Comments on: The Varsity Prompts Design, Traffic Concerns

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:18:59 +0000

Mr. Derezinski ought to be reminded that if not for the pressure of neighboring property owners and a few members of City Council, there would have been no Heritage Row to vote on at all. The first three proposals for this site were for 4-5 story townhouses, the last of which, Mr. Derezinski joined his council colleagues in rejecting unanimously.

While City Place may be the evil of two lessers, with just a little more help from City Council members like Mr. Derezinski, a compromise might have been reached on a modified Heritage Row that would have been acceptable to all sides.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:23:12 +0000

… having said that, it is entirely possible that projects currently under construction (Zaragon Place II, 601 Forest) could significantly restrain rents in central Ann Arbor. I’m not a real estate economist so I have no idea how many units you’d have to add to make a difference. We’ll have to wait & see.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:17:29 +0000

Jim, the single most effective way to make it easier for people to live in town without owning a car is increased density in the city through A) an increase in the number of units available in the central core and B) amendments to zoning to further encourage high-density development in the central area of town rather than on the periphery. The main reason more people don’t live in/near downtown is a shortage of units at a price that the people who would be interested in living there are able to pay. (I should know, as I was effectively priced out of central Ann Arbor when I was buying a home last year.)

Based on the recent reports I’ve seen on the Chronicle, it’s highly unlikely that the Planning Commission will pursue policies to increase the number of units available in these areas. If anything, they’ll make it more difficult to do so.

If parking is scarce & costly enough, people may opt to go without a car. So if the Commission really wanted to discourage car ownership, they could simply drop their parking requirements. Again, not going to happen.

So in general, I see little chance that the Commission will take any substantive action to encourage Ann Arbor residents to get rid of their cars.

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:09:51 +0000

I don’t understand where that pedestrian connection from Washington to Huron is supposed to take you. You can’t cross Huron mid-block, and there aren’t any buildings on Huron you can’t get to from Washington. I’m all in favor of more space for pedestrians, but this one doesn’t seem to go anywhere.

These big projects always seem to cause problems with parking and traffic. Would it make sense for the Planning Commission to explore ways to make it easier for people to live in town without owning a car?

By: Edward Vielmetti

Edward Vielmetti — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:58:55 +0000

By the previous calculus of the Monroe Street article, if we’re assuming the DDA’s $45,000 per space for parking capital costs, this would mean that about $3.5 million of the project cost is devoted to parking. If they are priced at the U of Michigan’s “Gold” rate, you’d expect that they would rent for upwards of $100,000 per year all told. Both of those are approximations, and I’m suspicious of both of them, especially if you wonder if the landlord will have some latitude to adjust resident parking prices separate from residential lease prices.

I can’t tell from the story whether these spaces would be leased solely and exclusively to residents of the structure, or whether any of them might be offered to the general public.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:54:03 +0000

I’m glad that the issue of parking is being discussed thoroughly. The idea about the massive project on 5th was that it was to address present deficits in parking supply downtown. It would be a pity if new development were now built proposing to use up any relief of the current constraints on downtown parking, especially in the State Street area.

The concern about students parking in the neighborhoods is also justified. The idea that students don’t “need parking on site” implies that they can store cars elsewhere. You’d have to show me some data to convince me that students who can afford to live in such high-end housing will not also possess an automobile.