I just received a copy of a really fine report and analysis of the Library Lot from an authoritative source. It makes a stronger case than I was ever able to make, based on really substantive research, that a hotel and conference center in Ann Arbor on the Library Lot or elsewhere would be a losing proposition.

“Our estimated shortfall [before debt service] is approximately ($1,105,00). Our research concludes that a conference center, whether it is 25,000 square feet or 32,000 square feet, will fall far short of meeting debt service.”

Sorry to be a tease, but I hope to get out a post and documentation tomorrow.

I like the idea of the Library Lot as being “reset” in the course of this discussion. It makes sense for all of us, whether in the same page, paragraph, or merely folio, to step back and rethink what we are trying to achieve downtown.

I agree, which is why I think this is a very workable proposal that we can all get behind as a community. There has been very similar, but more narrowly focused discussion in some of the DDA committee meetings lately and from other quarters. I’ve also found a lot of documentation that lends itself to this approach by reading through the DDA’s own plan, the Downtown Plan, SPARK’s website and other plans and studies. Lot’s of strings floating around that belong in the same rope.

In response to Peter, I think we also largely agree, but timing is the issue. The DDA parcel plan is supposed to be returning to Council on March 7. I’m not aware of anything related to the conference center being put on the agenda as of yet, but it seems it won’t be far behind. The smartest thing would be for Council to kill the conference center before discussing anything further about development of downtown parcels. The tunnel vision applied to this conference center idea has been remarkable.

The removal of the bond issue only pushes the snake underground in terms of the true public costs and risks of a publicly-owned conference center. Vivienne has done an excellent series of blog posts that I think present a far better analysis than Roxbury did. They should have given her that $35,000. She certainly earned it far more than they did and has exposed how the developers would subordinate payments to the City to their own profits and private creditors. Conference centers lose money and the City would be responsible for this perpetual operating loss with no study showing any positive effects to offset it.

We’ve spent 8 years and a good deal of money studying various aspects of downtown, developing a new master plan and zoning, and even design guidelines, which are still waiting for formal incorporation into the development process. All of these plans and studies contain a lot of elements that apply to bricks and mortar issues, and those have largely been adopted in the Downtown Plan, the D1/D2 zoning and the new design guidelines (once codified). Developers and architects now have a pretty clear guide as to what the community wants to see from new buildings and how those buildings should interact with the sidewalk and street. …

Most of these values are already documented in various plans. For example, did you know the County has a Cultural Plan? Other aspects have been quietly worked on in lesser-publicized DDA committees, SPARK, the Downtown Citizen’s Advisory Council, etc. If we could pull together the existing resources of the City, County, the various agencies and citizens groups, and get everyone working in the same direction, I’m sure it wouldn’t take long to pull together a cohesive document.

Tom, there’s large chunks of your comment — those I’ve extracted here, for example — that to me sound just like something the DDA’s executive director, or board members might say. That is, I don’t think the DDA means to be proposing to develop a parcel-by-parcel plan independent of the eight years of history of planning you mention, or independent of other relevant agencies or the public. SPARK, for example, is called out specifically in the proposal, as are public meetings. [.pdf of council resolution articulating the DDA-led process]

So it looks to me like you and the DDA might at least be on the “same page” — but perhaps not on not the “same paragraph.”

About Peter’s note in [12] — that the crucial focus right now is the Library Lot decision — it’s worth pointing out, I think, that some people see an adoption of a DDA-led effort for parcel-by-parcel planning as perhaps a kind of “re-setting” of the Library Lot discussion. From the Chronicle’s Jan. 18, 2011 meeting report:

She [Sabra Briere (Ward 1)] wanted to know exactly what they were talking about before voting. Specifically, she wanted to understand if the resolution before them that night applied to the Library Lot RFP process, which is still pending. Her assumption, she said, was that passing the resolution would mean the DDA would take over a new process for development of the Library Lot – that is, the top of the underground parking garage currently under construction. She said she was not prepared to vote that night

And during the August 2010 Democratic primary campaign, at one of the candidate forums, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated his view that the Library Lot discussion should be started essentially from scratch. From the Chronicle’s report of that forum, which took place at the home of Tamara Real:

Hohnke said he is not convinced that any of the proposals that had been submitted are good ones, and it’s important to remember that a request for proposals does not need to be acted on by the city. If none of them meet the satisfaction of the community, there’s no need to accept one, he stressed.

Hohnke continued that he would like to see a renewed effort of community conversation – starting from a blank slate, with no preconceptions. What is the best solution for this vital parcel right in the center of our community?

One material fact that has changed since Hohnke made those comments is the revision of Valiant’s proposal so that it would no longer require the city to support the project by issuing bonds.

Councilman Stephen Rapundalo’s Library Lot Advisory Committee is going to recommend to Council that the convention center and hotel be built. The plan which Councilman Rapundalo wants Council to approve will result in a large building complex on the last remaining space which can serve as a center for the downtown. In all likelihood the conference center/hotel will fail to be profitable.

Convention centers across the country typically operate at a loss. Even the developer and other promoters of the center admit that there’s no hard economic data or independent financial analysis to support this project. A failed project of this size in the center of town won’t improve economic stability nor will it make the downtown more attractive.

The projections for income from the hotel and conference center made by the developer are not consistent with the financial experience of other cities with similar conference centers. Even the consultant hired to report on the viability of this project was not able to produce an independent financial analysis, and instead relied on the dollar figures provided by the promoters.

There are a large number of credible studies which show that few conference centers can support themselves without public subsidies. I am aware of no instance of a conference center in a town like Ann Arbor which have been successful without financial support from taxpayers. Why should we have a large failed development in the center of our downtown?

I recently contacted a several council members about the conference center complex. Four of them expressed their doubts about the project. Council members need to hear from their constituents on this one. However you feel about the conference center, why not take a moment to let Council know your opinion?

All of these plans and studies contain a lot of elements that apply to bricks and mortar issues, and those have largely been adopted in the Downtown Plan, the D1/D2 zoning and the new design guidelines (once codified). Developers and architects now have a pretty clear guide as to what the community wants to see from new buildings and how those buildings should interact with the sidewalk and street.

But these zoning ordinances and plans, and many others from the City and County, contain other elements that are a bit more fuzzy and harder to quantify in charts and diagrams. There are quality of life issues, there are visions for what our city should be in the future; there is talk of public open space, art, culture, sustainability, and business development. These are the important things that the community often finds to be absent from proposals like the hotel and conference center.

How do these ideals get communicated to those who want to build here? Where do elected officials and City staff go to get a feel for what it is that the community really wants to encourage? Currently, it is far too easy to skip over the more flowery language in these plans and go right to the bricks and mortar stuff only to have the public react in anger and resentment.

I’ve been discussing this with several very intelligent members of the community who follow City issues closely. Some are trained as urban planners and architects. The consensus of these conversations is that what the City needs is an integrated economic development plan for downtown. By integrated, I mean that it should incorporate elements that address the full range of community values that should be considered when trying to grow the downtown economy: Values such as art, local food, sustainability (not just environmentally speaking, but in all aspects of community life), parks and REAL open space, education, and affordable housing.

This wouldn’t need to be another enormous effort taking years to produce. Most of these values are already documented in various plans. For example, did you know the County has a Cultural Plan? Other aspects have been quietly worked on in lesser-publicized DDA committees, SPARK, the Downtown Citizen’s Advisory Council, etc. If we could pull together the existing resources of the City, County, the various agencies and citizens groups, and get everyone working in the same direction, I’m sure it wouldn’t take long to pull together a cohesive document. The City just received a grant from the Home Depot Foundation to develop something quite similar. Perhaps this could be used to facilitate things.

With regard to the Library Lot, the only robustness has been the longevity and persistence of the Valiant proposal. I’ve been tracking this mysterious process as best I can and have summarized recent findings on a post, [link].

DDA Chairwoman Joan Lowenstein wants the DDA to make decisions instead of Council so that unpopular decisions are not subject to voter approval. Ms. Lowenstein said to Council members on Nov 17, 2010:

“All of you here have to run for office every couple of years. There is no reason why any of you should have to run for office on the question of whether parking is $1.50 an hour or $1.75 an hour. You are elected to make broad policy decisions and have a broad policy agenda. And what we’re suggesting here is that we take over what are some of the managerial parts of this whole process so that we can, in effect, shield you from having to do that.”

When DDA was promoting the underground parking, they repeatedly insisted that the payments on the approximately $50 million general obligation bond for the project would be made from parking revenues. Before even a single payment was made, DDA voted to make the first 5 years of payments from tax revenue.

The decision to build the underground parking did not have a robust public process. The DDA also spent additional millions of dollars to reinforce the structure so that it could support a high rise building. The push to build a large building above the underground parking seemed to follow the Lowenstein principle of making decisions without public input.

I’d be more supportive of the DDA if these events had not occurred.

It’s good to remember that DDA was put in place in 1982 when the downtown was struggling. Now that conditions are different, I’d like to see more discussion of the DDA’s role and it’s responsibilities to our community.

Compared to what we’ve seen, I think the DDA proposal looks like an improvement. And I do think that given the “checkpoints” that Taylor described, if the City approves the vision, approves the RFP, approves the bid, and then backs out at the last minute, I think it’s fair to ask the city to chip in on the costs for that last stage.

David, I think there may be an ambiguity in the expression “to develop surface parking lots” that’s worth resolving. The intended meaning is not “to create additional surface parking lots” but rather “take existing surface parking lots and develop them into something else instead.”