5 reasons why Ann Arbor shouldn't bother to create new development process
City officials and Ann Arbor’s Downtown Development Authority said this week they are considering giving control of the “RFP process” to the DDA.
The move would let the DDA determine how the “requests for proposals” to develop city-owned land are sought and evaluated, instead of City Council.
Here are my top 5 reasons why this suggestion - while obviously done with good intentions for the city’s downtown - just gives me a headache.
1. Market forces need to guide private development. At some point it doesn’t matter how much a community wants to see something on a property if the owner cannot make it a viable development project.
2. Market forces need to guide public development, too. Building something that fulfills a community vision is important - but if the community is going to end up subsidizing it because there is no market for the end product, there may be no net gain.
3. The city doesn’t really want development. If it did, wouldn’t we have seen more of it from 2000-2006? We do want to argue about it, regulate it, keep every special interest group happy when we consider it and make money from it. But unless the city - as a whole, not just a special-interest subset - is ready to encourage a degree of compromise, we don’t need a new process. The old one will keep things frozen in time just as well.
4. More “master planning” and consultant-hiring is part of the goal. Do we really not know enough about downtown yet to make informed decisions? Or are we just afraid to hear something contrary to what we want to hear? It feels like we’ve been talking about this for a long time. (And we really don’t need more consultant-driven rumors about Nordstrom opening a downtown store.)
5. Does the city really belong in the development business? So far, we’ve seen RFPs stall, forced partnerships with no results and a lot of time and money wasted. This process may be an improvement. But it may be time to ask: Is this really the right way for a local municipality to dispose of excess property? Maybe the underlying premise - that the city can set a price for the land and retain control of it - won’t ever be productive for Ann Arbor.
Paula Gardner is Business News Director of AnnArbor.com, and she's covered development in Ann Arbor since 2003. Contact her at 734-623-2586 or by email. Sign up for the weekly Business Review newsletter, distributed every Thursday, here.
Comments
EcoRonE
Sat, Sep 11, 2010 : 2:24 p.m.
After 4 years of re-visioning downtown and creating new zoning and design guidelines, including many meetings, discussions, concepts and plans about the publicly owned properties, ( http://www.a2gov.org/a2d2/Pages/AnnArbo.aspx) I was perplexed by Joan's comment that the DDA is needed to provide a consistent plan for these properties. This comment might indicate the process did not succeed all that well. Or maybe just the opposite. Maybe the process resulted in the city (the people) specifying their requirements sufficiently that it makes perfect sense to now to let the DDA manage the development of the public properties in the area. I prefer to think the latter case is true. Can anyone say it's not and provide evidence? Note that Zaragon 1 came about as a direct result of rezoning the South U area (in 2007?) to be the same as the core downtown area (and many people did not like that it replaced the old Amberay building). Unlike several other projects in the city approved about the same time, Zaragon was able to find financing and complete their project in a timely manner - and found the city process friendly enough to propose Zaragon 2 shortly after even though they were required to provide ground floor retail/public use in a mixed use residential building.
Speechless
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 7:44 p.m.
With respect to city-owned downtown properties that it would like to see developed, the city council has both a fiscal and an ethical responsibility to its constituents to direct and guide market forces in such a way as to help meet agreed-upon priorities and needs. That is true whether the end result is a 12-story tower or an additional skate park. There's no such thing as pure "market forces," since economic viability is strongly affected by the existing infrastructure and by available subsidies.
Stephen Landes
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 2:25 p.m.
LiberalNIMBY wrote "Mall owners (and Walt Disney for that matter) never "let the market decide" on what kinds of buildings and businesses locate on their properties. " Private property owners are making decisions on the basis of what they think will make MONEY. That is the market making decisions. The market decides with dollars -- what people will and won't support. Those who understand the market best - who the potential customers are and what they want - succeed. Those who don't understand the market fail. Check out the Ann Arbor Observer section on businesses starting and failing for a quick course. If you don't understand that then you need to do some basic reading to understand how our economy works.
Lokalisierung
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 1:41 p.m.
"5 reasons why Ann Arbor shouldn't bother to create new development process Topics: Business Review, Downtown Ann Arbor, News, ---->Opinion
John Q
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 1:38 p.m.
Paula, I still don't see the case for "the market" supporting more development downtown. You've cited one example of where a low-rise development was proposed and the developer was forced to do something more high-rise which has resulted in commercial and residential space that hasn't been filled. If that's the case, it seems to contradict your claim that if the city had allowed more development, there would have been demand to fill that space. One development gone south hardly seems to make the case that you've boldly made.
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 12:54 p.m.
ummm, errr, the url on my screen is: http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/5-reasons-why-ann-arbor-officials-dda-dont-need-to-bother-with-new-development-process/??????????????????
LiberalNIMBY
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 12:53 p.m.
I think it's tricky to speculate about what "the city" wants. I personally believe that if you could sit down and describe to every voter exactly what the financial ramifications of our Council's anti-development stance are, you would be getting different people on Council and different people coming to speak at meetings. Mall owners (and Walt Disney for that matter) never "let the market decide" on what kinds of buildings and businesses locate on their properties. There's a well-known, specific science to a well-functioning retail and leasing environment -- for instance, malls will give free rent to a Macy's or Sears so that they bring people to the mall and drive traffic to the other stores (where they make their rent). Cities who ignore these lessons do so at their peril. Now that the DDA has built out the parking system, they're the perfect body to put Ann Arbor in a better situation. And no, I don't think that it's good enough that we're just "doing better" than most cities in Michigan!
A24eva
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 12:31 p.m.
AnnArbor.com, why are opinion columns consistently listed under the "news" tab? Why not create an "opinion" tab so that "news" is separate from "views".
Paula Gardner
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 12:12 p.m.
No, John Q, I didn't say the city hasn't seen enough development downtown - I'm saying that if the city really wanted it (and taking more steps to hire consultants, improve the process, etc should only be done IF the city wants more development) then we'd have seen more of it during the years when it was economically feasible. And the forced changes on Ashley Terrace aren't subjective. They're rising 10 stories on West Huron and behind the still-vacant retail space. Why can't the requirements you cited - zoning (like the revisions post-A2D2), setbacks, water, etc. - be part of the framework for developing city-owned sites instead of hiring still more consultants and drilling into more process changes?
John Q
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 12:04 p.m.
Why are you afraid to look at the numbers? You made the claim that there the city hasn't seen enough development downtown. On what basis do you make that claim? Surely there must be something more to your point than your feelings. On your point that the city "forced" changes on a particular development, it's a completely subjective claim. The city has all kinds of requirements for new development like requiring water and sewer hookups and zoning setbacks and building code requirements. Someone could claim that any or all of those requirements are excessive or unneeded. You seem to be taking the position that the city should allow private developers to do what they want. I've seen enough development failures over the years that were entirely the result of the private sector's own choices to not have blind faith in the wisdom of "the marketplace".
JSA
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 11:48 a.m.
The residents, at least the vocal minority that make the city council hide under their beds, are extremely hostile to development. Ann Arbor, the home of NIMBY.
Lokalisierung
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 11:38 a.m.
True, and I think more than anything a lot of people feel like this town should be Dexter or Saline. I'm all in favor of putting up some big buildings, and get more than a little mad when people start claiming that the sun will be blocked and they'll mutate into CHUDS with no sunlight.
Paula Gardner
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 11:30 a.m.
When you consider the development potential of downtown Ann Arbor, we're a small town. Not like Stockbridge or one of the two-block, charming villages in the Adirondacks. But we still have a Main Street that's just a couple of blocks long, where expanding the retail district from there is a challenge, where the new condo demand was estimated by outsiders at 1000's just five years ago... but in-town developers thought the figure was optimistic in the low 100s. We're definitely seeing some "pioneering" in downtown expansion - McKinley Towne Centre opened up retail/restaurant at Division Street, 4 Eleven Lofts, North Quad - they're helping "stretch" the boundaries of economic viability into new blocks downtown.
Lokalisierung
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 11:21 a.m.
Are we a small town? 224th in the country...I guess that's small.
Paula Gardner
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 11:08 a.m.
But we also didn't just decide that piecemeal is bad or fresh ideas are good. We've been working on this for a long time, with a lot of emotional and dollar investment in an outcome. We just don't seem to have that workable outcome. The DDA does need to be driving this - and giving them a clear seat at the table may be the best & most definitive change that we need. But I'll also say that piecemeal may be part of the result - the pace of development in Ann Arbor, even in "good times," may end up forcing that. We're still a small town. Good ideas are always needed. But maybe we also should set up a "Remember Calthorpe?" viewing party at CTN and review the A2D2 meeting minutes before getting too invested in deciding what the next step has to be.
Betsy Jackson
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 11:05 a.m.
Paula - I think your observations reflect the symptoms of the problem, not an analysis of the proposed solution. The "marketplace" has not made a single development decision in downtowns since the end of World War Two without the involvement of the public sector. Wrapping themselves in the flag of "let the marketplace decide," while still holding out their hands for subsidies or zoning forgiveness, or tax abatements, "the private sector" has either (1) been allowed to roll over a downtown because of lack of leadership from the public sector or (2) run out of downtown due to unrealistic demands...also because of a lack of public sector leadership. The proposal to have the DDA manage the RfP process for downtown at the very least indicates an acknowledgement that the current process has not worked. The DDA is charged, after all, with downtown development. Let them do their work...and provide the leadership required to get appropriate, sustainable, market-driven partnerships off the drawing boards and on the street.
Stephen Landes
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 11 a.m.
Paula -- what do the best cities of the size and character of Ann Arbor do; what processes do they follow? We don't need to have this discussion on a vacuum. I'll bet developers, as one stakeholder in the process, can tell us what they think works best. Our bankers can give us that kind of input, too. There must be associations of city governments/planners that could help. I once told a former mayor that after having experienced Disney World I thought all city planners should be required to do an internship with Disney. It seemed to me that Disney planners had an objective like "bring the maximum number of people into the maximum number of opportunities to spend money and feel good about it" - wouldn't that thought be something hopeful for business in town.. I well remember leaving DW one evening with my family. As we got off the monorail at EPCOT and were waiting for the parking lot tram I said to my son "Well, that's the last ride". He told me that no, there was one more -- he considered the parking lot tram a fun ride while I considered it a welcome, but necessary, convenience. I think the thought process that transforms something as mundane as a parking lot tram into a fun ride can have a profound influence on the way our city and transportation planners think about Ann Arbor. It certainly could make it a lot more fun to live here.
boom
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 10:59 a.m.
You go girl!
Joan Lowenstein
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 10:57 a.m.
What's missing from the column is the main goal of the DDA proposal; to avoid a piecemeal approach to the downtown, publicly-owned lots and put in place a real plan. Knowledgeable people like Bob Beckley have been advocating this for a long time. With a real plan, an RFP may not even be necessary if developers come forward with projects that meet objectives set forth in the plan.
Newcombe Clark
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 10:52 a.m.
Jeez Paula, you too? Why not a column with the 100 things we SHOULDN'T do to help improve on our current unsustainable status quo? Or how about the 1000 things we shouldn't do? Or how about a column on the 1 thing we SHOULD do. I know it's easy and less complex to just react to ideas with a 'no', or let's form a committee to tell you 'no' 18 months from now. The work (and yes, the risk) is coming to the table with constructive criticism or, god forbid, ideas of one's own. It reminds me of my favorite new joke... Knock, Knock. Who's There? The DDA with an idea to improve downtown? I don't like it. But wait, do you have some feedback or other ideas? I've got nothing in my back pocket. Ok, well we've got other ideas... Get off my lawn. Uhm...ok And leave your wallet here. uhm... And Scene Ideas people....ideas! Open call. We want to hear them. Our wall is getting sticky with everything we keep throwing at it.
townie
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 10:13 a.m.
Agree with John Q and disagree with Bob Beckley. MANY projects were approved by the City to be built downtown over the last 10 years (ask the City Planning Dept. for the list). But ultimately, it is the bankers who are the gate keepers for what gets built and that's why only a select few of these approved projects actually made it that far. Just imagine if they had all been built. How many would now be foreclosed? How many would be empty hulks instead of the vacant lots they are now? We need jobs before buildings. To me, a "well-intentioned" developer is one who submits a project that not only makes sense to his bottom line, but also is compatible with the City's master plans, zoning, and aesthetics. Developers who consider these factors have an easy time getting approval (look at Zaragon 2 as an example). Developers that do the opposite, and try to stuff inappropriate projects into areas not zoned for them using planned unit developments or other work-arounds, will find resistance. Unfortunately, this resistance currently comes almost solely from the private sector, as the current planning commission and council majority seem ready to approve anything that comes through the door. I don't want Ann Arbor "frozen in time" and it is frankly a juvenile argument taken to the extreme. And "cry me a river" over developers who supposedly only build things because the City forces them to. Come on, get real. If there is money to be made, it will get built. Those who are urging caution about City-owned property are primarily concerned with the City's attempt to force non-viable uses on to these lots that would require huge public subsidies to build and sustain. Whenever the City tries to play developer, it loses. I'm all for additional planning for publicly-owned lots downtown, within the context of the recently approved Downtown Plan and D1/D2 zoning (and soon, hopefully, comprehensive design guidelines). If this planning results in identifying very specific needs for specific sites, then there are legal ways to restrict the land to those uses. If the use is not a public one, the City needs to sell the property, with restrictions if necessary, and get out of the way.
Paula Gardner
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 9:40 a.m.
In my opinion, the city has blocked development in and around downtown. And the issue is complex enough that I don't think numbers will tell that story - every project has enough grey area, where the public discussion about it can result in really positive changes. But I also don't think that anyone wanting to develop anything in the city - particularly on city-owned land - expects a welcome reaction from council or neighbors. There have been a number of approved and actual developments. But there also have been battles like Glen Ann, Heritage Row, William Street Station - even going back to the Freed's plans for First & Washington, back in the early RFP for what now is the Village Green site on the former parking deck. And some of those actual developments reflect the city forcing some changes onto the projects that fulfill the city's goals but perhaps not the developer's. One example: Ashley Terrace once was proposed as a low-levl office building for the tenant that's in there now. The city's goal for mixed use drove the condos/rteail components, neither of which are owrking int he market. That could be the economic factors. It also could be that Ann Arbor really couldn't support 10 floors of condos there and high priced retail space a block west of downtown's core.
braggslaw
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 9:27 a.m.
Great practical approach to development. Recognize the character of Ann Arbor within a fiscally sound process.
Nancy Shore
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 9:02 a.m.
One point of clarification. The idea is the for DDA to take over the development of City owned surface parking lots downtown, not all City Owned land downtown.
Bob Beckley
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 8:39 a.m.
Sorry Paula, I think you got it wrong. If the development market is working in A2 then why is it such a nightmare for well intentioned developers to get anything built in this town. Giving a leadership role to the DDA...please note the word leadership...can advance both private and public interests in a pro-active manner. Bob Beckley
John Q
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 8:35 a.m.
Paula is entitled to her opinion but it's lacking in the factual department. Point number 3 implying that the city has blocked development happening in and around downtown is not supported by the facts. How about some numbers backing that up that claim? Or is Paula afraid to actually back up her claims with actual numbers? The truth is that there has been quite a bit of actual and approved developments in and around downtown. It's a claim made by people who like to bash any city involvement in the development process. But development in Ann Arbor has been healthy and holds up against any other comparable community in Michigan. The general thrust of her argument is fundamentally wrong too. No private developer abdicates control over their property to "the market". Why should the city? As long as we're talking city-owned property, the city should have a say in how it's developed and exercise appropriate control. If the city is proposing something that the private market won't support, private development proposals won't come forward.
DagnyJ
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 7:46 a.m.
I agree. Let the market work when it comes to development. I would only ask the city to set up a few regulations about sidewalks, setbacks, and maybe get some money for adjacent improvements for parking, traffic flow. But after that, let the market decide what should go there. Micromanaging every square inch of downtown is a horrible idea. Thanks Paula.
UFOfairyologist
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 7:19 a.m.
I am skeptical of studies, committees and self proclaimed experts (like me;) ). For example, I was very disappointed how the West Park artist selection process was handled. I'd reckon that I have brought more people downtown than the DDA has (hopefully more than the number deterred by the increased parking rates). Jonathan b. Wright, Fairyologist
Steve Hendel
Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 6:11 a.m.
Amen! We don't need more studies, more consultants, etc. regarding development downtown or anywhere else. What we DO need is for our elected officials to have the political will to actually make decisions and stick to them. Anyway, you know the definition of a consultant: someone you hire to tell you the time, and the first thing they do is ask to borrow your watch.