Widow Wadman

Thu, May 16, 2013 : 8:57 p.m.

It's about time that the City Council and the mayor had the guts to vote on this project... Regarding the hecklers at the various meetings, why didn't the security guards throw the disruptive people out? Honestly those adults were behaving like brats. We wouldn't tolerate that behavior from our children but we'll put up with it at a City Council meeting?

J. Letaw

Thu, May 16, 2013 : 3:51 a.m.

There's a lot to regret in the way this project has developed. The continuous threats of litigation have not made for an easy relationship between the councilmembers and their constituents and made it harder to objectively analyze the issues at hand. I talk about it a little more here (http://architectstasy.tumblr.com/post/50533652258/ask-not-for-whom-the-bell-tolls-friends-it-tolls), and would be interested in feedback if anyone had some.

PeteM

Thu, May 16, 2013 : 1:48 a.m.

I don't have a strong opinion on the design or features of this project, but I recall that during the greenbelt debate the response to concerns about a reduction in the housing supply on the outskirts of town was that there would be more support for high density projects in the city's core. Looks like that wasn't the case.

arborani

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.

Oops - sorry for duplication of messages!

arborani

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.

In all fairness, Sally Petersen has had the grace to email the 2nd Ward setting forth the reasons for her vote. Whether or not we agree, it is a genuine courtesy which, I would gather, is not often extended by other council members to their wards. Thank you, Sally.

arborani

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 2:13 p.m.

Sally Petersen has had the grace to email the 2nd Ward setting forth the reasons for her vote. Whether or not we agree, it is a genuine courtesy which, I would gather, is not often extended by other council members to their wards. Thank you, Sally.

JRW

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 2:04 p.m.

So, comments get deleted for calling this decision spineless? Interesting.

JRW

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 2:04 p.m.

Fat cat out of state developers win, and the city loses. Any city council member and the mayor will likely need to look for other jobs after the next election. I would bet the Georgia developers will sell this monstrosity after it's built and their bank accounts are fatter. Big loss for A2.

DJBudSonic

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 1:41 p.m.

I would like to think that a 'Yes' vote was really a vote of 'No Confidence' in the ability of our City Attorney to defend us against a potential lawsuit.

Brad

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 12:41 p.m.

During yesterday's "dedication" of the Stadium Bridge they affixed a plaque that had the names of the council members claiming credit (I am not making this up). I sure hope they will do the same thing with this building.

Jay Thomas

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 2:46 a.m.

So High Rise Hieftje was the tie breaking vote. Well, he certainly changed Ann Arbor.

urbaniac

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 2:01 a.m.

The disappointed citizens who hissed and booed at the council members who voted to approve the site plan are politically active insiders. That is not meant as a criticism. The council members, however, once elected must represent all citizens, even those who don't vote and don't get involved. The council members who voted for the project showed a real honesty and strength of character and not fear of lawsuits. They based their vote on an unbiased review of the record and a duty to act for what they believe in the long will benefit the city and its future residents. I would rather vote for and support a person who has the strength of character to risk re-election and the booing elite in service of the bigger picture and community rather than the politically ambitious strategist or the uninformed council member who does not understand the city's laws. Any person who fairly and intelligently reviewed all the relevant facts and law that has been available would suspect that the council members who voted to deny the site plan either did so 1) strategically, i.e., although they shared the same concerns as the more principled council members, the strategists could see that the resolution would pass with or without them taking the same honest but unpopular political risk; or 2) because they really did not understand or critically review anything that they might have read and wanted only to do what they believed was popular. When you open-mindedly assess all that has happened: the filibustering and other tactics to delay the process; the inappropriate outbursts during hearings; loudly riduculing speakers who spoke in favor of the building; hissing and booing at council members; and shouting obscenities at the developers, it is tough to admit, but the real bullies were not the out of town developers; it was those persons who opposed them.

kittybkahn

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 1:14 a.m.

One thing that no one has mentioned is the mere lip service given to the many people who worked on design guidelines for future development in the city. Many hours were spent by many people on this, but when it came down to it, those guidelines don't mean anything. Council person Briere asked about these guidelines last night because they clearly go against this development. She was told that they are only guidelines. Then why create them at all if they don't mean anything? Was this just to placate the public and make them feel like have a say in what happens to our city? It appears so. Disgusting!!

kilroy

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 1:13 a.m.

Apart from its over-sized scale, the building is grotesque and will be a permanent reminder of the arrogance of rapacious developers who have thumbed their nose at a thinking majority of Ann Arborites in order to milk the market for rich kid housing. They will cart the money back to Georgia and leave us with a huge Kaaba in our midst-- right for Mecca-- but not for Ann Arbor. We should picket its construction and picket the rental office from day one. Maybe that will have an impact on union workers who won't cross any picket line, labor or consumer, and stop thinking students and their parents from renting here.

Lets be real!

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 12:56 a.m.

A couple more points: As to the building, I actually don't mind the design. I could probably make design suggestions and I would probably like the building to be 9 or 10 stories, rather than 14. But so what. What I think about the design and height is really irrelevant. At some point, I am content to live with development within the zoning regulations. I don't consider myself "pro-development" but this is just how the system should work. I agree that it took some political courage to vote yes for the project. For example, the new Councilmembers Warpahaski and Peterson had to act in the best overall interest of the City even though they had nothing to do with the earlier zoning decision and may have disagreed with it. The criticism of them here seems misplaced, particularly while the "NO 3" took no action for years and then watched these newest members show them how to actually use some backbone. As to the remaining four members, if they really didn't want the zoning, they shouldn't have voted for it. But at least they understood that a decision had been made by the City about the zoning and were prepared to abide by their decision. I'm not even sure the zoning decision in 2009 was as wrong at this location as people now claim. (I approve of downtown density.) As others have said, just like with the Campus Inn and Sloan Plaza on the same block, everyone will adjust. It will be much better than what is there now and might provide some activity in that sort of dead area. I hope that these new buildings also provide some added life to the State/Washington/Liberty area. No building will please everyone, but let's put this all in perspective.

Lets be real!

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 12:53 a.m.

I have watched this drama unfold over the last several months in annarbor.com, and as a long time resident have some thoughts on this. I don't usually get too excited about local government issues, but I don't like irrational political behavior. I recognize that, at times, the Council has to make hard decisions on many issues. In this case, the Council had to decide if they were going to approve a site plan the seemed to meet all the legal qualifications. That is what the planning staff evidently told them. A no vote against this project may have been politically popular with the nearby neighborhoods, but it also showed a serious lack of decision making ability. I am particularly concerned by the no votes of Councilmembers Briere, Kunselman, and Anglin as I believe that they voted for the scaled down D1 designation in 2009. (Someone correct me if I am wrong here.) But more importantly, if the "NO 3" really wanted to help this neighborhood so much why did they make no effort to change this designation when the other large building across the street was approved in 2011. If they had really wanted to do something, they would have moved in 2011 to change this zoning or at least raise the issue again. To take no action until a no vote in May 2013 against this 413 project, is not only too little too late, it is completely unprincipled. (Also, an ill-conceived moratorium in 2013 was about a year late in my view.) I am focusing on these three councilmembers because of the hypocrisy of their non-actions and because it was their "no" votes that also brought us City Place, the lesser of two plans in that area. They refused to support the other proposal -- which to this day makes absolutely no sense to anyone and was the lowest point of recent government decision making. Just saying no is not a way to lead the city in any manner. The "NO 3" get the lowest grade in this episode.

annarbortownie

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 9:50 p.m.

Big ugly building in one of the historic areas of Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor needs a whole new city council. One that values the city and NOT developers. So very sad. Composting? Lets compost some of these building ideas.

WaterHilltopper

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 9:35 p.m.

This is what happens when too many real estate agents run the city, when too many people who trade property for a living hold key seats on the planning commission, the DDA, and city council. The character of the city becomes more about the art of the deal and less about the quality of life.

craig stolefield

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 7:18 p.m.

Sorry JRW, I thought a "no" vote was the spineless one on this issue. The council members who voted no hid behind the council members who voted in favor because they weren't willing to risk millions of the taxpayers $$. The "no" votes must have known how this would come. They took the politically safe path.

Linda Peck

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 6:22 p.m.

I am not intensely opposed to this building, although I don't like the design and the height, and if I were on the decision making end of it before it was approved, I would have voted it down. One thing does interest me. The Mayor said he would have stopped 3 years ago building the tall apartment buildings in Ann Arbor if he were a developer. I wonder about this statement he has made now, at this time in the decision making process.

PersonX

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 6 p.m.

Thinking back on it I am amazed that various elements of our city government, including some members of council, thought nothing of supporting a plan that will result in trucks, including garbage trucks, that will back out on to Division St. Has any one of them ever driven that way? How is this possible? Once the accidents start happening there will be wringing of hands ...

Nicholas Urfe

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 5:50 p.m.

I'll bet every one of the Council members would have voted no if this was being built across the street from their home.

Nicholas Urfe

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 5:49 p.m.

Let me get this straight. The University can seize private residential property via eminent domain. But Ann Arbor taxpayers cannot block the construction of a towering monstrosity development on the edge of a historic district of houses?

Seasoned Cit

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 4:46 p.m.

Interesting to note that no one has complained about the increased tax revenue that will come to the city. Of course we will ned to put some of that aside for public art, but even then the income off the property will be much more than is coming in now.

RUKiddingMe

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 4:36 p.m.

If everyone in this town is so agianst highrises, can we please stop putting money into the whole Greenbelt thing? A LOT of our tax money is going to pay for that commission and buying vapor. Not wanting to build up in town and wanting to buy useless "development rights" that the program exists to make sure are never sold are two contradictory ideas. So one or the other, please. I feel for people who hate this development, but I for one would have been enraged if the city carelessly threw a bunch of money at a developer because of a lost lawsuit, only to have the highrise happen anyway (but paid for by the city instead because of the loss). I guess this should be the trigger for them to change the zoning again, which I think they already put like 3 years into, and only finished a few months ago. So all THAT time was wasted.

craig stolefield

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 4:34 p.m.

I have to disagree on the statements by Steve K. and Anglin. Just a couple of meetings ago Kunsleman said something like " I don't play poker with other people's money" when he voted against the moratorium but now, with the same basic risk, he votes against this "by-right" project. Kunsleman took advantage of the responsible council members voting yes so he could take the low road with a political vote. Anglin voted for the current zoning in 09 and now he criticizes it without saying "I was wrong then and changed my mind. If the no votes had won with the city almost sure to lose in court those who voted no would have been ridden out on a rail when the verdict came down. Fact is the property was down-zoned in 09 or this would have been an even bigger building. I have to respect Higgins, she stood up for the taxpayers in her ward. A lawsuit would have been a disaster with huge outside legal bills piling up and eventually the BIG payout. Don't see how the city could have hoped to win after pulling the rug out from under the developer who legally bought the land with this zoning in place. Higgins has never pandered and again, I respect that.

Colorado Sun

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 4:19 p.m.

I was present during the vote while an armed police presence maintained security - the police sergeant left after the crowd heard the vote and departed early in the night. There was tremendous indignance of citizens after the vote and many in the hallway outside City Council chambers approached Jack Eaton to volunteer for his candidaate campaign against Marcia Higgins. Kudos to Mike Anglin and Steve Kunselman who gave eloquent speeches why they were voting against the project. Developer interests gave generous funding to the Higgins re-elec tion campaign committee in 2011, per County Clerk records. Developer representatives and their attorneys were visibly relieved over their hard-fought victory over the residents who opposed the project. A builder in the audience told me that he was familiar on how developer tactics work against municpalities and if the City Council would have voted to deny the project, even a winning case by the developer would have tied up the courts for years and the City of Ann Arbor could almost certainly havehad the leverage to have exacted further concessions from the developer. The City Council reps comments before the vote suggest that the City Attorney's office strongly supported approving the project.

Laurie Barrett

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 4:01 p.m.

Whiter goest thou, Ann Arbor, in thy shiny car in the night?

Vince Caruso

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 4:01 p.m.

Our 'Buy Rights' Council has spoken. Now where can us residents (80 to 90% of the city tax base) Buy some of these Rights? Maybe the ballot box?

Larry Ryan

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 3:41 p.m.

Before 2009 a larger, taller building could have been built here so while I understand people don't like change it is hard to be sympathetic to those who are upset by this. As someone else said, the land was down-zoned in 09. The building changed a lot by going through the process and looks good now. A2 needed to make room for more people to live here and that is happening. People with jobs and young families are moving into many of the houses near downtown that students used to live in. This is making a big difference in my neighborhood and all the others near campus. A lot of jobs are being created in Ann Arbor and now more people can live and work here. Now there is room for young people to live here. This is a good. I don't see what the fuss is over a 14 story building on a the biggest, most traveled road downtown that already has big buildings. Nothing wrong with some growth, it has enabled the city government to make it through the recession without the millage going up. This too is good.

eze

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 3:33 p.m.

So all it takes to get the city council to agree to anything is a threat of a lawsuit? If that's the case, I'm going to threaten to sue since they won't pick up my leaves or christmas tree any more.

D

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 3:28 p.m.

No wonder young people don't want to stay here. Let the Ann Arbor develop into the city that the younger generations want! A true city!

andralisa

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 3:10 p.m.

And the council wonders why we cannot keep young people here n the city after they graduate - its getting uglier by the year because the buildings are designed by people with no aesthetics and no investment in how Ann Arbor looks. Take a look at the buildings in Portland Oregon - beautiful, varied, livable, and a joy to walk in because because of the attention to detail and aesthetics. Mayor has got to go - he has destroyed to the look of the downtown, let it happen, and encouraged it. Looks like a bunch of 1950s mental institutions! I'm ashamed to show it off to visitors for sure.

Dirty Mouth

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 3:09 p.m.

Woah, Chuck Warpehoski! I always knew you were a sham.

SonnyDog09

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 2:52 p.m.

Only in Ann Arbor, or Mayberry, would a 14 story building be described as a "high rise."

kittylady

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 2:42 p.m.

As a Wayne County resident it will make me feel so much more "at home" now that Ann Arbor is quickly transforming from that "special little hometown" into exactly the same as everywhere else - in architecture and "feel". I have seen the transformation occurring over the last 6 years and it won't be much longer before I cannot tell if I am at work or at home!

zip the cat

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.

So you got po ed and stormed out of the meeting because you all were fed up with council,right? And come next election for council seats all you whiners and complainers will sit home and do nothing. Wa Wa Wa

fjord

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 2:26 p.m.

All the venting here is hilarious. We all know (though many of us won't admit) that a few years in the future, after this thing has been built and become integrated into the neighborhood, no one will much care that it's there, or even remember what it was like before it was there. For those who do remember, it'll be difficult to recall exactly what all the fuss was about. Life goes on.

Paul32

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 2:25 p.m.

Just a few comments: 1. I have the feeling that the DDA has become a kind of shadow government where non-elected people decide on crucial matters for the city without citizen input: like declaring South University "downtown" area. 2. Those who voted for approval would want us to give them absolution for their "anguish" in voting yes. If you have to anguish so much, it means that something is amiss and you should look for it. 3. The report says that the plan met "essentially" the required regulations. In a case such as this, it must meet totally and to the last detail the regulations, including the quality of the material to be used. I just read a Gay Talese interview in which he narrated the reaction of some of the people who built the Twin Towers. They said that they had little faith in the building because it was built not with regard to quality but with an eye to maximizing space and profit. 4. The idea that those who voted for the building were afraid to be sued, is one of the lamest excuses on record. So, you just threaten a law suit and you get what you want? This has become a pattern to be used time and again by developers. And as for saving the city money, you are willing to ruin a neighborhood for ever? 5. As for Petersen's comment that we would risk the "good will" of developers. Would that it be so. These "developers" are not here to improve the city but to make a quick dollar. I heard that the building on Forest and South U. has already been sold TWICE. This reminds of the mortgage scandal in which the original lender sells the mortgage and the buyer sells it again so no one becomes responsible.

Sla2

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 2:11 p.m.

The council's vote to approve this project was almost entirely predicated on the fear of a lawsuit - which was euphemized as "we don't want to gamble with the taxpayers money". So our lives, health and welfare are gambled instead? This building is so greedy for more income producing space, that all of the infrastructure necessary to accommodate car and pedestrian traffic going in and out of the building has been pushed out onto public property. +There is no setback from the sidewalk, so people and bikes crowding into the entrance of this building will clog the public sidewalk. +There is no turn-in lane provided in front of this building, so cars entering the structure will have to slow down in the middle of Huron St.- the ONLY section of Huron that is reduced to 4 lanes from 5- before trying to navigate a sharper than 90 degree turn onto a downramp. +There is no merge lane coming out of this building. Cars hoping to exit this parking structure are placed at the curb of Huron St. immediately next to the solid brick wall of Sloan Plaza, unable to see the oncoming traffic they are required to drive into. What is the exchange rate between conserved legal defence dollars and squandered human sacrifice? I would like to make a trade.

Andrew Rogers

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 2 p.m.

This is a wake-up call for political action. It's time for new leadership in City Hall that will protect its citizens from this kind of 'development.'

akrieg15

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 1:32 p.m.

I am going to express the unpopular opinion. I think development that has one and two bedroom apartments for young professionals is a great idea. As a young professional living in Ann Arbor, I would like to live in an urban environment, so I can walk to the grocery store, restaurants, bars, etc. and its just not feasible in this town to live there. Housing is expensive and there is a shortage. When I look for an affordable one bedroom on property management companies, I find they are leased out until September 2014 because of students. And I find all kinds of "cooperative" housing with 4 or 5 bedrooms in there, which I just don't want to do. So what if property values and rent goes down in the neighboring areas? Most of the properties are owned by investors who rent the houses out to students anyways. The area is not owner-occupied. The conversation probably would have been more productive to focus on height and aesthetics rather than whether or not it should be there.

Paul Wiener

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 1:32 p.m.

Why only 14 stories? This is cowardly planning Many people have been hoping for years for a 55-60-story building. With a bike lane down the center of Huron leading to it. And a private elevator to penthouses selling for 4.5 million. Think big!

Scott Reed

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 1:27 p.m.

This is a great project, and victory for Ann Arbor residents over incumbent landlords who tried to do everything possible to prevent competition. Well, it looks like they have some more competition now! Awesome.

arborani

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 1:26 p.m.

As a second warder, I was disappointed in Ms. Peterson's vote.

craig stolefield

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.

In 2009 city council down zoned this property and imposed a height limit for for the first time. Prior to that, an even bigger building could have been built here. Some might argue it was not down zoned enough but this is the widest street downtown, the US 23 business route. There are 2 other very large buildings on the same block, one is equally tall. Mike Anglin voted for that rezoning but now complains about it and puts the city at risk of losing millions along with 4 other council members who were willing to gamble with the people's money. Bad decision. Most of downtown is part of one of the numerous historic districts so even if you don't like taller buildings, their is no chance they will take over. Some people like or at least don't mind taller buildings. This one started out looking worse but it improved a lot. Taller buildings are OK by me and the tax revenue, more people downtown, opening up near downtown rentals to working people, etc., are all good things. Not losing a law suit and having to pay out $10 or $20 million and then having them build anyway, is an excellent outcome.

DonBee

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.

If people are smart they will push a moratorium on new submissions to the planning process NOW. Then they will review the zoning and make changes over the spring/summer and reopen the process under new zoning in the fall. Failure to do this zoning review will mean that a third developer will end up with a vote for a "by-rights" building and unhappy citizens. If you want to change the direction of development (Connecting William Street anyone?), now it the time to step up and get it done. Enough people care right now about what is going on to get the level of involvement it will take to make changes. Wait 6 months and no one will care again. Your call folks, which City Council member has the guts to introduce the moratorium?

David Cahill

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 1:18 p.m.

Sally Petersen was the biggest disappointment. She is willing to make Ann Arbor a "free fire zone" for developers. Too bad that she has gone over to the Dark Side. As for Marcia Higgins, her bad zoning plan laid the foundation (literally) for this monstrosity. She decided to double down on it. Luckily for us, she has a principled opponent of this kind of development in Jack Eaton, who is running against her in the August Democratic primary. I hope that in August we can say "High-Rise Higgins is history."

AAlandlord

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 1:06 p.m.

Prediction: This building will be sold within one year of completion. The developers will make a bundle and then move on to some other town that has a zoning opportunity/anomaly and do it again. They have no stake in our town. If you want to stop this, then change the zoning. Increase the buffer zone between residential and high density living. Don't grant variances like the the one given to the Fox Tent site. Otherwise, a development team will come in and identify another parcel like 413 that they will max out value per square foot, aesthetics be damned, and do it again.

ordmad

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 1 p.m.

The underlying problem here is the City's attorney and his overly cautious reading of the law and resulting advice to Council -- one doesn't get a "perfect" legal record (see the recent Observer article) unless one shies away all but slam dunk fights. Anyone who drives by City Place sees that it has a 3rd floor that is prohibited. Anyone that is but the City's attorney. Shameful.

dotdash

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:58 p.m.

Maybe we can learn from this and change the zoning laws so they actually represent the values of the residents?

Nicholas Urfe

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:51 p.m.

When are they going to change the rules so this cannot happen again? When? They spoke of that when the City Place development was forced through but nothing happened. Now here we are again. How long until it happens again? My guess is soon.

Jon Wax

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:50 p.m.

well... looks like it's time for some new leadership around here. in re:the property owners and their lawsuit, interesting. we don't want you. you know we don't want you. so your force yourselves on us. Peace Wax

Jack Eaton

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:48 p.m.

Once again we were treated with Council members expressing their dislike of a project but claiming they no choice but to approve the site plan. The 413 E. Huron project is the foreseeable result of the Council's 2009 decision to zone that property as D-1 in spite of the Master Plan mandate that zoning be implemented to create buffer areas between core density and nearby neighborhoods. This tower will be a monument to the prior Council's failure of leadership. New members of Council were, in effect, being asked to fix the problem the prior Council failed to address when residents raised the issue in 2009. I find it hard to fault any Council member who was not involved in the A2D2 rezoning process. Although Council members express dislike for these disruptive projects, they do nothing to fix the zoning that allows this kind of project to harm residential neighborhoods. For example, when the 42 North project was approved for a site on South Maple Road, our Ward 4 Council members predictably expressed the requisite dislike of the project and the belief that they had no choice but approve the site plan. Within a year, under the leadership of our Ward 4 representatives, the Council modified the zoning code to allow even taller buildings and even smaller set backs for that same property (as well as others throughout the city). The reluctance to approve these projects is often just an act. The massive tower that will be built on the edge of an historic neighborhood is just one of the many problems that will arise from the wide ranging changes made to our zoning regulations by the prior Council. There will be significant problems in applying the Area, Height and Placement modifications to zoning outside the downtown area, once the economy picks up. Council will have an opportunity to change zoning to protect neighborhoods when the long overdue R4C zoning modifications come up soon. Will they listen?

Nicholas Urfe

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:46 p.m.

The city Planning Commission did not approve it. How was that not sufficient to deny the project?

sandy schopbach

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:46 p.m.

Ann Arbor needs to decide what kind of place it wants to be. This skyscraper concept is destroying a lot. And the effects are now spreading. This building is fine... elsewhere. But overshadowing those historic homes in a historic district, plunging them into darkness, is just not right. And no, I don't live there, so I don't have a dog in that fight. Ann Arbor is not Manhattan, even though it's trying hard to be. I don't think Mayor Hieftje should have let it go through, even though I agree with his assessment that building for students should have been stopped 3 buildings ago. A stand has to be made now. If the problem isn't the principle behind this - too many tall buildings - but just the financial aversion to lawsuits by their promoters, maybe the definitions of what is allowed, and where, need to be revised and finalized so no more developers even start. My representative (Fourth Ward) didn't vote for it. To those who did, be careful what you wish for. Not ALL development is good development. Discouraging a certain type of developer - and this one isn't even local! - can be a good thing.

Nicholas Urfe

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:45 p.m.

"I worry that if we deny this, we are going to leave a legacy of ill will amongst developers," A legacy that they cannot bully the residents and council to do whatever they want by repeated threats? I like that legacy. The council needs to grow a pair and remember for whom they work.

mtlaurel

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:42 p.m.

get over the hissing at the meeting...there will be even worse by many people at the wheel of their autos when thedownright dangerous corner developes after the implementation of in inappropriate number of tenants with or without autos completely changing the dynamic at the corner from a straightforward artery and intersection into havoc.

Bertha Venation

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:42 p.m.

Thanks for naming who voted for and against it, Ryan. It makes the next election that much easier!

Ross

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:42 p.m.

Sorry to the neighbors who will have to live with this ugly monstrosity. But we all knew the parcel was zoned D1. It's just not fair to deny a developer their right to build per the zoning after they have invested millions in the site and design. They will sue, and win. The rest of Ann Arbor's tax payers don't want to pay that pointless bill. So, we must live with it.

Brad

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.

I wonder how they decided which five of them got to vote no.

AlisFontin

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:35 p.m.

Another item; Composting!! was the big issue from one of the Council members. I have never heard this person ask other developers if they were going to require composting. The previous (January 2013?) 624 Church Street campus high rise glided through Council without one tenth of the scrutiny of this one. Especially, composting! This person noted that U of M is requiring their student tenants to do this. I checked, they do not. The U of M kitchens have a composting program for only unprepared foodstuffs. That's it.

Kai Petainen

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:34 p.m.

A few thoughts... 1. In this decision, council members did a great job of articulating why they were voting the way they were voting. 2. Except for the developers, it appears that no one loves this building. 3. The public was heavily involved in this -- council voted against the public, but the public was heavily involved. Hopefully the public pays more attention to other events in Ann Arbor, and gets more involved/vocal at city hall (for and against issues). 4. It seems like 'blame' (for those who don't like it) sits on those who voted to zone this area in the way that they did. It would be good to know who voted in favor of the zoning in the first place, and of those who voted in favor, which ones still sit at council. 5. Power in Ann Arbor does not occur at City Hall, but with those who have money. No one on council loved this idea, but money (threats of lawsuits) won the day. Money has power, council does not.

StraightTalk

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:30 p.m.

The wealthy neighbors, some of whom are architects, could have spent the last few years working with the owners of the property to search for a developer who would create something more appealing. Instead, they just waited for something to happen so they could try to tear it apart. The bottom line is that property owners have the right to develop their properties according to the existing laws. Most of us would not want anything that infringed on that and left us to the whim of elected officials.

AlisFontin

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:26 p.m.

When the well presented "facts" from last week turned out to be not true after vetting through the City staff, this turned the votes in favor of the project. Looking at the drawings presented (misrepresenting proportions and accuracy) (Look at the one above heading this article, it is far from accurate) by the opponents and the information they tried to push forward as the truth, while painting the developer evil eventually worked against them. The vote ended up being purely political. Approved so there would be no suit and by one vote so as many council members as possible , could show their constituents they were on their side. Yelling and swearing at the development team in the hallways after this meeting (and another earlier event) did not show any maturity on the part of the opposition either. All of us drawn into this question the motives when deception and profanity have to be used. Not all the shameful behavior came from in front of the podium.

ChrisW

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:15 p.m.

Shame the zoning laws don't forbid ugly buildings.

Bcar

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:15 p.m.

"I don't like a lot about this building, but I'm not willing to in good conscience risk the taxpayers' money," said Teall, D-4th Ward. oh I see, but you have NO problem spending our money on useless crap... get a clue!!! wonder where those 500+ cars are going to park... BAD MOVE CITY! not that I expected anything good from you idiots.

Fordie

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 12:06 p.m.

"Earlier as the council deliberated, audience members jeered and literally hissed at council members as they stated they were going to be voting for the project." If you have a legitimate argument say it. I don't value the opinion of people who hiss.

a2cents

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 11:56 a.m.

Simply refuse to close arterial street lanes for construction use... and the project shrinks considerably. Problem resolved. Congestion, thy name is Huron.

NSider

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 11:37 a.m.

Clearly the city "fathers" of Ann Arbor have Spartan envy. Continue this high density development and soon you will have not A2, but Lansing Jr., looking just like the concrete canyon found on Grand River entering Lansing from the East. And I really don't understand the comment about "the biggest apartment planned only has 4 bedrooms". What? You looking for a military barrack type apartment with 10 or 20 bedrooms? I doubt most of us live in houses with even 4 bedrooms. As for composting food stuff - its called the dump, very useful for improving the quality of the soil in the dump. Better there should be a bus stop at the lobby of this building, where the bus could actually pull OFF Huron or Division...

Arboriginal

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 11:34 a.m.

Let's not compare this to City Place. The horrendous City Place was given to us by a smattering of angry neighbors and some council members that thought they could stop the development altogether. The original proposal saved the facades of the old houses and attached a modern structure with underground parking to the rear. Oh the humanity. When the developer could not get that approved he went forward with the "by right" development and now we have a character free structure that looks dated right out of the gate.

PersonX

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 11:24 a.m.

Some members were undoubtedly motivated by fear of a lawsuit, but the majority of those who voted for this monstrosity have regularly supported this kind of terrible development as a matter of course, including our high rise mayor. These are the same council members who gave us City Place. It seems that council as a matter of course sides with developers and bad architects against the interests of citizens who live downtown and in the near downtown. Is this a good way to run a city? This was a shameful decision and the only hoe fr the future is that perhaps some voters may take a good look at their representatives and vote them out of office. We also need a viable new candidate for mayor.

DJBudSonic

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 11:23 a.m.

A shameful legacy of this council that we all have to live with. Throw the bums out this fall, please.

GoNavy

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 11:11 a.m.

We'll get used to it.

Veracity

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 11:10 a.m.

Injunction anyone?

Veracity

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 11:05 a.m.

It happened and the world did not end. But we will all live to regret it.

justwondering

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 10:54 a.m.

Composting???? Are you kidding me???? If the city council doesn't like what a developer can do within existing laws and regulations, then change the laws! This isn't that hard. Instead, what the council does is institute zoning guidelines and then, after the fact, doesn't like what they just did and tries to blame the developer. You can't put that monkey on the back of the developer - change the zoning so the developer knows what they are dealing with up front! For the record, I don't like the building, but the developer is obeying the zoning laws!

justcurious

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 10:50 a.m.

Seems like the people who run Ann Arbor won't be happy until we have canyons...kind of like out west. Only the mountains will be buildings and the streams will be bike paths running through them. To see the light of day you will have to exit Ann Arbor proper. Which is exactly what we did years ago.

Carole

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 10:42 a.m.

Lawsuit - don't quite understand. So if one does not get their way, threaten lawsuit. How can they sue the city? If one can explain, appreciate. We have enough tall buildings here in Ann Arbor, and a Georgia based company building another is very questionable.

PWJT8D

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 10:39 a.m.

That building is ugly and looks like it was designed in the 80s...

A2comments

Tue, May 14, 2013 : 10:22 a.m.

Yea, food composting. Let's focus on that. Big issue...