You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : noon

Discussion begins Tuesday: Is Ann Arbor ready for 2 high-rise apartments downtown?

By Lizzy Alfs


The 14-story high-rise proposed for East Huron Street in downtown Ann Arbor would contain 533 bedrooms.

Humphreys & Partners

Ann Arbor Planning Commission will consider requests Tuesday night for two new 14-story apartment buildings that would bring more than 700 beds to the student rental market.

The 413 East Huron project, proposed for the corner of East Huron and North Division streets, is a 14-story, 216-unit “modern-industrial” apartment building proposed by several out-of-state developers. The estimated development cost is $45 million.

The building would replace a rental house, former Papa John’s pizza store and a vacant building. Connecticut-based Greenfield Partners purchased the various parcels for $6 million during the past six months.

The project, located in the city’s D1 zoning, would include 132 underground parking spaces, and first-floor retail space with food kiosks and a coffee bar. Amenities include a fitness center, yoga studio, business center and outdoor pool on the third level. Plans call for 533 total bedrooms that would be marketed to University of Michigan students.

Because the building would abut a historic residential neighborhood to the north, neighbors and city leaders have tried for months to convince the developers to amend their plans by reducing the building’s massing, increasing setbacks and changing the design.

According to a city of Ann Arbor planning staff report, the “petitioner’s design team considered these options and determined the changes would not fit their development program.”

Planning staff is recommending site plan approval be postponed until outstanding comments related to traffic impact are received from the Michigan Department of Transportation.


A rendering of the proposed development above the Pizza House restaurant on Ann Arbor's Church Street

J Bradley Moore & Associates

Minnesota-based Opus Group and Pizza House restaurant owner Dennis Tice are proposing the second project, located at 624 Church Street. A 14-story, 76-unit building would be constructed over the existing restaurant, which is located in the D1 zoning. There would be between 175 and 185 total bedrooms for U-M students.

Plans include a fitness room, study lounge and rooftop plaza. There would be 42 parking spaces provided off-site in the Forest Avenue public parking structure.

Planning staff is recommending approval of the project.

Ann Arbor Planning Commission will consider both requests at its scheduled meeting at 7 p.m. Jan. 15.

Lizzy Alfs is a business reporter for Reach her at 734-623-2584 or email her at Follow her on Twitter at


Alice Ralph

Thu, Jan 17, 2013 : 11:25 p.m.

The image says a lot--too much, really. I believe there will never be that much daylight on those foreground properties again. Tall isn't necessarily bad, but the orientation of this building is damaging to all places north. Further, such a monoculture of envelope design, of mass and sheer size is damaging to our community, the street experience and the very sustainability that is supposed to be the effect of centralized density. We need housing diversity. We need human scale. We need not only complete streets but also living green infrastructure for bipeds.


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 2:43 p.m.

I understand that there is a decision to be made between sprawl and high rises; however, the high rise push seems to be rushing things faster than necessary. Can the projects be tried one at a time, so we can look at the impact before moving forward?


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 1:44 p.m.

Can the fire department's tallest ladder reach the top of these buildings?


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 7:52 a.m.

This is not complicated. The properties are zoned D1. The plans apparently comply. Therefore the owners can and should develop their properties in a (compliant) manner that maximizes the return on their investments.


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 4:54 a.m.

Yes to Church, No to Huron.


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:18 p.m.

I agree - while I don't oppose the size/position, it's an ugly building by render. Unless that black/gray is granite then it just looks dark.

Jojo B

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 4:07 a.m.

What's up with all of the posh student housing buildings going up? While I'm not really for or against it, doesn't this seem like a market bubble here that's going to explode soon? Is there really a shortage of student housing at this point?


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 2:28 a.m.

Just wondering, how many "high end students" does U of M have, anyway? I would think that supply of dad-pays-the-rent+tuition student is or will be in short supply. I wonder about U of M "breaks" where students flock out of town then come roaring back into town. If the proposed buildings are intended for U of M students, I can only wonder at the aura of desertion which may surround these 14-story buildings during the summer and other break periods. Of course, "the return" of students always "returns" the parking-traffic-infrastructure problems. Oh, and having personally seen the unbelievable numbers of legally eligible students line up with shopping carts loaded with beer and liquor as soon as they get back to town, I can't help but wonder why we'd want the resultant wave of drunkenness & misbehaviors "so nicely concentrated" in areas which used to be quiet and civilized.

Dexter Man

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:46 a.m.

Glad I moved the family to Dexter. I don't have to put up with these unsightly things for students. What are the politicians in Ann Arbor thinking about? This type of development leaves a scar on the skyline.


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:41 a.m.

The future of Ann Arbor is taller buildings. Its been going on for quite awhile now. Everybody needs to understand that high real estate prices demands that developments make more efficient use of the space provided by the lots . That means taller buildings. That being said, I recommend the commission table this proposal and give the developers one more chance to address the concern about totally blocking visibility from the historic district.

Tom Whitaker

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:28 a.m.

Got to love these idyllic developer renderings. Fact is, the houses in the foreground of the top picture will be in a deep, dark, cold shadow cast by this monolithic structure for most of the day, all winter long. The building is boring and offers nothing aesthetically to compensate in any way for the loss of light, air and sky. Why has the City left its longtime residents and property owners so vulnerable to the predatory behavior of national real estate investors with only short-term profit motives? With all the years spent on the new downtown plan and zoning, why can they still come in and do whatever they want to our town and laugh all the way to the bank?

Vivienne Armentrout

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 1:58 a.m.

I don't understand why the downtown plan was allowed to make this a D1 parcel. There was objection from nearby neighbors at the time. There has been an urge to build higher and higher that has nothing to do with the quality of life in Ann Arbor. I attended the Calthorpe workshops and studied the resultant report closely. This area should have been an "interface", stepping down from the central core. Instead it was given the zoning characteristic of the downtown core. Policymakers in Ann Arbor were simply ignoring the quality of life issues and focused on intense development, from reasons ranging from personal interest in development to some sort of ideological bent. They betrayed the citizenry of Ann Arbor in doing this.

Paul Wiener

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 11:19 p.m.

Why only 14 storeys? Doesn't anyone here have the guts to put up a 65-storey building or three?


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:01 a.m.

Really!! Next year.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 11:19 p.m.

Allow sprawl around the outskirts of town, accept the fact that increased density downtown requires taller buildings, or work to reduce the world human population so that neither are necessary...

Tom Whitaker

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:19 a.m.

Student housing does nothing to reduce sprawl. Students will always live close to the university. To combat sprawl, you need to attract all the other population segments--mostly to the neighborhoods that the city has neglected for years with its downtown-centric planning.

Retiree Newcomer

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 10:40 p.m.

This is very dense development without adequate parking. Students who rent here will have cars. The Planning Commission needs to address parking - where will those renters who do not or cannot lease spaces park their cars and what effect will this have on the downtown area? What is the effect of development this dense, populated by students, have on the public safety - fire and police departments of Ann Arbor. Police jurisdiction will undoubtedly fall to the AAPD. The AAPD should be asked to comment. Ditto the AAFD - will more equipment be required to protect high rise residential development? As someone else commented, what about building inspectors for such buildings - will more city inspectors have to be hired, or will such positions be contracted out? What about the traffic impact? The developers should be mandated to pay for a professional traffic report, biased toward the developer though it may be. When such significent developments are approved, does the City of Ann Arbor have the right to exact impact fees from the developers that take into account infrastructure improvments that have to be made? Regarding the appearance of these buildings and how they fit the surrounding downtown environment, does the Planning Commission have a large scale review and architectural review process that must be followed? Finally, what information can be gathered from UMich regarding the need/demand for student housing? Just a few of the questions that need to be asked and answered before Planning Commission approval.

The Picker

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:37 a.m.

Newcomer, You ask too many questions that have no answer. Quit causing trouble and pay your taxes!!!


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 10:05 p.m.

I don't understand how building these developments magically increases the towns population? Are these developers magically able to create humans to fill them? These students are already here and are coming more and more every year! The university doesn't have the room for them, but that isn't going to stop them from admitting them. Why not build some housing for them? Perhaps this will alleviate some of the stress on the neighboring areas and force some clean up of those horrible rental houses, and actually be something good...


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 11:38 p.m.

You are correct. The University has been added about 700 students every year for the past five. They have also been renovating their dorms removing hundreds of rooms. That and the added U jobs account for most of the population increase. The University also has been gobbling up tax base property costing the City millions in revenue. People are losing patience with the U as a result which makes for unhappy campus campers. Newcomers will look elsewhere once the tweets get out. California has just begun internet-based education in its college system (NYtimes). Coupled with the donor need for it to look like an advanced institution, the UM will likely change its tune soon. The vacated slumlord housing is being knocked down for even more disagreeable "multi-family" housing.

Brian Kuehn

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 9:46 p.m.

I worry about the potential for over-building these luxury high-rise student rentals. When the market goes sour we may see some of these monsters sitting vacant for a significant time. The building that houses Courthouse Square was idle for a long time and created a hole that was not filled for many years. No one wants a huge empty or underutilized building rotting away because the owners made a mistake and then left town on the bankruptcy train. Still, unless there is a valid legal reason to deny a developer's plans, it is hard to advocate throwing up artificial barriers to delay the project. We and our representatives wrote the rules and created the zoning. If we do not like the results, time to quickly re-visit the zoning rules.

The Picker

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:29 a.m.

Sorry Brian, But we (through our leaders) have charted a coarse to grow our local government and it is going to take an enormous amount of revenue to sustain it. More seems to be coming in but its never enough. It's too late to re-zone, we can't stop building or we will implode.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 9:59 p.m.

Bingo ! And quickly re-visit the need for any DDA to boot.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 9:42 p.m.

The argument that denser development is green is absolutely false. If anyone is serious about caring for the environment then they are really talking about a sustainable population plan. Density growth is simply packing more people into a smaller space and does zilch for the environment. Voting for the Green Belt program does not necessitate more people cram downtown unless population growth is welcomed. It isn't in any 'green' environment. Why would anyone think otherwise? Sustainability means maintaining what you have got where it is - not growth. In the U.S. every person added is a more wasteful carbon footprint that costs everyone more. Whether they are consuming food 50 % made from carbon fuel fertilizer or bicycling around on a manufactured metal bike or tapping away on their cheap-labor ipad powered by coal. Like the debt ridden Fed, the city should can their DDA lobbyists and start thinking about 'green' sustainability given zero population growth.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 9:17 p.m.

I wonder how the addition of more residents will affect the infrastructure. Will the city's electrical distribution system be enough? How about the water and sewage systems? As has been pointed out, parking is already heavily stressed. How much more crowded with the road network get. The repairs are already lacking. How will the added traffic exacerbate the crumbling?


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 9:03 p.m.

We should build MORE high rise apartment buildings in downtown A2 for the people and make it affordable. Think about it. If we can just centralize the living area, keep under city control and get the people to conform to how to live in an urban environment, they won't need cars and take public transportation or ride a bike! That will protect the environment and help offset global warming. But, the biggest benefit will be, we can control bad behavior much better with less police because everybody will be in the same place. I think this is a great idea!

Tom Whitaker

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:16 a.m.

These projects only serve one segment of the population--university students who are only here for a few years and then move on. Students that would not be in the market for a suburban home anyway. Your sprawl versus downtown theory is not without merit, but we need to be attracting sprawl-dwellers to our neighborhoods. They will never give up what they can get in the townships to live in a small, expensive apartment with hundreds of undergrads. What is the city doing to make the neighborhoods more attractive to newcomers?

Peter Eckstein

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:57 p.m.

One argument for more high-rises downtown is that we need places to attract young professionals who like to live close to work. This case has been made quite forcefully, as I recall, by the head of the Michigan Municipal League. It also suggests the need for more places downtown (in the Main Street area) for places that sell groceries, etc. But to add lots more luxury student apartments only competes for space and makes the area less desirable for young professionals, both visually and socially, and the units are typically designed for multiple students, not for singles or married couples. So the common denominator is development, whether by one rationale or another.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 11:52 p.m.

If the population of Ann Arbor suddenly stopped growing. And as many residents passed on as newborns were made. What forceful argument could be made to build more high-rises downtown? So the common denominator must be no development based upon a third ZPG rationale.

Nicholas Urfe

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:56 p.m.

The DDA, and their out of town business owning buddies, need to ramrod this through quickly. Otherwise they risk that a community grassroots organizer (like Kathy Griswold did) will step forward to unify and give voice to the widespread taxpayer opposition against the out-of-towner-centric agenda and projects.

Lets Get Real

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:55 p.m.

When are we going to stop building dorms for UM? Let them build them, instead of the city allowing our landscape to be cluttered with these high rises which the UM then buys for pennies on the dollar and takes off the tax roles and makes them their own. Look at al of the office space they've acquired this way. Does anyone remember Wolverine Towers used to be a tax paying entity. Remember when Pfizer paid taxes? Stop - just STOP. When did Ann Arbor become so enamoured with high rises, anyway? We've always been the quaint midwestern town. What is the big pe hush to become so cosmopolitan. We are not NYC - nor do I hope we want to be. Anyone remember when the only high rise, at William and Thompson, was the place suicides happened? I guess I'm just old. But, I didn't choose to live here for 40 years because of all the high density housing. Who will pay for the improvements needed for additional water/sewer capacity? Do we even have staff who are experienced with high rise safety inspections? Or is that a new position to be added to the city staff? ChaChing. I'm so disappointed - and I don't even live in close proximity to the builidngs. It is still my town, and I am so disappointed.


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 2:47 p.m.

Well said johnnya2, unless AA is going to be a playground just for the rich, we are going to be choosing between sprawl and high rises. I hope smart choices are made.


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 1:47 a.m.

@LXIX, With considerably higher rents. Take ECON 101/ It is basic supply and demand. If there is demand for 100 beds currently, and there is a supply of 90, that means the price can be whatever the landlord wants to charge. If the supply is raised to 110, that means the 10 landlords must improve, convert to single family or lower their rent. THAT is a good thing. For the record, you are free to purchase any of the properties and decide to do what you want with them, but instead you expect the owners to just sit on property and keep it empty because YOU like it that way


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 11:55 p.m.

And if nobody builds them Ann Arbor remains an even more attractive place to live.

Elaine F. Owsley

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 9:53 p.m.

You can't have it both ways. If the University builds them, they pay no taxes. If a private investor builds them, they pay a whole lot more in taxes than any empty old house.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:50 p.m.

132 parking spaces for 500+ bedrooms designed for single students rather than families? Parking is already such a serious/expensive problem in the area, why make it completely intolerable? Those of us who live elsewhere in AA will have even more reasons to avoid downtown completely. You will also see even more longterm parking in the outskirts like on the lot at Plymouth and 23. AA WAS a nice place to live. The new developments along Washtenaw and Plymouth crowding the walks and roads are about as attractive as the stadium's golden halo.

Elaine F. Owsley

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:49 p.m.

Here we go again! Honestly, Ann Arbor will just have to come to grips with the fact that it isn't Kansas any more. Surprised there's no hew and cry from the HDC.


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 3:19 a.m.

The HDC reviews new construction and changes to properties already in an historic district. These two projects are not in historic districts.


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:55 a.m.

I'd never seen that written before so I looked it up: HEW AND CRY HUE AND CRY If you were to accidently whack your leg with a hatchet you might be said to hew it, and you would certainly be justified in crying. But in the expression "hue and cry" "hue" means "shout" and is derived from an Old French verb huer, designating the shouts that soldiers or hunters make when they are on the assault. It's a bit redundant, like "screaming and shouting"; but the spelling in this expression is definitely the same as that of the word meaning "color": hue. ( thought you might be interested.)


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:47 p.m.

We need a better Mayor and a better Council, who won't just rubber stamp these bad ideas. We need representatives who listen to the electorate, and not to just those who line their pockets. Ann Arbor is becoming a shadowy, pedestrian unfriendly, ugly mess. What ever happened to meeting and talking with your friends and community members while out on a nice, safe, quiet stroll through the city? That's what builds "community!" Not another chintzy, money making venture for some out-of-town developer.

Stan Hyne

Sat, Jan 26, 2013 : 2:55 p.m.

The time to think of these things was when the properties were zoned. How do you tell the developer who spent millions on the properties no you can't build. If the city and it's residents didn't like the buildings they should have bought the properties.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:45 p.m.

I agree more needs to be downtown and anything under 10 stories is not smart because of the big desire to have a green belt. If we cannot build out, it must be up. But keep the rent higher to keep the clients better behaved.

Tom Whitaker

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:10 a.m.

These student housing projects do absolutely nothing for curbing sprawl. How many students have you heard of that chose to live in a new high rise rather than buy that mcmansion they were considering in one of the townships? Will we end up with a downtown full of student housing AND sprawl developments for the rest of the population when the economy recovers?


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:43 p.m.

Today's "high-end student rental" is tomorrow's bargain rental for you or me. Of course they will overbuild - nothing succeeds like excess. Bring it, and hope they all go broke! I can't wait to have some more affordable, contemporary, alternatives to all these aged, deteriorating, Victorian shacks.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:34 p.m.

No, no, no, no and NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:32 p.m.

What is this? Wednesday is Spaghetti Day so Tuesday must be Developer Day? Every single person added to the city costs every single taxpayer more - eventually. Most people don't understand that truth so as long as the City keeps building they don't get 'caught'. The added income is immediately realized while the added expense is greater and does come eventually. Remember the 100 homes powered by the UM solar array? The cost and visual "imposition"? Well, envision adding 3 times that just for these two behemoths. As well the added water, sewage, roads, fire, police etc. It costs all taxpayers more. Business doesn't mind they earn more. Let's send some other townies our Tuesday special.

Wolf's Bane

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:26 p.m.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... no! You build this, I move.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 7:58 p.m.

As a former student who lived in South Quad and West Quad I agree this does change the way U of M's campus and the city of Ann Arbor mesh together. Although I attended my share of frat parties and neighborhood festivities, I ride through town with a different view now that I have kids, own a home, and pay taxes. I think what a shame those beautiful old mansions have beer bongs hanging from the second story, and how sad it is to see all of the homes chopped up into 6 piece units for maximum profit. As a student 10-15 years ago, however, I wondered, "Where is all the affordable housing?" These luxury high rises are great for the Ann Arbor economy, but bad for the Ann Arbor landscape. I'm sure the poll would look different when half of our guests (student population) leaves for the summer. I'm thankful for U of M, but frankly other folks live around here too.... year round and for the long haul.


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 1:43 a.m.

This actually will LOWER rents for students. When supply goes up, prices go down. Landlords will either fix up their propertiees to compete, or they will lower their rents to SUBSTANTIALLY lower rates, or they will tear them down, or maybe try converting the to single family homes. These high end houses are GREAT for other students just bases on simple supply and demand.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 7:27 p.m.

So, which of the new student housing developments becomes Ann Arbor's newest SRO/homeless shelter? My guess is the development on Fifth, just south of William. Not all of these developments can be viable, but I'm not sure the latecomers should be shut out. Some time in the future, some of these places could transition into senior housing (55+) for seniors who want to live in a shared living environment (4-6 bedrooms and a shared kitchen/living area). If I were a developer, I'd definitely be flexible in the population that could live in my high rise.

The Picker

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:16 a.m.

I'm betting on the one above Buffalo Wild Wings followed by the one at Forest and S. Univ.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 6:45 p.m.

I don't agree or disagree with the idea that the builds belong or don't belong because of fit. Where this concerns me is in an over-saturation of "high end" student rentals into the housing market? Everything was "fine" with the past student rental model: lots of houses, some older apartments, etc. What happens now that TONS of high end beds are prices go down, do beds become empty, or do we start to see some outlying houses in the student rental ghetto being converted back to single family? Very interesting indeed.....

Steve Bean

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:13 a.m.

I don't think so, Tom. I suspect that, like many other things this past decade or so, undergrad apps to U-M have peaked or will in the next year.

Tom Whitaker

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:05 a.m.

What happens is UM just keeps expanding the student body to fill the units.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 11:57 p.m.

The days of the poor starving student are least from Ann Arbor.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:42 p.m.

Today's "high-end student rental" is tomorrow's bargain rental for you or me. Of course they will overbuild - nothing succeeds like excess. Bring it, and hope they all go broke! I can't wait to have some more affordable, contemporary, alternatives to all these aged, deteriorating, Victorian shacks.

Lizzy Alfs

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 8:09 p.m.

Great points and it will be interesting to watch what happens next. I assume the costs involved in converting those rental houses is very high. I have heard from landlords in town that they're feeling the need to update their rental properties in order to compete with the new buildings.

John of Saline

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 6:23 p.m.

Parking under the building makes sense, like at Huron Towers. (I guess that's kind of behind the building there.)


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 6:22 p.m.

Only in Oz is a 14 story building considered a "high rise." If you voted for the Green Belt, you voted for more development downtown. Elections have consequences.


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:13 p.m.

Yes they do - it's still a matter of headcount. The student need live somewhere, and if they live in a house then that house is not used for a "resident". That Resident then decides to go elsewhere. Finding a rental in Ann Arbor is a challenge. Just ask anyone who have moved here for a job in the last year.

Tom Whitaker

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:03 a.m.

Student apartments have no impact on suburban sprawl (there are no students trading their suburban mcmansions for a bedroom in a six-bedroom apartment). So, even if one buys the premise that there was ever a Greenbelt/Downtown development linkage made during the campaign for the Greenbelt millage, these two projects have nothing to do with that.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 6:14 p.m.

14 stories will tower over those areas, making them less, not more, attractive. Furthermore, there is not enough parking provided for the number of units proposed. Reduce the height, increase the setbacks, increase landscaping, and increase parking so that each unit has at least one parking space.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 5:57 p.m.

Sure it is. How can you turn it into a megatropolis without them? Bring them on!!! Our politicians want to be able to say they run a megatropolis when they go on junkets don't they?


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 12:11 p.m.

Actually, if you create a solid core downtown, you will not have a "megatropolis" like the 60s-90s showed us in the midwest. Ann Arbor is one of the positive spots in the midwest - and people will continue to come here whether from Detroit (as I did) or from nationwide. If you don't support them in the core, they will sprawl and you will get traffic issues, infrastructure issues, and eventually the core will die. Look at any city in the area and you will see this. Ann Arbor is unique in the fact it never lost it's core. Failure to support growth will cause issues like seen in Flint, Saginaw, Toledo, Youngstown, Benton Harbor, ......


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 5:51 p.m.

No No No! We dont need another 700 beds this close to downtown, build it in the studunt ghetto area! A2 doesnt need any more low income(re: student) housing close to where the normal living/working people are! All it will bring are MORE parking issues and crime...


Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 11:31 a.m.

Last I checked, living/working residents still OUTNUMBERED students. low income may not have been the best wording, crime prone perhaps?


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 6:26 p.m.

uh -- "normal living/working people"? -- in case you haven't noticed, this is a college town, and "normal living people" here are college students. Move to Jackson if you can't handle it.


Tue, Jan 15, 2013 : 5:54 p.m.

The students who can afford to live in these developments are far from "low-income"