500 new jobs in downtown Ann Arbor could spark shift from residential to commercial focus for growth
Big real estate deals accompanied by many jobs are rare in downtown Ann Arbor, which has the allure for a major employer but not enough of the building spaces to accommodate them.
We still see residential deals: New construction of apartments, both under way and proposed, still transforms the edges of the University of Michigan campus.
We’re also seeing apartment buildings sold and listed, and even Ashley Terrace, the under-capacity mixed use condo high-rise on West Huron, reportedly is finding a new owner. The most significant recent commercial sale was the former Ann Arbor News building on South Division.
Yet the largest office deals are self-limiting for companies that want to remain downtown: Few large spaces exist. A company that needs 15,000 square feet will have a few options, but there isn’t much beyond that.
But need 100,000 square feet? Or 40,000 with room to reach that six-figure milestone?
Rare.
That’s why the announcement last week that Barracuda Networks wants that much space in downtown is so compelling for Ann Arbor.
It reminds us of the potential to develop here and to reach the density goals set nearly a decade ago by planners and business advocates. But now - unlike the peak of the rush to build in the city’s core - we’re talking about office space. Jobs. People who’ll populate the streets during the daytime and just might find a way to live here, too. It’s a picture that flips that development goal that we sought in recent years: Building the residential base so that people who live in the central business district could boost the local economy, even if they left town for work.
The potential for housing downtown - mostly in condominium form - was deemed nearly limitless. How else could we explain 2,000 new units in the pipeline at one time, and so many of them costing $400,000 or more?
We got mired in questions: Where will they park? Don’t we need a grocery store? What if chain stores follow?
All of the introspection generated by those questions seems wasted now. The truth, as exposed by the economic downturn but lurking in the shadows the entire time: There really isn’t a limitless market for downtown housing, especially when you price it beyond the reach of many young professionals.
That’s particularly true since downtown remains defined by the same vibrant streets and slower side streets that always formed downtown, despite efforts to extend its borders.
While many proposed residential projects didn’t happen, some - like Liberty Lofts - did. The gain in the number of residents is felt. Downtown can now support a CVS on South State. Commercial space is growing on East Washington because it can find customers.
However, we may never again see the rush to build housing downtown like we did in 2005. But we still have room for improvement in the numbers of people who spend time downtown.
The pendulum, as they say, is swinging.
Today, a new shaping of downtown won’t come from proponents of major housing developments lining up at the city’s Planning Department.
Instead, the Barracuda announcement dovetails with the new attitude toward downtown development: Filling the commercial district with workstations - not beds - will aid the viability of downtown.
Instead of residents, we have a new appreciation for the daytime worker and the benefits they bring. Ann Arbor’s downtown now wants its office employees back, and it wants to attract new ones.
Those workers will “fill the clock” on our city streets, returning a lunchtime rush and ability of a merchant to make sales outside of the nightlife scene.
They’ll fill the void that major employees left when they moved from downtown in the last decade.
Even before city officials could prioritize that shift, Barracuda raised the bar of expectations. Suddenly, we can hope for up to 500 workers.
And even those among us who recognize that Google promised hundreds more employees than it has in Ann Arbor also can see that its presence counts as an economic driver.
Filling our office space and looking for viable ways to increase it makes sense for Ann Arbor, especially as the national economy tells us we should be headed for a rebound.
And if we can find a way to fulfill Barracuda’s vision for itself downtown, the move could jumpstart a significant economic development movement for the core of Ann Arbor.
Paula Gardner is news director of AnnArbor.com. Contact her by email or 734-623-2586.
Comments
Tom Whitaker
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
Here we go again... One company hints that they may want to expand and suddenly it's time to throw out 6+ years of community planning? Time to give away our parking structures, time to hand out tax breaks? No. "Density" in terms of Ann Arbor's Downtown Plan refers to POPULATION density, not concrete density. The whole idea is for Ann Arbor to have a healthy mix of residential, office, government and retail, so that it is a 24-hour city--or at least an 18-hour city--NOT an 8-hour city. Barracuda wants to expand in Ann Arbor because it's an attractive place to be. As such, they have an incentive to stay here and work within our parameters. We gave Pfizer millions in tax breaks, but they left the minute their stock price faltered. For many recent years, Downtown Ann Arbor contained primarily office and government uses, with retail space consisting largely of restaurants and bars that were frequented by the weekday lunch and after-work crowd. Campus areas had only businesses catering to student needs. Available parking capacity was strained by office workers during the day, then emptied out at night. It never got as bad as Lansing, which is a virtual ghost town after 5 pm, because few people live in their downtown. In Ann Arbor, these days, we have more apartments above the retail spaces and restaurants, as previously vacant 2nd and 3rd floors have been converted to residential. Liberty Lofts and Ashley Mews have provided new units for working people with better salaries. Some families, working couples, and retirees, despite the discouragement of the City's elected and bureaucratic officials, have moved into older neighborhoods close to downtown and now walk to businesses, farmer's market, and restaurants. Most new construction has been for students, not for the families and working people who have real buying power. We need more downtown residential opportunities for the people who have the ability to choose to live elsewhere.
melissa
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 1:47 a.m.
Ah, downtown a2. Pretentious. Overpriced. Overrated. Crowded. There are plenty of great places minutes from there that wont cause more headaches. Contrary to what they may believe, it is not the center of the universe.
dotdash
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 2:40 a.m.
Come on, Melissa, downtown AA is a nice enough place. Sit down at an outside table, have a drink or a cup of coffee, do some people watching, catch some music -- what is so bad?
say it plain
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
Ah yes, I agree that commercial development downtown is waaay better for the feel of downtown than either a conference center (wow, what a colossal waste of energy our city 'leaders' spent on *that* one!), or endless 'luxury' condos for retirees and ultra-spendy young people. Better too than more student lofts right downtown, blurring the subtle divides between the UM-focused parts of downtown and the city-focused parts. You can't count on business incentive/tax-breaks to get companies to follow through on their initial commitments to bring jobs/day-people-street-traffic to a downtown (witness the google mess), but when you encourage it in any case, it should be good for developing a vibrant downtown that allows for interesting and varied retail and entertainment and services. The whole condo-craze was all part of the obscenities of the real estate -based forces that caused the economic downturn of course....realtors telling everyone they should buy three of everything, because real estate never goes down, the developers who'd help *those* people get their commissions and then buy two more of everything, the bankers who financed the whole scene and themselves bought three dozen more of everything, etc...
WhyCan'tWeBeFriends
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 5:08 p.m.
I don't remember seeing any realtors holding guns to buyer heads forcing them to buy 3 condos at a time, just as no one forced investors to purchase Bear Stearns or other investments gone bad. The problem with residential real estate downtown is not realtors, it is developers who seem unable to build anything affordable. If 2 bedroom condos were built in the $150 - 200,000 range, with parking included, there would have been takers, and I bet they would have easily held their value too.
diagbum
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
Barracuda should build on the underground parking structure.
Basic Bob
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
Business is even better than residential, because we have the political will to tax the stuffing out of them.
xmo
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:32 p.m.
Finally, someone else see's that capitalism and growth is not bad for Ann Arbor! Some day, maybe we will elect people who are pro-business.
Bear
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.
as long as by "pro-business" you don't mean anti-local citizen, which usually is the case. And no, we will not elect business zealots with dollar signs in their eyes.
mojo
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.
Never happen. "Rain-gardens," green farm fields and pot clinics for all my friend.
DennisP
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
There's always been an urban dynamic that-when correct-strikes a balance between residency and commercial activity. Urban and city planners have mucked with this natural dynamic using theories du jour and then puzzling why their micromanaging failed to bring about the desired outcomes. We now see a desire to try to assemble or manufacture commingled uses--look to the artificial "community" at Zeeb near Liberty where a few strip mall shops sit within an apartment complex. However that doesn't create the sense of community or living. Why? My guess is that hardly anyone who owns or works in those shops lives in that complex. There is no mutuality of community. Urban centers like downtowns can capture that balance but I don't know as this kind of thing can be "planned" in the way a garden can be planned. I think cities need to learn to manage growth instead of plan it. Welcome it by easing the site approval process while making sure that growth isn't detrimental to health or safety and doesn't exhaust the resources a community can provide (e.g. utilties). The other aspect is to make sure that those developers who seek to manifestly alter areas or sectors in a big way with huge projects have an end game. This may entail posting large bonds prior to construction to cover the cost of demolition and restoration if a project fails or falls into disrepair due to mismanagement. That would discourage pie-in-the-sky developers with grand ideas and seed money but no real means of bringing something into effect.