Calthorpe Report Comments
To: Ann Arbor City Council:
COMMENTS on Calthorpe Report
p14
Creating a “balance of uses” assures endless controversy. The policy should be clear. This is the central business district. Although some residential use is ok, such use must be secondary to the needs of successful business. Residential amenity does not trump business convenience in this area. The urge to provide affordable housing must be carefully balanced against the need of downtown businesses for more customers with lots of money to spend. (Look in the windows of downtown stores and see what they sell and the prices.) The inclination to “preserve” everything old must not be allowed to interfere with business needs.
Evaluating the downtown infrastructure is a very good idea. Let’s face it, downtown was laid out almost 200 years ago as a village of a few hundred people. It is not surprising that it is not exactly ideal for its present uses, let alone for the strains of substantial growth. For example, we cannot go on adding more parking spaces indefinitely without risking a collapse of the street system’s ability to handle increased traffic. In many dense cities, most people don’t have cars and many that do keep them outside the congested area. Perhaps we need storage lots at the edge of town with bus service to the center.
p17
Huron St. has become an efficient way to get through the downtown. But there is a down side. The identification of this highway as a pedestrian dead zone is important. It has always seemed to me that the amount of traffic along it makes it unappealing to pedestrians and difficult to cross so that it has become a barrier. This a significant part of the issue as to how many cars downtown can stand. The report seems to blame the deadness to parking facilities. I don’t think so. It seems to me that the motorists using Huron to get through the downtown area are the main culprit.
p19
The report underestimates the value and overstates the difficulties of PUD, which has been recognized by Michigan statutes as a legitimate part of zoning since 1978. It seems to be used all over the state in most cases where large or complicated developments are proposed. It has proved itself as a highly successful way to get people to work together and avoid expensive and time-consuming litigation. Only one of the scores of published zoning decisions of Michigan’s appellate courts since 1978 has involved a PUD. In addition, PUD is a great way to avoid the monotony of cookie cutter subdivisions, where every house is set back the same distance from its boundary lines, etc.
But PUD can be misused and it has been misused by Ann Arbor. It was devised as a way to modify zoning rules to better fit the circumstances of a particular proposal. But Ann Arbor has converted it into a tool for municipal extortion. The often applied requirement that the developer contribute money for construction of affordable housing is, perhaps, the best example. If there is a shortage of affordable housing, it is a problem of the entire community, if not of the nation as a whole, that cannot legitimately be assigned solely to the builders of unaffordable housing and/or their customers. If the city would desist from this unfair, immoral and probably illegal practice a lot of the costs and delays of PUD could be avoided.
It is suggested that somehow the downtown will benefit if the city reduces the presently allowed density in the outlying areas. It seems to me that such action is more likely to cause increased home building in the surrounding townships than to benefit downtown. It would make more sense to increase permitted densities throughout the entire city to put more families close to the downtown or the bus lines. Because downtown is only a small part of the city, it may well be that increasing density all over would be much more effective in curbing sprawl than focusing only on downtown. The effect would not be enormous because of the existing deed restrictions in most Ann Arbor subdivisions. For example, should the city permit two-family homes in R-1 districts, this action does not void recorded building restrictions that limit development to single-family homes.
p20
As a general proposition, the construction of a 1-story building downtown doesn’t make much sense. The land is, or should be, way too expensive. That is why there are so few 1-story buildings downtown. When one is built, it is probably intended as a temporary building, so the land could be put to good use until a better opportunity comes along. These things don’t happen too often, any harm is not long lasting, the variety is not so bad, and it is petty to be so picky.
Upper floor setbacks were tried by New York City in the 1920s. The result was a bunch of office buildings that looked like stairways part way to heaven. Nobody liked it so they dropped the requirement. Ada Louise Huxtable of The New York Times said: “Alas, good zoning doth not great architecture make.”
p22
I am skeptical about the notion of requiring retail use of the first floor of multi-story buildings. I fear it will result in empty store fronts. People don’t open stores to please planning commissioners but to make money. A lot of former downtown storefronts are now used for offices. I understand that AfterWords and Ehnis are shutting down. (Will we soon hear that Charlie Schlanderer has bought out Tiffany & Co. and is consolidating operations at the New York site?) An article in The Ann Arbor News, Jan. 25,2002, suggests that there is a glut of office space available downtown. New buildings with empty store fronts, known in the real estate business as glass eyes, will not add to the allure of downtown.
p23
The design standards concept seems intended to permit the subjective judgment of amateur citizen planners to trump the views of design professionals. This can only lead to disputes. It seems to me that any such standards should be written into the ordinance, just like the standards now called setbacks and height limits, so that any professional can know in advance what the city requires. This concept is known in some places as The Rule of Law.
p24
I can’t see any reason why downtown development proposals should receive fast track treatment over others. I can see why review of all development proposals should be much faster than it now is. I have been told that it now takes about 2 months to get a building permit for a single-family home. It used to take a few hours.
p25
I have never heard of a town where rain water is collected and stored on every building site, except in Bermuda where there is no other source of fresh water. This practice would probably waste a lot of valuable land. It may be OK in outlying business districts but it seems to me that the system of pipes now used to drain downtown should continue.
pp32-3
The discussion of housing demand in the downtown area isn’t very precise, but it does make one wonder whether the possibilities for downtown really amount to a substantial part of the growth expected in the county. This should be clarified a bit so that the city council can make wise decisions on proposed expenditures on downtown infrastructure.
p42
The town square idea is a great one. The report doesn’t identify a location, but there is one that sticks out like a sore thumb. The 5th Ave. parking lot.
p47
The possibility of commuter parking lots on the fringes, served by busses to the center, long used by the U of M, should have been mentioned here.
p50
The illustrative vision, Fig. 41, shows Huron St. redeveloped with only 1 lane of traffic in each direction. Who do they think they are kidding? “…a man with moonbeams in his hands has nothing there at all.” (The Man of La Mancha)
p.52
In Figs. 46-7, does the label Fifth St. really mean 5th Ave.?
p.53
Ann Arbor has recent history with sidewalk improvements, notably along N. 4th Ave., S. Main St., and around the intersection of State & Liberty. The expensive result was pleasing to the eye but there is little, if any, evidence that there was any benefit to business or property values.
The town square idea for the Fifth Ave. parking lot is great. But Liberty Plaza is OK as is, at least for the present, and there must be some better project for what a redesign would cost.
Benches at the NW corner of the diag is another very good idea, and would probably be good for the hot dog industry at the corner of State and N. University.
p.54
It concerns me that there are so few gas stations, particularly those who can fix a flat and do other minor repairs, in a downtown that has so many cars.
p.55
Let’s not implement AA Railroad service. Instead, let’s talk the railroad into abandoning the track thru downtown. Fingerle Lumber could be served from the south.
The report is very pretty. Color is used lavishly in text, maps, and pictures, most of which are not needed to understand it. It is also a long-winded document that includes 9 pages of tales of conditions in other cities and lots of descriptions of Ann Arbor things that are common knowledge. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the author of this report didn’t really want to encourage public review. It took me over 19 minutes to download it, and its 2 column format complicates the process of studying it.
February 3, 2006
Clan Crawford, Jr. 761-7180 clan@ix.netcom.com
COMMENTS on Calthorpe Report
p14
Creating a “balance of uses” assures endless controversy. The policy should be clear. This is the central business district. Although some residential use is ok, such use must be secondary to the needs of successful business. Residential amenity does not trump business convenience in this area. The urge to provide affordable housing must be carefully balanced against the need of downtown businesses for more customers with lots of money to spend. (Look in the windows of downtown stores and see what they sell and the prices.) The inclination to “preserve” everything old must not be allowed to interfere with business needs.
Evaluating the downtown infrastructure is a very good idea. Let’s face it, downtown was laid out almost 200 years ago as a village of a few hundred people. It is not surprising that it is not exactly ideal for its present uses, let alone for the strains of substantial growth. For example, we cannot go on adding more parking spaces indefinitely without risking a collapse of the street system’s ability to handle increased traffic. In many dense cities, most people don’t have cars and many that do keep them outside the congested area. Perhaps we need storage lots at the edge of town with bus service to the center.
p17
Huron St. has become an efficient way to get through the downtown. But there is a down side. The identification of this highway as a pedestrian dead zone is important. It has always seemed to me that the amount of traffic along it makes it unappealing to pedestrians and difficult to cross so that it has become a barrier. This a significant part of the issue as to how many cars downtown can stand. The report seems to blame the deadness to parking facilities. I don’t think so. It seems to me that the motorists using Huron to get through the downtown area are the main culprit.
p19
The report underestimates the value and overstates the difficulties of PUD, which has been recognized by Michigan statutes as a legitimate part of zoning since 1978. It seems to be used all over the state in most cases where large or complicated developments are proposed. It has proved itself as a highly successful way to get people to work together and avoid expensive and time-consuming litigation. Only one of the scores of published zoning decisions of Michigan’s appellate courts since 1978 has involved a PUD. In addition, PUD is a great way to avoid the monotony of cookie cutter subdivisions, where every house is set back the same distance from its boundary lines, etc.
But PUD can be misused and it has been misused by Ann Arbor. It was devised as a way to modify zoning rules to better fit the circumstances of a particular proposal. But Ann Arbor has converted it into a tool for municipal extortion. The often applied requirement that the developer contribute money for construction of affordable housing is, perhaps, the best example. If there is a shortage of affordable housing, it is a problem of the entire community, if not of the nation as a whole, that cannot legitimately be assigned solely to the builders of unaffordable housing and/or their customers. If the city would desist from this unfair, immoral and probably illegal practice a lot of the costs and delays of PUD could be avoided.
It is suggested that somehow the downtown will benefit if the city reduces the presently allowed density in the outlying areas. It seems to me that such action is more likely to cause increased home building in the surrounding townships than to benefit downtown. It would make more sense to increase permitted densities throughout the entire city to put more families close to the downtown or the bus lines. Because downtown is only a small part of the city, it may well be that increasing density all over would be much more effective in curbing sprawl than focusing only on downtown. The effect would not be enormous because of the existing deed restrictions in most Ann Arbor subdivisions. For example, should the city permit two-family homes in R-1 districts, this action does not void recorded building restrictions that limit development to single-family homes.
p20
As a general proposition, the construction of a 1-story building downtown doesn’t make much sense. The land is, or should be, way too expensive. That is why there are so few 1-story buildings downtown. When one is built, it is probably intended as a temporary building, so the land could be put to good use until a better opportunity comes along. These things don’t happen too often, any harm is not long lasting, the variety is not so bad, and it is petty to be so picky.
Upper floor setbacks were tried by New York City in the 1920s. The result was a bunch of office buildings that looked like stairways part way to heaven. Nobody liked it so they dropped the requirement. Ada Louise Huxtable of The New York Times said: “Alas, good zoning doth not great architecture make.”
p22
I am skeptical about the notion of requiring retail use of the first floor of multi-story buildings. I fear it will result in empty store fronts. People don’t open stores to please planning commissioners but to make money. A lot of former downtown storefronts are now used for offices. I understand that AfterWords and Ehnis are shutting down. (Will we soon hear that Charlie Schlanderer has bought out Tiffany & Co. and is consolidating operations at the New York site?) An article in The Ann Arbor News, Jan. 25,2002, suggests that there is a glut of office space available downtown. New buildings with empty store fronts, known in the real estate business as glass eyes, will not add to the allure of downtown.
p23
The design standards concept seems intended to permit the subjective judgment of amateur citizen planners to trump the views of design professionals. This can only lead to disputes. It seems to me that any such standards should be written into the ordinance, just like the standards now called setbacks and height limits, so that any professional can know in advance what the city requires. This concept is known in some places as The Rule of Law.
p24
I can’t see any reason why downtown development proposals should receive fast track treatment over others. I can see why review of all development proposals should be much faster than it now is. I have been told that it now takes about 2 months to get a building permit for a single-family home. It used to take a few hours.
p25
I have never heard of a town where rain water is collected and stored on every building site, except in Bermuda where there is no other source of fresh water. This practice would probably waste a lot of valuable land. It may be OK in outlying business districts but it seems to me that the system of pipes now used to drain downtown should continue.
pp32-3
The discussion of housing demand in the downtown area isn’t very precise, but it does make one wonder whether the possibilities for downtown really amount to a substantial part of the growth expected in the county. This should be clarified a bit so that the city council can make wise decisions on proposed expenditures on downtown infrastructure.
p42
The town square idea is a great one. The report doesn’t identify a location, but there is one that sticks out like a sore thumb. The 5th Ave. parking lot.
p47
The possibility of commuter parking lots on the fringes, served by busses to the center, long used by the U of M, should have been mentioned here.
p50
The illustrative vision, Fig. 41, shows Huron St. redeveloped with only 1 lane of traffic in each direction. Who do they think they are kidding? “…a man with moonbeams in his hands has nothing there at all.” (The Man of La Mancha)
p.52
In Figs. 46-7, does the label Fifth St. really mean 5th Ave.?
p.53
Ann Arbor has recent history with sidewalk improvements, notably along N. 4th Ave., S. Main St., and around the intersection of State & Liberty. The expensive result was pleasing to the eye but there is little, if any, evidence that there was any benefit to business or property values.
The town square idea for the Fifth Ave. parking lot is great. But Liberty Plaza is OK as is, at least for the present, and there must be some better project for what a redesign would cost.
Benches at the NW corner of the diag is another very good idea, and would probably be good for the hot dog industry at the corner of State and N. University.
p.54
It concerns me that there are so few gas stations, particularly those who can fix a flat and do other minor repairs, in a downtown that has so many cars.
p.55
Let’s not implement AA Railroad service. Instead, let’s talk the railroad into abandoning the track thru downtown. Fingerle Lumber could be served from the south.
The report is very pretty. Color is used lavishly in text, maps, and pictures, most of which are not needed to understand it. It is also a long-winded document that includes 9 pages of tales of conditions in other cities and lots of descriptions of Ann Arbor things that are common knowledge. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the author of this report didn’t really want to encourage public review. It took me over 19 minutes to download it, and its 2 column format complicates the process of studying it.
February 3, 2006
Clan Crawford, Jr. 761-7180 clan@ix.netcom.com
posted by Clan Crawford, Jr. | 12:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home