Mike Martin

Mon, Feb 21, 2011 : 3:42 a.m.

"Treasured" really seems like quite an overstatement. It's an average to below average neighborhood in it's current condition.

Vivienne Armentrout

Mon, Feb 21, 2011 : 1:51 a.m.

I'd like to thank councilmembers (including the Mayor) who have repeatedly voted against the Heritage Row (and its predecessors) PUD, especially Carsten Hohnke, who has shown real courage on this issue (considering what his supporters wish for). It is really sad to see this issue come back and back again. I'd like to see a city where once an issue has been debated publicly and a decision has been reached, we could move on. Recall that a PUD (Planned Unit Development) is a special zoning category that overrides the zoning in an area. It is not an entitlement that is due to a developer, but rather a special benefit. It is supposed to be awarded only because the proposed development is innovative, and brings special benefits to the city that a so-called "by right" development would not. Do folks disagree with what the zoning and current plans indicate? This is often indicated by people who state such concepts as downtown needs to be expanded, more affordable housing is needed (which I do not believe is the likely outcome here), or a wish to see denser development. If you believe those things, change the local zoning and master plans through democratic processes, not a special one-at-a-time exception process. We don't want a city where the council changes the planned configuration of neighborhoods based on the influence, money, and persistence of individual developers. This City Place leverage is especially malevolent because from the beginning it was acknowledged even by the developer to be ugly and less desirable. It was only put up as a threat. "Give me what I want or you'll be sorry." It is my perception that this project would not be very profitable. Its only reason for being is evidently as a threat and leverage against council. I call on council to reject this behavior. The neighborhood is evidently willing to take the chance (and perhaps pursue legal objections) of its being built. If council yields to threats, all neighborhoods are

Piotr Michalowski

Sun, Feb 20, 2011 : 11:37 p.m.

The phrasing may be excessive, but as a resident one block away from the proposed barbarism, I thank the poster. The two proposals for 5th Ave. both go against all city planning that was conducted with care and much expense, including outside experts as well as much community input. Reasonable people can disagree about these plans, but they were well thought out and involved a great deal of community consensus. Now a few people on council would like to nix these plans and open up the near-downtown to uncontrolled development for its own sake, and not because there is tremendous need for it. If we look at how much housing--all aimed at the same market--is coming on line downtown, well is agreement with the city planning--then one wonder what the need is for destroying a near-downtown neighborhood. The Germantown area is a mixed one, and that is what gives it vitality. We have student living here, and in a university town it seems strange to fault that, living side-by-side with homeowners and renters of all ages and occupations. As for those anonymous posters who put down the neighborhood, if any one them truly are interested in the truth, and are not simply shills for the developers, I suggest they look at some of the old houses that have been restored and taken care of by those who actually live there. It is true that those of us who live there are resisting the new development because it would ruin the essence of the place, and also because it would make it difficult to stop others who do not even live in our town from tearing down more old buildings for short-term profit. We can have proper development downtown, as all plans agree, while maintaining the older quality of surrounding areas, because this is what gives our town much of its ambiance. In summer and fall, people from out of town walk by our area and love it--even during dreaded "Art" Fair I can sit on the porch and hear nice comments from visitors. We ALL need this area preserved.

Tom Whitaker

Sun, Feb 20, 2011 : 9:30 p.m.

Thank you, Ms. Bigelow for your impassioned defense of neighborhoods. Your opinion aligns exactly with numerous reports, studies, and master plans commissioned by the City over the last three decades--most created with extensive citizen participation. The people of Ann Arbor have consistently supported the preservation of traditional one-house, one-lot neighborhoods close to downtown. These kinds of neighborhoods, with a dense mix of owners/renters, young/old, and students/professionals are the inspiration for what "new urbanist" developers are trying to copy around the country with mixed success. We have the real things here, and should be working to improve them, not tear them down. In terms of council and planning commission, they do need to explain, along with the mayor, why it is that they are allowing this to go on, and on, and on, and on. A few have spoken openly about their desire to see this neighborhood leveled and replaced with apartment buildings, but most prefer to hide behind the city attorney and claim that their hands are tied. Despite being cheerleaders for increasing residential density in the downtown proper, several are now pushing for a hotel and conference center that is the opposite. Meanwhile, they are more than willing to allow downtown-scale developments in neighborhoods, where this kind of micro-sprawl will only water down the market for residential projects in the actual downtown. Ironically, most council members campaigned on the theme of "protecting neighborhoods" but it seems the only neighborhoods being protected are their own.

MB111

Sun, Feb 20, 2011 : 9:13 p.m.

Typical progressive Ann Arbor - as lomg is its not in my neighborhood, I'll support it.

glenn thompson

Sun, Feb 20, 2011 : 6:30 p.m.

One of the issues the Germantown residents have is the city's legal interpretation of the rules to allow de Parry's "by right" development. They hired Susan Morrison, a well regarded municipal law attorney, who spoke at the public hearings about the legal issues. I remember one of the issues discussed was how the height of a building was determined. De Parry's "by right" building had a dormer roof. His position was that the height was determined by the location of a piece of trim on the dormer, even though there was living space above the piece of trim. The neighborhood made their interpretation of Michigan law (including legal citations) as it applies to the "by right" development public. The opinion of the city attorney was not made public. De Parry wants Council to approve a PUD, which involves a waiver of the zoning rules, so that he can build a different project. The majority of council appears to be leaning toward approving the PUD by claiming that if the PUD is not approved, de Parry will build the "by right" project. The neighborhood says the "by right" project is illegal and is therefore not a credible threat. I hope the council members who base their vote on the city attorney's opinion insist that the opinion be made public.

ArgoC

Sun, Feb 20, 2011 : 5:11 p.m.

Historic? or just old and tattered? Treasured? Not by the local landlords and student renters, as far as I can tell. What DeParry wants to do looks nicer than it is now. And the blocky building ... well, there are a couple in my neighborhood and it's not the end of the world.

Ben Connor Barrie

Sun, Feb 20, 2011 : 4:45 p.m.

It's reasonable to debate how this project will impact the neighborhood and the city as a whole. This is opinion piece is so hyperbolic though, it makes it sound like de Parry wants to raze the entire neighborhood. I realize there are several homeowners in the area surrounding the project that fear Heritage Row would destroy the fabric of their neighborhood. Still, it is hard to have an honest, informative discussion that allows readers to come to their own opinions when such extreme opinions are presented with few facts supporting them.

DonBee

Sun, Feb 20, 2011 : 4:20 p.m.

A neighborhood full of mostly student housing that varies from neatly kept to trash in the yard on my last drive through it. Grass neatly trimmed to over the Ann Arbor limit. Houses that run from very nicely painted to faded and peeling. If the neighborhood was so beloved, how could the residents allow some of the yards and houses to exist in the condition they are in? Sorry, nothing special in the architecture or quality of the neighborhood to my eye.