Concerned Citizen

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 8:46 p.m.

1.) That AATA "lunch trip" to the Arb also would most likely be made,...oh,...say,...during the "lunch hour rush" when AATA schedules are understandably likely to be running a bit behind schedule.... And, where was the time allocated to gathering your things and getting out of your work location?... as well as to-and-from the bus stop (that, given all the constantly shifting construction detours, may or may not be "exactly where you left it"! :-)!!! )? The stress of even contemplating this excusion with less than a 2 hour time window cries out for the establishment of a place of respite (and lunch! :-)!) adjacent to the AADL!!! 2.) The drivers of the AATA deserve our thanks and a great deal of credit for navigating Ann Arbor's ever fluctuating construction zones!!! 3.)Seriously, how was the DDA established and to whom are they accountable?

glenn thompson

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 4:15 p.m.

@V Please read the article you referenced, specifically that the study was a $40,000 Rockford Convention Center and Hotel Feasibility Analysis commissioned by the Rockford Area Convention & Visitors Bureau. And the statement Most governments and private-sector agencies that develop an events facility realize they will incur annual operating losses The study was commissioned by the Convention & Visitors Bureau, a group that wants the convention center. This is not an independent study. Yet even they admit the Convention Center will operate at a loss. The Brookings Institute study that I referenced does not have a reason for bias. They report many specific examples where increased economic activity projected by industry studies did not occur. Another example is the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform which concluded: "The public justification for public financing, including construction financing with tax exempt bonds, is that this is an investment that brings jobs and consumers to a citys downtown. Academic research on the value to economic development, however, has universally concluded that sports stadiums, convention centers and hotels do not increase economic activity in downtown areas."

Karen Sidney

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 3:33 p.m.

Mona Terrace, the Frank Lloyd Wright designed conference center in Madison WI, had a $4.5 million operating loss in 2008, according to the most recent Madison audit. The operating loss is before interest expense. Mona Terrace is much larger than conference centers proposed by Acquest or Valiant so an Ann Arbor conference center would have a smaller operating deficit. The city has to come up with operating money regardless of whether there is a park or conference center. Economic arguments should be based on evidence of whether green spaces or conference centers attract more new business or development to downtown areas.

glenn thompson

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 2:59 p.m.

@V The majority of conferences are not the glamorous three day international events that you describe. The average conference length is about 1.5 days. This means that there are a lot of one day regional ones for every three day international one. These are the ones that Ann Arbor is most likely to attract. And yes, I am saying that for every 1,000 people that attend AA conferences few of them will travel outside the hotel to dine, purchase gifts, go to a bars, or use a taxi. An early post by AlfaElan states exactly what happens I had an acquaintance who is a BA pilot and on the London Detroit run the airline put him up in an Ann Arbor hotel by Briarwood....... All those times flying into Detroit he had never gone downtown! The developers want millions of tax dollars to finance their projects. But the city needs to review some of the independent studies, such as this one from the Brookings Institute. http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2005/01cities_sanders.aspx This study reports that the conference center is unlikely to yield much increased business for any given community, contrary to repeated industry projections. Either this study or others I have read state that art and performance events, like those that could be hosted on a town plaza are much better generators of economic return.

a2jean

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 2:56 p.m.

p.s. to EV: on the other hand, not everyone gets a 75+ minute lunch hour.

a2jean

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 1:35 p.m.

@EV: Good point! I ride the bus every day -- the 2, in fact. I like the idea of a central park (maybe call it Rapandulo Park, in order to get a certain someone on board?) for other events & reasons, too.

a2jean

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 1:05 p.m.

V -- For someone who works downtown, say within the confines of State/ Catherine/ First/ Packard, would you drive to, say, the Arb for lunch? There are two problems: parking (good luck with that!) and time (going to your car, driving, trying to find said parking, walking to Arb from car). Tick tick tick, your lunch hour is over before you even get a chance to feed the squirrels. And unless you have a reserved parking spot, you need to find one when you return to work. Uck!

Moose

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 12:51 p.m.

Yeah, they'll go to the golf courses. All six months that they're playable. What Ann Arbor needs is a strip club for those conventioneers. LOL! All anecdotal stories about what conference attendees do. Remember when taxpayer funded public aquariums were all the rage? Don't forget Auto World in Flint! The facts are that conference and convention centers are money losers and even if a few local businesses make a little money when there is a conference or convention, what it all boils down to is that the taxpayers are on the hook for the debt, giving the land away and paying for the infrastructure. Weigh those costs against the POSSIBLE potential for increased tax revenues (if it's profitable) and some service jobs like maid service and restaurant workers, maybe a few t shirts... as if conference attendees are looking for t shirts. This little more than a giveaway of public property, more tax breaks and increased taxpayer debt for some big UM connected for profit developers from New York City.

glenn thompson

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 10:11 a.m.

I have attended many conferences and business meetings. Most of the ones I attended were working meetings. I went to hear what someone else was presenting or to make my presentation, not to party. Occasionally I went to a restaurant outside the hotel/conference center but this was unusual. The only 'souvenir' I can remember buying at a conference was a bottle of tequila from Mexico City. A duty free purchase at the airport. Academic research confirm that my experience is more typical than the party conference model. Some of these do occur but they are scheduled in Las Vegas, Orlando, Hawaii and other vacation locations. A US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform concluded that: "The public justification for public financing, including construction financing with tax exempt bonds, is that this is an investment that brings jobs and consumers to a citys downtown. Academic research on the value to economic development, however, has universally concluded that sports stadiums, convention centers and hotels do not increase economic activity in downtown areas." An Ann Arbor conference center will be a very large tax subsidy that will benefit very few besides the developer.

Moose

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 10:06 a.m.

In order to get conferences or conventions to come here, there needs to be other attractions for attendees... What are those attractions? The other cities of which many people speak of are Chicago, New York, Atlanta,Nashville even in our region there is Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis. Then there are the ones that are constantly compared to Ann Arbor... Madison, Boulder, Portland ALL of those cities can offer more, much more to attract people than Ann Arbor can. We don't even have a gentlemen's club! Face it folks, Ann Arbor is a relatively small midwest college town with all the charm that comes with that. Ann Arbor is NOT any of those places. Not even close. Minus the student population, Ann Arbor has about 60,000 people. A smaller population than any other of those cities. It has far fewer "attractions" than of any those cities. What does Ann Arbor have? A really nice downtown with more restaurants than retail. Several parking structures. A great old theater. A2 has the UM with it's own conference facilities. UM has big sporting events that bring thousand to town, maybe 10 Saturdays a year? We have great neighborhoods, good public parks, a few malls on the outskirts, some good high tech companies, and loads of service jobs. What's the attraction??? What differentiates Ann Arbor from any of those places to which we are constantly compared and told that to succeed and grow, we must be more like them, to get business, to get money, to get people to come here??? Making comparisons to other cities is silly. Most of those places already have convention and conference facilities and far more other attractions than we do (Boulder has the Rocky Mountains!). Just because Ann Arbor gets a conference center will not make it instantly competitive or desirable with those places and in most cases doing it better than we might? To conference attendees, Ann Arbor is nothing special or different. We will not grow or succeed by emulating other places or spending our way to be what we are not. Ann Arbor must play to it's strengths and use its assets to the fullest. It cannot succeed by emulating other places. When every other city talks conference center, we must think differently or we'll just be a repeat of what they offer. We must recognize what our assets are and play them up. Downtown, UM, small, people (including students), parks, Art Fair and a few other arts events, a few locally attractive weekend events on Main St, good weather (6 months a year). Ann Arbor MUST build on THESE things! To be sustainable, growth must be organic and relate to where, what and who we are! This is where our collective future lies. It is NOT in attracting people here for a few conferences, it is about IMPROVING on what we have and what makes Ann Arbor different. It is doing and continuing to do those things that make people want to actually LIVE here and enjoy what Ann Arbor already has to offer.

seldon

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 9:31 a.m.

Comparisons to New York City are an insult to our intelligence. Ann Arbor isn't a sprawling metropolis with a shortage of trees. It's a few short blocks from the library lot to the much larger park called the Diag. (Perhaps the original poster hasn't ever been East of State or something.) The downtown is surrounded by tree-filled neighborhoods. On the same block, there's a small park with trees. I can't count the number of parks within Ann Arbor and the surrounding area. And if you drive 10-15 minutes South on Main, you're in farmland. Come on, guys.

Mumbambu, Esq.

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 9:24 a.m.

I find it funny that there are people against the development because "We're Ann Arbor, not New York" but then when we talk about the possibilities of a centrally located park comes up the argument is "If New York can do it...".

Red

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 9:20 a.m.

I too like the idea of convention space downtown. I recognize the risks that come with the $8M city investment but I am all for putting our tax dollars to work. There are numerous good paying construction jobs that come with building such a project and then the potential jobs with the convention business to follow. I know the convention market is a risk but someone needs to take on risk to create jobs and generate revenue. I want to see my tax dollars at work and I really mean at work: build / maintain our roads and bridges (infrastructure!), invest in new business and help with construction, provide rebates to new industries... this project would be a risk worth taking.

Concerned Citizen

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 12:52 a.m.

1.) The area is grid-lock-congested already on those football weekends. Why would anyone in their right mind think adding more dense congestion was a plus? ( Well,... maybe the answer is simple...) The DDA is by definition created for DEVELOPMENT and thus there is also by their defined goal no reason for them to see ANY point in creating Ann Arbor's "Central Park" and THAT is an emense tragedy. We have a final chance to reclaim a downtown open space which was last lost with the filling in of the old Court House lawn on Main St. Please, those of you who do not know the neighborhood,(and by neighborhood, I mean the people who actually work and reside there) give those who appreciate the view a break! That lot has for decades been, and still is, defined as "The Library Lot" and truly should be reverted to civic space in conjunction with the future plans of the AADL. 2.) The Liberty Plaza situation is many-sided. If Ann Arbor wanted to clear it of vagrants it could do so, however, most of these folks do have the right to congregate there, and apparently the City has allowed for a Church group to gather folks there for a free meal on Friday evenings. So... do not simply write off the possibility of civic space based on prejudice against Liberty Plaza. That is much too facile an argument.

Concerned Citizen

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 8:52 p.m.

The Library Lot was shut down completely, dug up, hauled away, re-filled, compacted, re-built, & resurfaced by the DDA in 2007. New lamp posts and fixtures were installed during football season of that year. (Since Oct.'09, all of that has already been, or is about to be, trashed.) Would it be possible for AnnArbor.com to find out the cost of that project?... and what was reported to be the "shelf-life" of that upgrade? Thank you.

AlfaElan

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 7:54 p.m.

I've seen a number of people say that a hotel and convention center in downtown doesn't make sense with the current hotel situation. Then I look at the timeline and think what will the situation be in 5 years after this development is done? I think there are a lot of people who would rather stay downtown for Game weekends than out by Briarwood. The hotels I see being canabalized by this development are all on the outskirts of town and mainly in locations that mean most of their clients don't go out for dinner but eat in. I had an acquaintance who is a BA pilot and on the London Detroit run hte airline put him up in an Ann Arbor hotel by Briarwood. Well one day I picked him up so we could compare cars. On the drive around town and then dinner at Palios he was surprised at what Ann Arbor had to offer. All those times flying into Detroit he had never gone downtown! The closest conference center I see this canabalizing from is the Marriott Eagle Crest south of Ypsilanti. Personally I do not this a problem nor it taking business from conference centers in Livonia and Novi. I doubt anyone going to a conference at the Marriott ever leaves the building except to go home. A downtown conference center would see people like me going to dinner at a local restaurant.

Michael K.

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 7:49 p.m.

Bravo Michael! That parking lot happens to be one of my favorite "open spaces" to see the sky and feel the wind in that stretch of downtown. It is nestled in amongst a lot of blank, boring, dead facades on Liberty. I think the ground rule should be this: we are never going to get **more** open space. Let the devclopers buy the under-utilzed, old infrastructure - crap houses - abutting that area and develop those first if they make economic sense. Have you **ever** seen a parking garage that enhanced your quality of life? They all suck, even the best. They are cold, grey, unpleasant areas to scuttle through like cockroaches, and hope you don't get mugged. I agree - quality of life should be the **only** criteria the city is looking at! They can facilitate development of underutilized infrastructure. The tax dollars will flow through that. I thought we believed in free markerts and capitalism? Let the open space be - for the people and plebes like us! Cheers!

Gill

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 7:39 p.m.

Why does this absurd notion that the only spot for green space downtown is on top of an underground parking structure? Can you people please focus your energy on finding a spot that suitable PRIOR to it being under development as a multilevel structure? The City Hall property would have also been good (with the now Tios lot included) to put buildings around the edges of the property, and had law quad type entrances into a green space in the middle, perfect for gatherings. Too late for that also.

Mike D.

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 7:20 p.m.

I respectfully disagree. I would like ONE decent hotel in downtown Ann Arbor. When I want to experience nature, I use the far larger Diag, or walk 15 minutes to the spectacular Nichols Arboretum. Or West Park. Or Wheeler Park. Or Riverside Park. Or Elbel Field. I wouldn't use a park in a dead part of downtown that likely would just be a magnet for punks and druggies. If I wanted to do that, I'd go to the Liberty Plaza park on the same block as the library lot.

talker

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 5:25 p.m.

Yes, but it's even more than not doing the project that is said to make money. A hotel or convention center could end up costing Ann Arborites. How? With all the hotels and convention facilities within thirty miles and with low vacancy in the overbuilt hospitality industry, profits aren't a sure thing. Plus, with the assurances the city and we the taxpayers would have to give, there's the possibility (even probability) that our risk would result in future bond issue and other financing costs. The city is squeezed right now. Police and fire protection are essential. Ann Arbor is having trouble funding essential services now. Taking on the risk of a hospitality project are not in the best interests of the city. In summary, I agree with you that the park and low rise buildings proposed (and reported in Ann Arbor.com previously) will enhance quality of life. Beyond that, it's likely that the park project will be better for the city economically.

Joel A. Levitt

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 4:04 p.m.

I am not impressed by the AADAs desire for more revenue, but a hotel-supported convention space is a very attractive idea. On the other hand, an $8 million city commitment should be thought out very carefully. A proper convention space would be in keeping with Ann Arbors continuing development as a major center for academic excellence. In addition to adding jobs by benefitting our restaurant and entertainment industries, such a convention facility would attract several national meetings of learned societies during our beautiful Spring and Fall. These meetings are typically attended by as many as 5,000 and typically last four or more days. Further, depending on the agreement reached with the developer, such a convention center could be an excellent community meeting place. With regard to the cost, I have several questions. What can be done more economically with the building of the former Ann Arbor News? Since a proper convention center would benefit the UM, shouldnt the university contribute to its financing? If the developer/owner defaults, would the convention-center/hotel become the property of the city with no further city expenditure?

Moose

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 3:57 p.m.

Is a hotel a good idea when the market for hotel (and conference/convention center) occupancy is in the tank and is projected to remain there for many years and maybe permanently due to technological advances and changes to that market? Is a hotel such a great idea when the public has to give the developer the land, defer taxes and float a bond (public debt) to pay for it?

tracyann

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 3:19 p.m.

I don't think a hotel of sorts is a bad idea. If you're trying to draw visitors to the area then why not offer them the option of staying downtown as opposed to the outskirts? In Toronto, it's great to be able to walk around downtown, maybe stop at a bar for a couple of drinks, then be able to walk back to the hotel.

larry

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 2:27 p.m.

The library lot does not necessarily have to be just a green space. It could be more like a public square with a beautiful water fountain, and benches for people to sit and relax and mingle. The best cities always have had public places that people enjoy. Downtown Plymouth is a good example of a public square with a pleasant water fountain, with some green space and trees.

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 1:45 p.m.

Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the model Ann Arbor is working on with its Greenspace plan. It's a canyon about 277 miles long and 10 miles wide tucked into the mountains of northwestern Arizona. Spectacular greenspace. A truly memorable view. The only problem is that the only way to get to where the city would be located is by hiking or by donkey. I think that would suit the greenspace people very nicely, but the rest of us might find that a bit inconvenient. I'm a bit sad over the loss of the library lot. Our family had a tradition of parking there that lasted five decades. We grew fond of specific cracks in the asphalt, and had a few preferred parking spots. We even named them. There was "Old Faithful," a coveted spot just a few feet from connecting sidewalks. And "Barnaby," who seemed like he was in the middle of nowhere, but somehow was convenient to so many destinations. It's hard to let go of tradition. I'm not sure a homeless farm (excuse me, that wasn't politically correct, I humbly apologize) is the right solution for our city.

Moose

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 1:43 p.m.

I wonder if people have been "parking" their horses and wagons on the Library Lot since Ann Arbor was founded.

Moose

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 1:40 p.m.

@Ron. I suppose that if you're not in favor of a park that as some describe, wrongfully and ignorantly so, as place for homeless people that requires maintenance, that you do favor subsidizing private development with your tax dollars and then pay on the public debt for an $8 million bond, the tax relief and the public property giveaway when the developers and politicians rosy predictions don't come true? And if anyone is going to kvetch about green this and green that, then let them be aware of the differences between open green space as a concept, a downtown public square that would primarily be buildings and concrete, the proposed Allen Creek Greenway running from downtown to the Huron River and The Greenbelt that uses tax dollars to buy property in the townships, purportedly to prevent sprawl and increase urban density.

Moose

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 12:37 p.m.

There is a great opportunity for green open space in downtown Ann Arbor. It's called the Allen Creek. The Allen Creek, currently running underground in a pipe, is inextricably connected to the city by it's topography and it's historical importance. Three sites, First and William, 415 W Washington, and 721 N Main are all publicly owned and constitute a great opportunity for unique open space in downtown.

Swaney

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 12:25 p.m.

ShadowManager I think your misguided. Just because it has been a parking for a couple of decades doesn't mean it can't be reclaimed as green space. It was green space for centuries. I work downtown and live close to downtown. It would be wonderful to see a park next to our main library. A community space for my family to go after we visit the library.

ShadowManager

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 12:02 p.m.

I apppreciate the sentiments of the letterwriter, but I think his yearning for "greenspace" is misguided. That spot right there at the Library Lot is a parking lot, has been a parking lot of over 30 years, and is smack dab in the middle of a whole bunch other parking lots and buildings. It's not some Edenic gardenspot meant to be preserved...it's an asphalt parking lot that's probably been a parking lot since Ann Arbor was founded. Greenspace should be reserved to be preserved at actual green spots...not downtown parking lots.