What's behind calls for increased density in downtown Ann Arbor?
Another opportunity for Ann Arbor City Hall to get into the real estate business (which I say they should have no business entertaining such thoughts) was described in the May 20 AnnArbor.com article about a magnificent “Ashley Promenade.”
Note that a “Public Partnership” (Hold on to your wallets!) with an underground parking facility and conference center is being considered. I recall that one of the last city hall sponsored real estate ventures was the old YMCA.
At any rate, we are also entertained again by continuing calls for "increased density" downtown.
I have yet to find any explanation by any of these "increased density"advocates of the virtue of putting more and more people into a fixed space. (City Administrator Roger) Fraser advocates "increased density" for these downtown projects.
However, looking at his address in the phone book doesn't indicate that he is living in any cramped quarters. Sounds more like “Do as I say, not as I do!”
Arno C. Buhrer Ann Arbor
Comments
shepard145
Sat, Jun 12, 2010 : 8:50 p.m.
Few places in Michigan even resemble healthy cities and while AA tries, theyre need to spend money that does not belong too them on pet projects is slowly stagnating the city. You want to see our future check out the economics of California where your paycheck is viewed as an endless opportunity for Citys government. For those who really want to know, start with reading books about the nature and economics of successful cities. Density + Conservative Government + 24 hour residents/business + Insightful Planning + Creative Class = healthy business community = vibrant, active city. and a bonus for subway type light rail mass transit. Chicago knows what to do with density while Detroit does not.
Ben Mitchell
Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.
I could not disagree more with Mr. Buhrer's letter. I believe strongly that when it comes to promoting density in our downtown, City Hall absolutely has a role to play. Midrise developments outside of the DDA boundary are controversial, and while I think a lot of the opposition reeks of harmful provincialism, the public discourse is important. Considering the development referenced by Mr. Buhrer, here is a project in the heart of downtown, potentially replacing a surface parking lot that strips a good deal of value from downtown. It is a potential project that demands careful stewardship and an active role by the city. Density is absolutely important to downtown development, and I think that local government has correctly made it a priority. The benefits of density are quite well-documented: conservation of rural lands; easing of environmental impacts of urban areas; more affordable housing; promoting a walkable, more vital, and overall more healthy community. To realize the potential benefits of dense developments, I do believe that the city should have a role, particularly in the case of a high value piece of land like the one on Ashley street. Left to their own devices, it seems too often is the case that developments squander a good deal of opportunity. Dense developments should be designed to be accessible to foot traffic, bicycles, and mass transit. Mixed-use, I think, tend to be the healthiest developments. And most importantly to me, mixed income developments should be something the city encourages. I reject the notion that density downtown is a questionable priority, and believe that an active role by the city and its planning professionals will guard against projects of the Ashley Terrace sort.
Speechless
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 6:33 p.m.
Increased downtown density would require the city to further address issues such as traffic congestion, parking, water use, and so on. Other than that it's not the additional density itself that ultimately matters. Instead we should evaluate what specific changes or amenities that new density will bring to the downtown area. As a few quick examples (complete with biased answers), what if we were to consider: 15 stories of luxury condos? Not so good. Why expand the local glut of gilded cages while the numbers of homeless increase down on the streets below? 20 stories of office space? Nice — if you enjoy half-empty buildings. Or 6-10 floors of smaller rental units affordable to people who work in downtown restaurants, stores and offices? That would really be appreciated in this town! Plus, it's incentive for slumlords to clean up their act. On the low income end, the city still needs (at a bare minimum) to reconstruct the former "Y" housing at Fifth and William, as long promised.
Dr. I. Emsayin
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 8:22 a.m.
It would be better if people would buy and rent houses already for sale in Ann Arbor. The campaign for downtown density is supported by a small group of people, the DDA, to increase downtown revenue. They have a pulpit in A2.com and other advertising money. There are better real estate deals available within the city and public transportation to downtown. There are also rentals available in houses with public transportation to campus, downtown and hospitals.
walker101
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 8:12 a.m.
Fix the damn bridge!