plan to make it a "Levin plan" with rail in the first phase.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Wed, 26 May 2010 14:41:07 +0000

Interesting, thanks Dave.

By: Fred Zimmerman

Fred Zimmerman — Wed, 26 May 2010 14:02:08 +0000

I reviewed the proposal in 50 but found it difficult to understand. But I agree with Rod that making pool-goers cross Fuller is very unlikely and IMHO should be considered unacceptable.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Wed, 26 May 2010 13:32:53 +0000

Re: [49] "I don't understand what you're proposing." I'm not sure that this UM student project (class taught by Peter Allen) is what Michael has in mind, but it's a somewhat more ambitious vision of that entire corridor that sounds at least in some ways consistent with his comments above -- large .pdf file: [link] That project was included in a set of student development proposals listed in a Chronicle column published in December last year: "Visions for the Library Lot"

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Wed, 26 May 2010 13:21:47 +0000

Michael, I don’t understand what you’re proposing. The only undeveloped parcels within a mile are Fuller Park, Island Park, Mitchell Field and the Arb. The proposed FITS site is a narrow strip between Fuller and the bluff the hospital sits on, maybe a couple hundred feet from front to back. Where would residential units go?

As for removing pool parking, forcing families with small children, strollers, etc. to cross Fuller to get to the pool? Seems very unlikely, in my opinion.