The proper height of buildings in Ann Arbor is a topic of on-going debate.
(At least, in the sources I take interest in.)  The redevelopment project
in Lower Town provides a good example of the two sides of the argument.
Neighbors claim that the current plans (which feature 4-6 story buildings)
are "too tall" and would destroy the character of the area, and many call
for the scale of the development to be reduced.  The developer, having
already reduced the size of the development by about 1/6 from the original
plans, says that reducing the scale further would make the project fiscally
unfeasible.  Mayor Hieftje has taken the general stance that development in
downtown Ann Arbor should be limited to 4 stories, but developers claim that
this can't be done profitably, and many feel that limiting development
height makes housing and retail space extremely expensive, causing local
businesses to fail because they can't afford rent, and forcing lower-income
families out of the city.

Is Ann Arbor's character dependant on the height of its buildings?  Can
affordable housing and retail space inside the city (as opposed to in the
townships surrounding) exist in any way other than by increasing density?
How many items do I have to open to revive a cf?

11 responses total.

I dont think Ann Arbor's character is dependant on the height of its 
buildings. Personally, I would like to see more taller buildings. 
However, I think they should be very careful when tearing down older 
buildings. 

Well, well. See earlier item for my take on the interaction between
height/density/urban success.

I think the planning commision is off track.  Especially in Lower Town, where
the original heights would not have made the buildings stick up over the rim
of the river valley.  

It was of great interest to me, when I first played with a GPS unit, to
discover that my 9th floor apartment was at a LOWER altitude than a friend's
back yard in Burns Park.  

GPS elevations determined with the inexpensive hand-held receivers are
very inaccurate. You can do better with a barometer. The reason for this
is the result of what is called "dilution of precision" as a result of
the geometry relating the satellites and the site. 

Nonetheless, an accurate depiction of the height of the buildings versus the
rim of the valley shows that the Lowertown development would not have been
any higher than a one story building in the downtown area.  

I don't see how that is "nonetheless"...but anyway, there are a half dozen
or so USGS benchmarks around Ann Arbor from which you can read accurate
elevations. 

More than the height of new building I'd be concerned 
about the *need* for the space.  I'd like to see business
and retail space be kept tight enough that older buildings
are rehabilitated and considered valuable and there not be a 
lot of vacancies.

We have a thriving downtown depends on a number of factors
being kept in balance.  If maintaining a strict height 
requirement helps development in check, great.  And I
think this is where the mayor is going.

(When editing goes bad... ;-) )

Mary, I think there is a desire for space shown in the fact that stuff keeps
getting built around the outside of the city.  Part of the reason for building
outside of the city, especially office space, is price--if you could have a
downtown office near bus lines, restaurants, bookstores, and so on for the
same price as a suburban office with no local amenities (except a parking
lot), it would be an easy decision.  If the office space is going to be built,
building it within the already built area will help the downtown thrive more
than building it at the fringes (and drawing activity away from the downtown).
Keeping in-town retail space "tight" will keep the price high and encourage
people to look for office space outside the city.

Rehabilitation is definitely desirable, especially as an older building is
usually cheaper to occupy than a newer; a mix in building ages (and
conditions) can help provide a mix of prices.  In the case of the Lower Town
project, the existing structures are ugly one-story strip mall, and mostly
empty--nobody wants them now, but the developer thinks that a mix of
apartments, offices, and more town-style retail will be more desirable to
potential tenants.  I can understand the neighbors' objection to traffic, and
would definitely look into traffic calming measures on Broadway to keep its
residential nature intact, but I can't imagine that, all else being equal,
the neighbors prefer a vacant strip mall to a potentially active block of
shops.

The Ann Arbor Observer's monthly Marketplace Changes has reported several
establishments closing or moving because of high rents downtown.  Some of
them have found new locations in the same area (Dave's Books, for instance).
Others have not.  The interesting thing is that the spaces don't stay empty
long.

'Twill be interesting to see what happens with the new space being built at
the corner of Washington and State.

Maybe my eye is selective, but aren't there quite a lot of "old" buildings
in the 3-5 story range downtown?  New stuff in the 6-8 story range strikes
me as perfectly reasonably if the design is nicely muted and it makes good
economic sense for the *City* (as opposed to the development firm of Poket,
Prophet, & Runn).

Cripes, 1- & 2-story stuff looks like sprawling space-wasters in some of
the higher-density areas downtown.  

I have real doubts about taller high-rises downtown improving the low-
income housing situation inside Ann Arbor.  Though packing the wealthy
into skyscrapers reduces the demand for miles of McMansion sprawl.

But do we need the downtown office space or even the housing?  The last
buildings built, all near William and Main, still look vacant to a great
degree.  Too, our downtown streets are not Chicago's streets.  They are
pretty narrow.  I don't think I'd like the look of no-sky. 

This is all a balancing act between need, aesthetics, parking & traffic,
and development rights.  I'm kind of glad it's being carefully considered. 

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss