Two 14-story high-rise proposals heading to Ann Arbor's Design Review Board this week
Ann Arbor’s Design Review Board will weigh in this week on two downtown development proposals: a 14-story apartment building over Pizza House restaurant on Church Street and a 14-story apartment building on East Huron Street.
The developments, if built, would add hundreds of beds to the downtown rental market — particularly for University of Michigan students.
A rendering of the proposed development above the Pizza House restaurant on Ann Arbor's Church Street
Rendering by J Bradley Moore & Associates
The Pizza House development, proposed by restaurant owner Dennis Tice and Minnesota-based Opus Group, calls for a 14-story, 83-unit project that would be built next to and over a portion of the existing restaurant.
An existing two-story residential structure on the site south of the restaurant would be demolished to make way for the high-rise. The building would consist of one- and two-bedroom units.
Georgia-based Carter leads the second project, which is on the northeast corner of East Huron and North Division streets. A former Papa John’s restaurant, a house and a vacant building would be replaced with a 14-story, 213-unit high-rise targeting young professionals, graduate students and upperclassmen.
(Read more about both developments here)
But as Carter prepares to discuss its plans with the Design Review Board this week, some downtown residents and neighborhood association leaders are taking a strong stance against the project.
Ray Detter, chairman of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, along with other neighborhood association leaders, sent a document to city leaders last week expressing their concern over the “poorly designed” structure.
A rendering of the proposed development for 401 and 413 East Huron Street in downtown Ann Arbor
Rendering by Humphreys & Partners Architects
“The project’s out-of-town developer is concerned only about his bottom line and obviously has no long-term interest in maintaining the integrity of those properties or of the adjacent neighborhood,” wrote the Downtown Design Guidelines Citizens Review Committee, a group representing eight near-downtown residential neighborhood organizations, in an email to city leaders.
"We recommend the mayor meet with the developer as soon as possible to insist on the submission of a proposal that builds on the character of Ann Arbor's downtown district, rather than destroying it," the email continues.
The committee says the developer — who could not be reached for comment — has failed to meet many of the city’s downtown design guidelines. Among its concerns:
- The “massive, unarticulated” design of the building
- The lack of amenities to pedestrians
- The effect on Sloan Plaza residents
- The scale of the high-rise next to a residential historic district with two-story, nineteenth century homes
- The over-saturated student rental market downtown
As part of the city’s design review process, developers are required to submit preliminary design plans to the Design Review Board prior to applying for site plan approval. City ordinance requires a meeting with the board, but implementation of its suggestions is voluntary. A citizens participation meeting will precede planning commission and city council meetings on both projects.
The Design Review Board is scheduled to meet at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 17 at 301 E. Huron St.
Lizzy Alfs is a business reporter for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at 734-623-2584 or email her at lizzyalfs@annarbor.com. Follow her on Twitter at http://twitter.com/lizzyalfs.
Comments
DJBudSonic
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 1:29 a.m.
Maybe it is supposed to look like a stubby Lake Shore Apartments? That is the best thing I can think to say about it and even that is not meant to be a compliment.
mczacharias
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 7:27 p.m.
'top-shelf' developers attract 'top-shelf' architects, 'bottom-shelf' developers attract 'bottom-shelf' architects. ........welcome to the American town + cityscape.
Cathy
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 10:12 p.m.
Unfortunately, top-shelf architects build the ugliest buildings. Frank Gehry is the toppest top shelf, and his stuff can't be safely viewed without a dose of Dramamine.
Soulful Adrenaline
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 6:51 p.m.
They still need to put a little more effort in the Huron St. Design.
Cathy
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 10:27 p.m.
I think I'll put a slaughterhouse downtown. So what if the neighbors don't like it? That's rent-seeking behavior.
fnr
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 7 p.m.
I agree! The building itself is ugly, but I don't think that our preferences should have the slightest impact on whether or not the building gets permitted.
Tom Joad
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 6:06 p.m.
The new high rise at the corner of E. Huron and Division has effectively blocked the entire eastern view of the adjacent building as well as it's own western view for its occupants. One would think that losing views would lower the demand for such units. Part of the appeal of living in a high rise structure is the view. These large structures are effectively becoming urban canyons.
BHarding
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:45 p.m.
Not very imaginative design for Huron & Division, too bad they can't hire Robert A.M. Stern Architects who did such great jobs on the Ford School of Public Policy and North Quad. But it's obvious they're counting every square inch as money making, not as pride in their art. I wish I could tell from the drawing what material is that dark, I guess they'll just dye concrete. Their website shows either 4-6 story buildings, or a quick jump up to towering high-rises. I just hope they improve their design to something we'd enjoy looking at everyday.
B2Pilot
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:10 p.m.
Well it looks actually better than city hall building which is as unwelcoming and cold a structure the city council could find. Lets see approved high rise on Detroit st. now these hmmm. It's not good our Mayor is falling back on his real estate dealing days. When will he, council bring a new company Downtown???? That would be a welcomed developement
SonnyDog09
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:35 p.m.
Who exactly is the "Downtown Design Guidelines Citizens Review Committee" and why should anyone care what they think? What are their qualifications? What criteria do they use during their review?
Tyler
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.
Bring in money to the city (development costs, workers eating at local restaurants, general economic boost to downtown with increase in area population) takes students out of the slums and into a private owned rental unit that pays taxes (unlike the UM)? Sounds like a winning situation to me.
rusty shackelford
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:02 p.m.
Anyone associated with Sloan has no grounds to talk about bad design. That building is heinous. Belongs in that high rise office park off the Lodge in Southfield.
SFK
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.
Why not combine them for a 28 story structure. That way only one site is needed which reduces the footprint of two buildings.
xmo
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:40 p.m.
Build baby Build! The more you build the more affordable Ann Arbor becomes!
Sam S Smith
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 8 p.m.
How so? For who? Yes, Ann Arbor will certainly need the rich to pay for taxes. Those who qualify for affordable housing will also be able to stay. If you make enough not to qualify for affordable housing but are not rich, you're a goner.
Crustyc11
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.
You really think Mayor John is going to do anything to coax the developers to design things to look pleasing and fitting of Ann Arbor? LOL , this guy is so self serving and such a kiss butt person. He'll do anything to get elected again. He should take a trip to the Caribbean with his staff again or something to get a sense of inner peace and harmony with his surroundings! LOL Ann Arbor's mayor and board rolling over again for ugly terrible development.
fnr
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
It's actually in pandering to the "downtown residents" that politicians are most likely to be re-elected. Students don't vote, nor do future residents of anything built after the next election. It's exactly in this manner that corruption takes place. Local residents use the political leverage of their collective vote to induce politicians to block land uses the residents find distasteful. In Ann Arbor of 2012, it's high-rise student apartments. In the Grosse Pointes, it might be low-rent apartments that a wage-earner might be able to afford. Both policies hurt the poor, but it's harder to perceive when it's Ann Arbor residents worried about "character" and pedestrian accessibility. Bottom line is this: when you restrict the housing market, the people at the bottom of the economic ladder get hurt the worst. If Mayor John and the city council give in and block this kind of development, it only serves to increase the rents that existing property owners can charge (there's how corruption fits in). Rich people (students in this case) can bid up the rents on scarce housing and it makes housing more expensive for everyone.
Arboriginal
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
The Huron structure looks good to me. Why no hissy fit about A2's ugliest structure - Ashley Terrace?
Cathy
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 10:08 p.m.
Yeah, Huron Towers was built before I was born. It's a little late to complain, don't you think?
DJBudSonic
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:43 p.m.
That structure is all hissed out. It IS ugly though I have learned to "blind spot" it while in the vicinity. Plus it it too late to hissy fit once it is built, the time to have your fit is at the public hearings.
BHarding
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:34 p.m.
I think there were plenty of hissy fits, but it looked better on paper. Horrible material on the exterior.
PersonX
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
Thank you Ray & others for standing up for the city. If we are going to change the skyline of Ann Arbor even further than the authorities have to take some care about the impact of all of this on generations to come, not just on the pocketbooks of bottom-line developers and the terrible "architects" that cater to them. The cumulative effect of bad design is already being felt and someone in power needs to start thinking about the future. There actually are some good and imaginative architects around, and some of them even live in Ann Arbor. We all realize that taste is relative and cannot be legislated, but the junk that is being built around here is beyond good and evil!
Wolf's Bane
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:09 p.m.
Disgusting. The obvious answer is "No." Don't build it and walk away.
Carolyn
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
If these sites are already zoned for MF residential with up to (or above) 14 stories and however-many dwelling units, there is not much City Council can do except negotiate with the developer to meet design standards and other "discretionary" elements. What may need to happen is for the Planning Commission to request staff to initiate another look at the campus area master plan and see if we are headed in the right direction. High density in the urban core is not necessarily a bad thing, but overdevelopment is. (Carolyn Poissant, AICP)
Veracity
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:04 p.m.
Many University of Michigan students come from families who have high incomes and can afford to pay $1000-plus monthly lease rates at the many new high-rise apartment buildings that now dot the downtown and campus area. However, the University of Michigan intends to reduce its incoming class sizes and at some point the market for luxury student housing will become saturated. The Opus Group's 14-story 83 unit and Carter's 14-story 213 unit facilities could be the first student projects to exceed local demand and face potential failure. Why would seasoned developer's risk financial disaster in a maturing luxury student resident market? On the one hand, the developers are not risking their own money but obtain third party financing for their projects. Secondly, developers receive their fees "up front" off the top of their loans before a dollar is spent in construction. And their fees are sizable, sometimes amounting to 2% or more of the total financing. On a $20 million project the developer can typically obtain $400,000. Even if their projects fail to be constructed or enter bankruptcy after completion, the developers keep their fees. Most developers avoid financial risk by never investing in their projects for the long term. Only City Council can protect our community from over-development and the risk of speculative construction failing with the attendant negative impacts on the City's character and finances.
Cathy
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 10:07 p.m.
The project fails, and the banks take a hit. Then the banks get bailed out by the Feds.
foobar417
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.
You make the same point every time there's one of these articles and it never makes any sense. If too many apartments are built, then some investors will lose their shirts. Someone will foreclose on the building and it will get rented at market rates. It's not like they are building buildings that won't get used. You talk about "failure" as if the building is at risk of standing empty, which is nonsense.
fnr
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
Actually, this is exactly the kind of risk for which the free market is ideally suited. If the project fails, the owners lose their money. That's the way things are supposed to happen.
ChrisW
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
The Huron building is ugly. Nobody wants to be looking at that for the next 30 years.
Cathy
Thu, Oct 18, 2012 : 10:05 p.m.
Whatever. There's nothing anti-capitalist about wanting a building that is not a huge eyesore.
fnr
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
Then those concerned should buy the property and do something else with it. The city already has the "downtown design guidelines" that help preserve the "character" of different neighborhoods (already too much a fence to keep out affordable housing from the city). We are a capitalist country, believe it or not. Adjacent landowners who complain about the blight to their visual space to their city council are unintentionally reducing the economic diversity of Ann Arbor. By working to stop high-rise development whose appearances they find distasteful, these residents are trying to use the power of the state to shore up their own property value -- what economists call "rent-seeking behavior." By limiting housing supply by blocking this structure, the well-off students who are the target market for this building bid up rents on surrounding facilities, which pushes higher prices all the way through other housing units in Ann Arbor. People at the bottom get pushed off, and don't live in the city any more.
newsboy
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:46 p.m.
Why only 14 stories high? What we've seen is the "not in my back yard folks," stand in the way real progress. What I find fascinating is the completion between the City of Ann Arbor and the University. When special interests complain and posture in opposition against commonsense development. The university comes in the back door and builds whatever they see fit. This I believe is healthy completion, and government being checked by government. How many small towns in Michigan would welcome any kind of development that sows the seeds of real progress and economic development?
aamom
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:26 p.m.
Is it me or do all these new high rises look the same? A little variety is always nice. I like the look of the new North Quad dorm. Too bad one of the buidlings couldn't channel that a little bit.
Greenradish
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.
I agree. I don't mind Ann Arbor growing a skyline, but I would like to see more attractive architecture. Robert A.M. Stern's architecture firm has done a wonderful job with the campus' planning and architecture, it would be lovely to see the private sector follow suit. Maybe one of these developments will rise to the challenge and use design as a competitive advantage. Likewise, I would love to see the city toss out its downtown zoning and instead adopt a set of understandable and predictable standards for building form and design.
LXIX
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:49 a.m.
The solution is simple. Save money by merging the Planning Commission and Design Review Board into a one person office. Cross-train the head of Parks and Recreation to fill the lone position on a part-time basis. Local residents are given reserved hours for being served. The so-called progressive leaders and advisors in this town who think that density development is the environmentally correct approach to overpopulation are myoptic. Try planning and running a no-growth sustainable town instead of just adding more monolithic brick junk and calling it merged-county "green".
fnr
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:20 p.m.
Is higher population the problem or higher intensity per capita? 50 years ago, the divorce rate was much lower. How does divorce enter the picture? A married couple with 1-2 kids gets divorced and suddenly, the same number of people lives in two homes instead of one, takes two trips to the grocery store instead of one, occupies more space, consumes more land, etc. Single living has increased as well. If you look at demography since 1960, those changes have far outstripped population growth: in Michigan land development grew at 3x the rate of population growth from 1970-2000. That fits directly into the issue here. If you block high-density residential developments, you push people into living farther away from the city center, where walking, biking, and transit are less viable. You make it so poor people can't live in the city, so have to drive farther (and probably can't take transit). You develop more land around the city to accommodate the type of low-to-medium density development that the city does allow.
LXIX
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 3:32 p.m.
50 years ago it was called ZPG - Zero Population Growth. Since then the population has doubled. Back then some smart humans calculated that planet Earth could not sustain endless growth. At some point the limited-resource build-baby-build survival model collapses upon itself in a not so pleasant economic reality - like Detroit and Ypsilanti. Michigan, the USA, and much of the remaining new world order economy. They failed connect family management with evil capitalist tool called incentive. Ann Arbor "progressives" can pretend their saving the planet by exhausting more resources and compacting more people into highrises. Then happily bicycle back to their spacious suburban home with a day's worth of wholesome local food and bottle of organic wine. At what point should Ann Arbor stop growing ? What your alternative? Space is the last economic refuge and, so far, Communist China has dibs on that.
fnr
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
Think population is a bad thing? Look at Detroit. In the last 10 years, it's lost about 30% of its population and that's put huge strain on city finance and infrastructure, reduced investment incentive, and stranded neighborhoods with closing schools. Ypsilanti's lost about 20% in the same time, and it's dealing with major fiscal problems. Are people a virus? No.
Fordie
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 12:19 p.m.
So for the fence you want to put around the city to keep out new residents, is 15 ft. high good enough?
widmer
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:43 a.m.
"The project's out-of-town developer is concerned only about his bottom line and obviously has no long-term interest in maintaining the integrity of those properties or of the adjacent neighborhood," That's quite a scathing assessment. I'm not entirely sure how those conclusions could be reached from what was presented here. Maybe what they meant to say was "We don't really care for the design." Now that's a statement I can get on board with.
fnr
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:34 a.m.
It's actually quite the opposite. This kind of development means that the rich students have fancy places to live together, and not bid up the prices on all the surrounding housing options. I actually think this kind of development increases the supply of affordable housing in Ann Arbor. Meanwhile, the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council is doing its best to represent its residents perceived interests, which in large part center on their own property values and sentimentality about how they perceive the character of their neighborhood. They hope the city council and commission will enforce their non-ownership preferences. I'm all for walkability, and density is one way to ensure it!
B2Pilot
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:14 p.m.
SFK as an Ann Arbor resident buying up township properties remove those properties from the tax rolls as well- don't just point your finger at U of M how do the surrounding townships feel about the real estate mayor buying up surrounding lands?
brian123
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 4:10 p.m.
I'd venture to say that many (if not most?) people are in favor of "dense development" on the Huron parcel. Rather, they have qualms about the very uninspiring dark gray blob that the developer has put forth. We have to live with this structure in our town for the next 100+ years, while the out-of-town developer does not.
SFK
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:54 p.m.
Also, these projects pay city taxes where UM dormitories don't. We need all the revenue we can generate imo.
Sam S Smith
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 11:19 a.m.
Ann Arbor will be the "Manhattan" of the midwest. Only the very rich or those that qualify for affordable housing will be able to live here.
Cathy
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 9:48 p.m.
I think Chicago is the Manhattan of the Midwest.
Dexter Man
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 10:42 a.m.
Ann Arbor's skyline has really changed since I grew up there. I don't know the reason behind all these multiple storied buildings but current Ann Arbor residents must love them or else they would have voted out the council members and mayor who have supported them.
Veracity
Wed, Oct 17, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
The DDA and city administration are encouraging high density construction so that the properties' increased valuation after completion will lead to more tax revenue, which the DDA badly needs in its effort to balance its budget. However, the DDA and City Council have also decided to return most TIF dollars to developers as reimbursement for Brownfield remediation and site development. Thus neither government entity may obtain financial benefit from new construction downtown. The DDA and City Council will also tell you that they can not dictate design requirements for developers nor can they demand documentation of adequate financing, due to "state laws."