Oak Park Dave

Mon, Jul 5, 2010 : 2:14 a.m.

I love Madison, but it ain't a paragon of high density. Overall, it's substantially less dense than Ann Arbor. There's a lot of sprawl going on. The two lakes are beautiful, but actually make the sprawl worse because new development is built AROUND the lakes. There is also that darn law that won't allow developers to build anything too high within a mile of the capitol building. Ann Arbor can choose to sprawl more or it can choose to build up.

BHarding

Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 9:01 a.m.

Have to agree with others who have commented: It's hard to compare Ann Arbor to the much larger State Capitol in Wisconsin. We have to work with our own realities. We do need to attract industries, but building large residential structures should only happen when need demands it, that is after the industry has arrived. imho.

Rod Johnson

Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 8:11 a.m.

Westsider-- Where's the data? His argument seems to be based on the dubious assumption that Heritage Row is "designed primarily for young professionals" (as opposed to students), and that that makes everything bad about it irrelevant. It totally ignores the inconvenient fact that a similar but better development two blocks away (Zaragon Place II) is going through fine. Add to this a handwavy Richard Florida-inspired demographic analysis and you have something more like a sales brochure than a "data-based analysis."

Sam

Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 7:51 a.m.

I was born and raised in Madison. Ann Arbor is no Madison. If you combined the state government in Lansing with the campus of U of M..maybe. But without the base business of state government, insurance companies, and light manufacturing found in Madison, Ann Arbor is nothing more than it is right now. A nice small town, with a major university, and proximity to a large gentrifying city.

beuwolf

Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 7:29 a.m.

Westsider, I don't want to debate Glazer's qualifications, nor for that matter,the power of a press release which has the Ann Arbor Charmber of Commerce's fingerprints all over it (think Newcombe Clark, Jeff Helminski and Kyle Mazurek a/k/a Developer 1, Developer 2 and Chamber of Commerce PR person). I would rather focus on Glazer's blog- in my opinion, his blog article was unimpressive and unpersuasive.

westsider

Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 6:43 a.m.

Isn't it just like Ann Arborites to think they know better than everyone else? Here is one of, if not the, leading authority in our state on such issues making a data based analysis of the drivers of real economic vitality and when we don't like the reality he espouses we claim he must be wrong about us, or suddenly he doesn't know what he is talking about...ugh. Just like us eh? What is that tall building over there? Oh, just that ivory tower.

Jay Thomas

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 10:01 p.m.

@Speechless: I wouldn't call Near North "workforce" housing (which you keep doing). It's going to be for Section 8 and other people on government assistance. Just watch.

townie

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 9:38 p.m.

I'd like to know more about this Michigan Future, Inc. Is this yet another one of these quasi-governmental, economic development organizations full of former business people who can't get jobs in the real world? It seems Michigan's number one growth industry is the industry of promoting growth. Most of these fatcats make huge salaries on the public dime, with litte to show for it (like SPARK)in terms of jobs or business development. Many double as elected officials so that they can keep the gravy flowing with grants and TIF schemes. I have a young relative (recent UM grad) who moved to Madison with a significant other because there was a JOB for one of them there. Madison is fine, but both of them miss Ann Arbor and can't wait to move back when and if JOBS open up here for them. They aren't waiting for more apartments to be built--they are waiting for JOBS.

Vivienne Armentrout

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 8:17 p.m.

This is "an" historic moment. I agree with Marvin Face! I went to grad school in Madison. Loved it. Thought it was the center of the universe. Yearned after it for years while living in San Diego. Moved to Ann Arbor partly in hopes of finding a similar place. Finally went back to Madison on a sentimental journey a few years ago...and didn't like it as well as Ann Arbor! But Marvin is right. Madison (1) is the state capitol and (2) has those lovely lakes. Also has a great Arboretum that even now (because ours is under superb management and is a great treasure) surpasses Ann Arbor's. (It has a number of different communities carefully delineated and maintained within it.) It has a much higher population, including a couple of sister cities. The Wisconsin system is also based on townships but the county governments have much more authority, so real regional planning takes place. Yet - Madison fell victim to the urban renewal surge of the 50s and early 60s. The place that should have been Madison's Old West Side (an Italian neighborhood) was a blasted heath when I lived there and is now public housing. There are odd little islands in the "near downtown" area of "old" buildings, surrounded by over-wide streets and barren lots. To find any real life outside of the State Street area (which runs between the campus and the State Capitol like an axis), one must drive out to one of many little shopping areas/centers. It has a very nice botanical garden over in the Mendota (city) area that is separated from everything else. (More driving.) When I was there about 5 years ago, the lovely downtown square surrounding the capital was almost empty of real businesses. It didn't have the vitality of most of our downtown areas. Paradise isn't anywhere except where we make it. We have a pretty good start here. Let's maintain it.

SillyTree

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7:19 p.m.

The era of unrestricted growth has ended. It's feasibility ended some time ago, but growth has continued. If Ann Arbor has refused to grow and has attempted to become sustainable, it is only what others will have to do in the near future; perhaps too late. My opinion is that Ann Arbor already goes too far in its acceptance of development reminiscent of near Detroit communities. I was born and grew up in Ann Arbor. I have been here for almost 50 years. We have never considered ourselves a suburb of Detroit and we should not start now. There are so many people here to whom I only need to mention my name and they either know me or one of my relatives. That can't go away and we won't let it.

Marshall Applewhite

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 4:55 p.m.

I've spent quite a bit of time in Madison, and Mr. Glazer is mostly correct. Obviously there are some differences between Ann Arbor and Madison, but general hostility towards development has contributed greatly to disparities between the cities. Both cities are very progressive, but change in Madison has been embraced by a younger generation of progressives. Ann Arbor politics remain dominated by angry fanny pack wearing "progressives" who aren't interested in creating a vibrant city. If people from Ann Arbor actually visited a place like Madison, they would realize the benefits of good development and would develop a non-hostile attitude towards change.

Jay Thomas

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 4:02 p.m.

@Pompous: Yes, I can understand that. There are too many here in the same fields. You spread your wings and seek your fortune. Love the B.S. degree!

beuwolf

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 4:01 p.m.

Lou, I hate to pile on, but your premise is that Heritage Row will be primarily marketed to young professionals. What is the source of that premise? Was it information you received from the developer? That premise doesn't jibe with the current logistics of the developer's current tenants at the site, 95% of whom are UM students. With all due respect, your blog article was conclusory and not very well reasoned.

MB111

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 3:54 p.m.

Somewhat Concerned, Many properly zoned projects get turned down in Ann Arbor. Unless the developer threatens litigation, these projects fade into the sunset.

Somewhat Concerned

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 3:41 p.m.

There is nothing "anti-growth" about turning down a project that doesn't comply with existing rules. Developers who are willing to follow the rules can simply build. Developers who want to make more money than they would make following the rules can ask for exceptions, but they have no right to them, and if the city or neighbors don't want to make an exception, that is not anti-growth. Higher taxes might be anti-growth. An income tax certainly would be anti-growth. But merely requiring real estate developers to follow the rules has nothing to do with being anti-growth. Michigan's problems have nothing to do with asking developers to follow the rules. Think closed shop. Think high taxes. Think government bureaucracy. Think a poorly educated workforce. Think a 1960s mentality. Just don't blame a nice city that wants developers to follow the rules.

Rod Johnson

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 3:30 p.m.

Just chiming in on the inappropriateness of the Madison comparison. Madison has well over twice Ann Arbor's population--in fact, it has over half a million in the metro area. So of course it has more young professionals. It has more everything. And compare apples to apples, Lou. Do housing developments never get denied in Madison? Let's see some data instead of this weak opinion-mongering.

MB111

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 2:54 p.m.

Change is particularly difficult in Ann Arbor. This town is filled with vocal a reactionary population that pretends to be a progressive.

CynicA2

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 2:13 p.m.

Is Michigan having an economic recovery?!?!? Did I miss something?! Wow! That was a quickie! Let's see now... his logic is that if only we could attract/retain a few thousand so-called "Millennials" (early career yuppies, I guess... ) with a few well-placed mid-rise condo projects, the skies would open and a guy in a white robe would bestow our fair state with a recovery that would make the Second Coming pale in comparison. I seriously doubt it, and besides - once they bounce around town on our third-world streets and roads, and deal with eight months of clouds and cold for a couple years, and receive a couple of tax bills from our fair city, they will pack-up their Ikea and IPads, and be gone. There will probably be more retirees here than yuppies or students in a few years time, anyway. See ya' at the shuffleboard court, dreamers.

Alan Benard

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 1:46 p.m.

Mr. Glazer has it right. The most sustainable growth pattern limits sprawl and boosts density in urban cores. The people who will bring new money to the area are young professionals.This city's government gives NIMBY nay-sayers and their colleagues who own and operate tenements in the student ghetto sections far too much attention. Just because the are loud does not mean they are right, and have the city's best possible future in mind. Is this city unpalatable for and unfriendly toward young professionals? Check out this archive of thought and opinion: http://annarborisoverrated.com/

Speechless

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 1:34 p.m.

Should I take the article bait?  Well, why not.... The absurdly simple solution to Mr. Glazer's complaint about the Heritage Row rejection is to move any such proposal a few hundred feet northwest to the opposite corner of the Fifth & William intersection. Problem solved. Further, Glazer, at least as quoted, doesn't tell us that Madison has its own historic districts (which 'beuwolf' brings up as I write this) and encourages residents to contact the city about historical aspects of their neighborhoods that they feel should be preserved. Rest assured that a Heritage Row or a City Place would not be welcome on just any Madison residential street. Rational urban planning carefully leaves room for both the addition of denser, downtown-area workforce and lower income housing and also the preservation of the oldest neighborhoods in town. Given the historic characteristics of residences south of William on Fifth Ave., what de Parry insistently proposes to do there simply isn't rational. The city's refusal to allow Heritage Row construction at a specific location which is clearly wrong for it does not qualify as hating on young professionals. I do agree, though, that Ann Arbor has typically not shown much interest in moderately-priced, workforce units. The city council majority and their active opponents have both built their base of support among different factions of older home owners. When a workforce development does comes along, such as Near North, it results from an outside entity (Avalon Housing, in this case) making it happen despite taking some heat from both sides.

Carl Duncan

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 1:28 p.m.

If one stands back and looks at Ann Arbor, it is there for every one to see. This city is nothing without the university and hospital. Ann Arbor would be similar to Willis minus the feed mill. As it is this city is the product of tax money from Lansing and D.C. Make no mistake about it there are private companies here as well. However, if it wasn't for the university and hospital acting as a catalyst it is likely Ann Arbor would be no different than Mayberry or Nutbush City.

saintketih

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 1:23 p.m.

"Mr. Glazer doesn't seem to realize that the reason people want to move to Ann Arbor..." Mr Glazer's point is that people DON'T want to move to Ann Arbor. They want to move out of Ann Arbor and they're doing it. "What looks like anti-growth, may in fact be thoughtful planning..." The kind of decisions made by the council recently are clearly anti-growth and anti-development. The "thoughtful planning" process is being subverted by un-elected nimbies with secret societies (eg. the anti-Moravian crowd whose website at stopthemoravian.blogspot.com reads: "This blog is open to invited readers only") and four council members working with them to actively block development. "The appeal of Ann Arbor in good times, and its stability in hard times, can be credited in large part to our City Council and the many commissions, committees and task forces that plan carefully, often with an eye on the long-term outcomes." Ann Arbor's "appeal" is based on two things: the University of Michigan and easy access to an international airport. I've spoken to business owners who have told me that having a head office in Ann Arbor actually creates a problem for them with recruitment. Meanwhile, the city's careful plans are being undermined by a vocal minority who think they're living in a museum or a retirement village.

beuwolf

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 1:01 p.m.

An Inconvenient Truth Mr. Glazer, I hate to act like the restaurant patron who finds the fly in the soup known as your blog story, but Madison, WI has several historic districts, including one residential district (Madison Hill Historic District} which is downtown Madison. While those fine houses in Mansion Hill could have been demolished to make room for young little Badgers, the city of Madison apparently decided to both preserve its historic houses and create a great city in the process. This doesn't sound like the "all or nothing" proposition you portray. In contrast to the normal anecdotal bloviation surrounding this topic, please refer to the following link which discusses Madison's fiv3 historic districts http://www.cityofmadison.com/planning/landmark/LndmrkHist.html#FirstSettlement Excerpt: "Mansion Hill Historic District Mansion Hill is the residential neighborhood north of the Square in downtown Madison. Its heart is the corner of Gilman and Pinckney Streets, where four Victorian mansions evoke an aura of yesteryear. In the 19th century, Mansion Hill was one of Madison's two most prestigious neighborhoods (the other, along East and West Wilson Street, has been mostly obliterated by time). Mansion Hill contains the greatest concentration of intact Victorian houses remaining in Madison, many of which were the homes of Madison's pioneer movers-and-shakers. In the 1950s, '60s and '70s several of the finest old houses in Mansion Hill were demolished to make way for anonymous apartment buildings and two large insurance companies. Fearful of further erosion of the residential character of this historic neighborhood, residents petitioned the City to designate Mansion Hill as an historic district. The Common Council complied and Mansion Hill became Madison's first historic district in 1976."

no flamers!

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 12:29 p.m.

I agree that Ann Arbor would be better with greater density downtown. It is vibrant now, but not well balanced because of the relative (to other vibrant cities) lack of youth off campus. Like a previous poster said, tough to compare to Madison. Madison is almost always ranked in the top 5 in city rankings...most livable, best outdoor town, most fun campus, etc. I think Madison is the best mid-sized city in the country. It has improved its downtown a lot in the past 20 years through allowing a bunch of 10-20 story condos that are pretty high end and walking distance to the capital and campus.

Forever27

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 12:29 p.m.

Slow and steady growth is a good thing. Ann Arbor has been pretty smart with that as the guiding principle behind development. That is not to say that there are decisions made by the council that are quite frustrating. It would be nice to see some people who are critical of the slow growth to use logical points rather than just insulting "Aging hippies" though.

Fred&Barney

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 12:07 p.m.

No surprise here, Ann Arbor City Council, Planning Committee, Administrator, all clueless, they want it all yet have no vision for the future. Have fun with your big dig, and new Fraser Hall.

Marvin Face

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 11:51 a.m.

Madison is a fantastic place but it has several things going for it that A2 doesn't. First, the "downtown" area is an isthmus between two large lakes and the higher density development offers spectacular views. Second, Madison is not only a college town but also the state capital. This article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2010-06-24-census-boom-towns-college-capitals_N.htm?POE=click-refer suggests that the two types of towns that did best in the economic downturn are college towns and state capitals. While we all ring our hands over the inability to keep young people in the state, Michigan is in the top 5 "stickiest" states (right behind Wisconsin) http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1146/magnet-sticky-states-typology We're just not very "magnetic".

xmo

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 11:28 a.m.

What a bunch of old fudie dudies! They changed the world in the 60's now they want to keep things from changing. Gee, I wonder why people are leaving the state and we still have high unemployment.

Raymond De Young

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 11:19 a.m.

What looks like anti-growth, may in fact be thoughtful planning. The appeal of Ann Arbor in good times, and its stability in hard times, can be credited in large part to our City Council and the many commissions, committees and task forces that plan carefully, often with an eye on the long-term outcomes. Such care might frustrate those looking for a hurried review and quick approval but the outcome seems to suit the citizens just fine. Mr. Glazer may use but one criterion, economic growth. In stark contrast, Ann Arbor has benefitted from decades of planning that uses additional, and non-substitutable, criteria. This seems to be working if we take the developers' desire to develop their pet projects here as a sign. I wish Madison good luck with its form of development. We're experimenting with something a bit different. They both might work, albeit for different reasons. I wonder which one will provide for prosperity without growth?

AAresident

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 11:01 a.m.

Perhaps the sort of progress we've had in Michigan over the last few decades isn't all that attractive. Conserving what we have rather than betting on expansion is fine with me.

InsideTheHall

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 10:49 a.m.

Who would thunk it? Aging flower children of the 60's holding up progress....only in A Squared.

Al Feldt

Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 10:46 a.m.

Mr. Glazer doesn't seem to realize that the reason people want to move to Ann Arbor is because we have been cautious in accepting new developments from every quick-buck developer that comes along. By his logic, Ypsilanti Township must be the dream location for Yppies and Michigan's major economic powerhouse.