Comments on: Column: Ann Arbor’s Monroe (Street) Doctrine

By: Jordan

Jordan — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:02:12 +0000

That would be a good spot for a skatepark!

But I can’t believe nobody has seen fit to mention the Monroe Street Fair. A primary aspect of this fair is that a certain sort of consumption is encouraged on the city side of the city/state jurisdictional line. Transferring this property, in its entirety, to the state eliminates the core activity (and urban landscape) of the fair and threatens the entire decade-long tradition.

Obviously this would be another example of value beyond parking spaces.

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:23:30 +0000

Thank you for the analysis. This issue does deserve some public debate.

I too would be interested to know what the terms of the Ingalls Mall deal were.

And I kind of like the skatepark idea. Or some other public use beyond just a pedestrian link between two U buildings.

By: Peter Allen

Peter Allen — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:08:53 +0000

I disagree that there should be a clear change at the campus edges as one goes from the town to the gown and campus. We should encourage infilling the buildable areas around the edges, such as this street, and parking lots along the interface, whether U or city owned, especially if it encourages walkability. Infill with quality, mixed use places offering retail, restaurants, office and residential. Extend the walkable, place based characteristics of State and Main into “reaches”into the campus. Add life, people and density. All the land owned by the city would be offered on a long term (eg. 99 years) land lease based on the development. The U should do the same with their parking lots and unused open space. Economically, the fair market land rent would be 10% of the fair market sales value, which would be 15% of the value of the proposed development. All the private property development is on the tax roles. Everybody wins, including the budget woes of the city and University. Peter

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:11:27 +0000

Re: “David, has there been any discussion about the utilities that are most likely under this piece of real estate?”

Sorry, I don’t know.

By: abc

abc — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:01:44 +0000

“Is it wide enough to be buildable?”

I see no reason for it to be considered unbuildable; there is roughly 100 feet between buildings. Granted, the style of the current buildings may not lend themselves to this but there is more than one example in town of buildings spanning roadways. Underground is also possible and we have examples of that too. The long and short of it being buildable is that it is a third of an acre unencumbered by zoning (setbacks, height limits, etc.). Note Tower Plaza is 60 feet by 125 feet.

I am also aware that it has been reported that the university wants this space to be a pedestrian space which may mean that any development would be underground. David, has there been any discussion about the utilities that are most likely under this piece of real estate?

By: Edward Vielmetti

Edward Vielmetti — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:09:15 +0000

One more estimate of value comes from the appraisal of the 6-foot-wide piece of land that the city is going to sell to the AATA downtown. You reported that was $90,000 for 792-square-feet of land, or about $113/sq ft. At that price, this parcel would be worth nearly $2 million – more than the “parking replacement cost” measure, but less than the “75 times annual short-term rental” measure.

I wonder what that parcel would fetch on the open market if the city decided to sell it to someone else other than the U. Is it wide enough to be buildable? Just think what the rents you could get from an apartment that was seconds from the Law School.

By: john floyd

john floyd — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:10:04 +0000

Why wouldn’t we use Issue A to gain leverage on Issue B? The U seems at least as unreasonable in its dealings with the city as it is arrogant. Without use of what pressue points we have, it seems hard to even get the attention of the U.

By: B Brown

B Brown — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:09:10 +0000

I agree with Dave(not askins) about service vehicles parking.
After driving a U-M bus for almost 30 years, I’m aware but I’m not sure the decision-makers are aware, of the many charter bus trips to and from the Law School. Hutchins hall is one of the few places multiple buses can load and drop off passengers safely. Otherwise S. State St and/or S.University St. become single lanes, causing horrible traffic jams and irate drivers.
I can’t imagine that the University wants to force their guests, the class of ’58,to walk 3 blocks in foul weather to hunt down their bus to get back to Weber’s.
Each bus is 40 ft. long, please think about that.
Another safety issue in winter time: State St. often becomes icy, or at least very slick, and Monroe St. has been a good option for those not willing to risk the hill there.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:37:58 +0000

“If the large multimillion-dollar private company can demonstrate that X jobs will be created as a result of a project that eliminates the on-street parking spaces, then that’s relevant to the discussion.”

The widespread belief that jobs are a community benefit is a self-perpetuating myth. Not that that will ever be a topic of discussion (as opposed to dismissal or derision), not even here. So…

If you’re going to try to value those on-street parking spaces, Dave, keep in mind that revenues don’t take into account their after-hours use.

Ah, the ability to get back to the details when the big picture is simply beyond comprehension.

By: Rick Cronn

Rick Cronn — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:56:44 +0000

The names on the letters and emails are the usual cast of back room dealers making decisions for us plebes.

Secret meeting and conversations? Conflict of interest? Why am I not surprised? Move along, nothing to see here…until the deal is done. Then all will be revealed.

Great work, Dave.