Ann Arbor should approve Zingerman's expansion, even if it requires demolishing houses
Here’s the scenario: A venerable local business famous for its quality products and good corporate citizenship wants to spend $4 million to $7 million to expand.
Most communities we can think of would be pleased by that prospect and do whatever they could to help bring it about.
In Ann Arbor, Zingerman’s efforts to expand its iconic delicatessen in Kerrytown already have been denied once, blocked by the Historic District Commission’s unwillingness to sacrifice two buildings that stood in the way of the project.
Now, Zingerman’s is trying again. Its newest plan takes pains to address concerns that derailed its first effort two years ago. Its proposal is constructive and clearly offers “significant benefit’’ to the community - a term that matters greatly in the abstruse world of historic preservation.
The people of Ann Arbor are solidly behind this proposal, and we endorse it as well. If reason and good public policy prevail, Zingerman’s should be granted the expansion, and it shouldn’t have to tie itself in a knot in the process.
By the end of this month, Zingerman’s plans to submit to the Planning Commission a proposal for a 9,500-square-foot, two-story addition to its cramped deli at the corner of Kingsley and Detroit streets. The existing building would continue to be retail space, while the addition would create new kitchen and food preparation areas, as well as additional seating.
It also would resolve problems with the current kitchen, which creates humidity that is damaging the existing building, which is a historic structure. That’s ironic, since concerns about historic preservation are what’s held up the expansion so far.
To build the addition, Zingerman’s wants to tear down a boarded-up historic home at 322 E. Kingsley. Originally, it also wanted to raze a second historic building at 420 Detroit St., known as the Annex. But its new plan would preserve the second house and incorporate it into the addition - at a hefty additional cost of $750,000.
In 2008, the Historic District Commission rejected Zingerman’s request to demolish both buildings, finding them to be “contributing,’’ meaning that they add to the historic quality of the district. That’s a particularly dubious conclusion to draw about 322 Kingsley, which the commission spared by a 4-3 vote two years ago. Another business owner in the area recently described it as an “eyesore.’’ We agree.
Despite its decision two years ago, the commission still could allow demolition of the Kingsley Street building, or even both buildings, if it finds that Zingerman’s expansion would offer significant benefit to the community and Zingerman’s has all the necessary approvals from the city. Or if it could find that retaining either or both houses is ‘’not in the interest of the majority of the community,’’ as described in the city code.
In 2008, Zingerman’s went directly to the Historic District Commission and was shot down. This time, it is going to the city first to seek the necessary approvals that would give it a stronger case before the commission. That’s a smart move, as is the revision in the plan that preserves the Annex, though it’s evident that Zingerman’s would still prefer to remove both houses, and it deserves that consideration.
We are not cavalier about historic preservation. It shouldn’t be easy to tear down historic buildings. But it also shouldn’t be impossible, if the buildings are of questionable historic value and the project to replace them has substantial merit, as this one does.
A recent poll on AnnArbor.com asked if readers support Zingerman’s efforts to expand. Some 2,000 people voted and more than 90 percent said “yes.’’ While we do not present our polls as scientific, it is clear that the community overwhelmingly sees the benefits of Zingerman’s proposal and wants it to happen.
Like the University of Michigan, Zingerman’s is a renowned entity that helps give Ann Arbor a national reputation. This expansion plan is reasonable and makes good sense. The same should be true of the decisions made about it.
Comments
Maggie Phillips
Sat, Mar 27, 2010 : 8:07 p.m.
I beg to differ with Anonymous....when I was living in Milan, Italy, not MI, I mentioned to an Italian woman (a foodie for sure) that I was from Ann Arbor. She exclaimed, "Oh! that's where that Zingleman's is". After being astonished that she knew about it and correcting her on the name, I asked her how she was familiar with a deli in Michigan. She told me that if you were interested in food, you probably knew about it. This was in 1993, before major I-net shopping, I guess. She relied on Z. to get her good stuff. I'm ready to march in protest if the Historic Society denies them their permit this time. As John Stossel would say "Give Me a Break!"
swcornell
Tue, Mar 23, 2010 : 11:41 a.m.
I say let Zingerman's move to the old Kroger/Georgetown land on Packard. Then they can build whatever and as much as they want they want. We can let downtown economy and culture collapse!
monica
Mon, Mar 22, 2010 : 7:51 p.m.
I think its a great idea! Anyone that visits the Artisan Market on Sundays and ventures across the street to Zingerman's can enjoy a feast. I like to sit outside at the many cafe tables and enjoy the sunshine. The staff are great at this location and make the time there so enjoyable. I would love to see this happen.
ldeville
Mon, Mar 22, 2010 : 4:23 p.m.
Finally somebody has shed some light on an increasing problem in our community and surrounding area. Commissioners with an agenda and inharmonious attitude. For some, this is their little slice of opportunistic control and they completely lack any common sense and a rational voice. A company like Zingermans is trying to make an improvement to their campus for the good of their Business, Local Jobs, and a Safer Cleaner Working Facility yet, the appointed commissioners want to place their stamp of control right out in front with the inclusion of the failing Annex. WOW what logic! Thank you for this information Mr. Dearing
Anonymous Due to Bigotry
Mon, Mar 22, 2010 : 2:48 a.m.
I always thought that declaring a building historic (in most places) would protect it from being condemned, but in order to maintain that status it would have to be brought up to code within a certain amount of time.
bunnyabbot
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 9:42 p.m.
@ marzan, they don't let the annex decay b/c they want to take it down, more so b/c the quotes they have gotten to fix it are REALLY HIGH to repair it, bring it up to code and make it structually sound, I believe one figure was $500,000 and that was ten years ago, so sure that has gone up since then
CynicA2
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 6:28 p.m.
Not every run-down old shack that was built 100 years ago is a "historic structure". Perhaps we need some new blood on the Historic District Commission who are more flexible in their interpretations of the various guidelines. Perhaps we will get some after the regieme change come next election. Maybe the shacks by Zingermann's will just "fall over" some night!
marzan
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 3:30 p.m.
I'm all for the expansion of Zingerman's, but I'd like to point out the obvious flaw in most arguments in the comments. That argument is that the buildings targeted for demolition are in disrepair. Zingerman's owns the buildings, it's in their interests to let the buildings decay if it means they get their expansion.
Ignatz
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 2:46 p.m.
This needn't be a precedent setting decision, should the City, et al, allow Zing's to expand. Seems like a good thing to knock down some junk and put up something much better and profitable, to boot!
bunnyabbot
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 12:32 p.m.
both buildings should be taken down, one is burnt out and the annex is ROTTING, yes ROTTING, they have to keep painting it b/c under all the paint they put on it is the original LEAD paint, so they paint it orange to keep the lead in. Also, the annex is litterly so weak it could colasp.
bg
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 11:14 a.m.
You can't grant certain rights to one business (to allow an historic building to be torn down) just because they are successful. What happens when the next business comes along (perhaps not so established, simply "up-and-coming") and wants to do the same thing? You have to think about the precedent that may be set, without discriminating against others (businesses) who may want to do the same thing. I am all for tearing down an insignificant building for a greater good, assuming that "greater good" doesn't move or go out of business, etcetera.
silo
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 10:37 a.m.
@Anonymous: Yes. Believe it or not, it has a well known mail order business - known to even such nether-regions as Tennessee, Texas, and Florida! But what really matters is that it is a LOCAL business that wants to invest in its own community - especially at a time when we could really use it. And it was being blocked by an organization that has a one-size-fits all approach to urban planning / expansion. But perhaps I am being too harsh...
JimB
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 10:35 a.m.
What is the commission holding on to by preserving this run down house? Intriguing flying buttresses? Fond memories of a day gone bye? Not even! There is a business here who has proven itself to be a leader in sustainability in all ways good and is willing to enhance the community as well as preserving the memory of this rediculous building, ON THEIR DIME even. Let's be reasonable and work with businesses such as Zingerman's who have a proven track record of working with and enhancing the Ann Arbor community.
Arboriginal
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 10:13 a.m.
Yes, what a great idea. Letting a group practice their hobby of telling people what they can and can't do with the property they own. If the hysteric commission had been around 100 years ago, would the Zingermans building have been built? Historically speaking, this area was once covered by trees.
Steve the Wookiee
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.
I would assume (and this is only my assumption and opinion) that the Historic Commission has very narrow, 'pie in the sky' ideals and is not concerned with the overall economic health and viability of the city. I walked by that house (322 E. Kingsley) a few days ago and it is truly an eye sore. There isn't even a front door, just a piece of ply wood.
MikeyP
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 9:40 a.m.
Holding up the expansion of a successful business for a boarded-up, abandoned house is ridiculous.... but in this economic climate it increases to the level of being absolutely asinine. Unless the Historic Commission is interested in turning Ann Arbor into Detroit (plenty of abandoned and rotting "historic" buildings there!) they should reconsider.
MRunner
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 9:25 a.m.
Is the Historic District Commission accountable to anyone? This seems like such a no-brainer to me. If this doesn't go through, the city needs to take a good look at how it governs these types of decisions and whether the Historic District really has the city in their best interest. Is there an email for the Commission to express support for this proposal?
Steve the Wookiee
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 8:18 a.m.
You're telling me Zingerman's can't spend $4-7M on an expansion project, in this community, in this economic climate, because that boarded up house (322 E. Kingsley) behind it is a "historic" home? When did "historic" become synonymous for run-down? I'm all for historic preservation but this is absurd.
Anonymous Due to Bigotry
Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 4:53 a.m.
I don't think that Zingerman's is nearly as important to the world as the people of Ann Arbor would like to think. I didn't know anyone who had heard of it prior to moving here. But then again, Ann Arbor seems to be the center of the world to half the people living here.