Ann Arbor Library Lot: A closer look at the proposal that rose to the top
Members of the development team for New York-based Valiant Partners LLC have been in close talks with Ann Arbor community leaders for the past two years on plans for a downtown hotel and conference center.
So it came as no surprise to many when Valiant's 15-story project rose to the top last week when the city's Library Lot RFP advisory committee narrowed the field of proposals from six to two. They’re debating the best development for the city-owned lot at 319 S. Fifth Ave., which will sit atop an underground parking structure.
Valian't plan for a contemporary hotel and conference center.
The fact that Valiant had a head start and meetings with city officials before they solicited requests for proposals to develop the site has led some to say the fix was in for Valiant’s proposal from the start.
A committee of city leaders decided last week to give further consideration to that proposal and another proposal for a hotel and conference center by Acquest Realty Advisors of Bloomfield Hills. The committee will make a recommendation to the Ann Arbor City Council in March.
Both proposals ask the city to front millions of dollars to develop a publicly owned conference center that will drive the success of a new hotel.
That factor alone could place both ideas in jeopardy since they come at a time when the city is struggling financially, and officials are unwilling to take many risks.
Michael Bailkin, who is representing Valiant Partners, said a lot of work has gone in to creating the vision for Valiant's towering hotel building with an attached conference center.
"We've been at this two years," Bailkin said. "We've discussed this with every aspect of the community - with the city administration, with the key institutions, with the business community, with broader interest groups, with groups throughout the community, and our product is an effort of what I would call a very close collaboration. We believe that the market is there and we believe that this is the right project."
The Valiant proposal was the clear favorite of the two in committee discussions, but is still not widely accepted by City Council members.
Proponents say the project will draw thousands of new visitors to the city and help ensure the future success of the downtown economy.
Others worry it could fail and become a sore reminder of a bad investment - one that would leave the city footing the bill on an empty conference center for the next 20 years.
When polled by AnnArbor.com this week, a majority of the 11 City Council members acknowledged hesitations about the city financing a $9 million conference center. Several even say they're adamantly opposed to it.
Mayor John Hieftje says he's not willing to put the city at financial risk to finance a conference center downtown.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"I never have been and am not willing to put the city at risk for a conference center," said Mayor John Hieftje.
"I will not support authorizing the city to be the bank - i.e., the lending institution - for a development on the Library Lot," said Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward.
Council Members Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward, and Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward, also said they’re opposed to it.
"Any kind of financial risk there - whether that's floating bonds for a conference center or anything else - I think is not something that we need to absorb," Hohnke said. "That lot is a jewel, and I think that it doesn't require us to take on any significant risk, and this certainly isn't the time for that."
A closer look at the Valiant proposal
Valiant has drafted a vision for a project called Ann Arbor Town Plaza Hotel and Conference Center. It tentatively includes plans for a 150-room hotel, 32,000-square-foot conference center, 12 two-bedroom condos, restaurants and retail shops - all on the Library Lot.
Acquest's project - called the @ Hotel and Retail Center - is different. It includes a potentially 190-room hotel with meeting spaces, restaurants and retail aspects. Acquest is asking the city to partner on the project by building a 40,000-square-foot conference center on the former YMCA site across the street.
Bailkin says public financing of the conference center contained in Valiant's proposal is crucial to the overall project's success.
"I'm very familiar with conference centers or convention centers that are built by the public sector - they're built that way because the private market simply can't support them," he said. "Our life and blood, and the success of the hotel, depends on us building that conference center."
Bailkin says the total project would cost $54 million - $40 million for the hotel and retail aspects, $5 million for the condos and $9 million for the conference center. Valiant is asking the city to issue $8 million worth of tax-exempt bonds to be paid back over 20 years from hotel proceeds. At the end, the city would own the conference center debt-free.
"This has to be a collaborative process with the developer, the city, and the broader community," Bailkin said.
The developer proposes the difference between the $9 million price of the conference center and the $8 million in bonds be made up for in the land purchase. Valiant is guaranteeing the city at least $900,000 up front - and possibly more depending on condo sales.
"That, in fact, is going to be our equity into the conference center, so when we go out and put up the building - the conference center - simultaneously with the rest of the project, we're going to need both the city bond proceeds and our $900,000 to $1 million," Bailkin said. "The other payments to the city - which will be either the ground rent or the purchase money mortgage - will be paid on an annual basis."
The developer also proposes investing $700,000 to $800,000 - and perhaps more - into creating an active public plaza space on the site. Bailkin said he envisions the area becoming "a kind of local Rockefeller Center" for downtown Ann Arbor.
Members of the development team for Valiant Partners, including Michael Bailkin, right, appeared before city officials last week during an interview.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Bailkin said Valiant is willing to make the city a guarantee it won’t be on the hook financially if the hotel isn’t successful.
"We will have a mechanism to guarantee against operating losses," he said. "No. 1, (the city) won't be responsible for the debt service because that's coming from the income flow from the hotel. And No. 2, the operating losses, we as the manager will be responsible for that. So the only issue will really be whether we will be able to produce the economic and community benefits by having a lot of conferences here."
Sweating the details
Karen Sidney, a certified public accountant in Ann Arbor and local political activist, is one of several residents who have pleaded with city officials not to put the city at risk by partnering on a hotel and conference center project.
Sidney has crunched the numbers and believes Valiant's assumptions - based on a 75.8 percent occupancy rate - are too optimistic.
"During my career as a CPA, I've analyzed many real estate investment proposals. Some make sense and others don't,” she said. “If a client came to me with the Valiant proposal, I'd recommend they not invest because the numbers don't work. Bottom line is that, even with rosy occupancy assumptions, this project will not generate enough cash to pay the city for its land or pay the investors a return on their investment. Without the land payments, the city will not have enough money to pay the bonds. Since the bonds are backed by our taxes, we have to make the payments. That means more cuts to general fund services."
Valiant is asking the city to issue bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the city. But the developer is promising the hotel's "guaranteed income streams" will cover the debt service payments of $675,000 a year.
"We would pay the debt service by, No. 1, allocating our ground rent, which is actually going to be $375,000 if we do the purchase option, and, No. 2, by allocating a portion of what the real estate taxes would be to cover this," Bailkin said. "It's almost like a tax-increment financing type of approach. We believe the taxes that can be feasibly carried by this project are in the range of $600,000."
Of those tax revenues, Bailkin said $325,000 annually would go toward a portion of the debt service, while the remainder would be distributed at the normal ratio to local taxing jurisdictions.
"We believe that this project will produce not only the best revenue stream directly to the city but the best overall benefits," Bailkin said, citing 264 temporary construction jobs and 150 permanent jobs that would result from the project.
The need for a conference center
Valiant representatives acknowledge they're coming to the city with a proposal that hasn't been fully fleshed out. But for now, they're banking on what they're hearing from the community.
"It's what the business community in Ann Arbor is telling us that they think is needed to stimulate development," Bailkin said. "The people in Ann Arbor that are responsible for economic development - the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, all the people whose job it is to act in the public interest in that way - are saying this is an important project."
Fritz Seyferth, an Ann Arbor business consultant who is representing Valiant Partners locally, said 289 state or regional associations meet regularly in Michigan.
"The question is: How many of them would like to come to Ann Arbor?" Seyferth said, suggesting an equal number of associations affiliated with the University of Michigan faculty might use the conference center as well.
Seyferth called Valiant's proposal "conservative."
"It's not as big a conference center as the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau would like to have us put up," he said. "They'd like to have a bigger one. But the reality is that this is a conservative middle-of-the-ground, and this a low risk at this time."
Seyferth also addressed some residents’ charges that the fix is in for a hotel and conference center and the RFP process is a sham. He said Valiant Partners hasn't been promised anything by the city.
Seyferth said Valiant has spent the last two years forming the right team. That includes partnerships with Utah-based Gemstone Hotel & Resorts, which specializes in development of unique one-of-a-kind hotels, and internationally known architect Enrique Norten. Also on Valiant's team is Ann Arbor architect Carl Luckenbach, whose firm designed the underground parking garage being built on the Library Lot.
Local architect Carl Luckenbach, who has been hired to draw up construction designs for the Valiant project, spoke in favor of the project during last week's interview.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
For decades, Luckenbach said, he’s heard people in Ann Arbor talk about the need for three things: A conference center, a fine hotel, and some sort of town square downtown.
"Our proposal incorporates all three of those plus a restaurant on the street frontage, some retail and 12 two-bedroom condominiums," he said. "This project will be good for the city, and it will be especially good for downtown."
Bailkin admits it's difficult to finance anything in today's market, but said his team's financial consultant, New York-based Roosevelt & Cross, feels confident about the project.
"If this were a free-standing hotel, I don't think we could finance it," Bailkin said. "The hotel in connection with, No. 1, its downtown location, but perhaps more importantly the conference center, we believe, will get us the financing at least up to 65 percent loan to value."
But it still needs support from the City Council.
At this point, even if the Valiant proposal is recommended to the City Council, it likely won't move forward.
Hohnke said the 1.2-acre city-owned site on South Fifth Avenue - adjacent to the downtown public library - is prime real estate and should bring income without any risk to the city. He said he'd prefer to wait for a proposal that offers that.
"If we don't have that in the current batch, then that's OK," he said. "We need to continue to look at the best way to find the proposals that work with us as a community. We're not under any obligation to accept one of the proposals that are before us. We are under obligation to consider them deeply and thoroughly, but we're not under any obligation to accept one."
Anglin echoed those sentiments.
"For the city at this time to invest any of the taxpayers' money - or to sell any of its land in conjunction with a developer - would not be very appropriate, particularly because we have so many things that need to be done in town and we're stressing the taxpayer in many, many different ways," he said. "It's very important that we maintain services. That's what makes a great community, not a fancy hotel."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Aaron Wolf
Fri, Feb 5, 2010 : 2:11 p.m.
The Acquest proposal isn't phenomenal, but it is responsible and attractive enough. The Valiant thing is ABSOLUTELY ATROCIOUS. It's a gimmick saying "look! You think it might fall over because it is off-center and over the edge, but it stays up!" It's is completely square, lacking in feminine subtlety or any real beauty. It is the only proposal of the whole lot that deserves to be rejected without any deeper consideration. Practicality and function are important things to debate, but we can't completely ignore aesthetics. Go over to the law quad and then tell me why it is so aesthetically appealing... every reason the law quad is beautiful is completely reversed on this horrible design proposal.
Awakened
Mon, Feb 1, 2010 : 12:05 p.m.
The conference center is needed for coucil meetings during the reconstruction of the Larcom building after the completion of the Police Courts building. Someone asked about fire protection. As a new building it will have sprinklers installed. There has never been a death from fire in a building with working sprinklers. Look it up.
LocoCit
Sun, Jan 31, 2010 : 7:39 a.m.
Wow- The Valiant group and those connected to profits from building such designs make statements about a "local Rockefeller Center," support from local groups like the Chamber and Visitors bureau and all these folks wanting "density" downtown. The majority of citizens I speak to and observe at meetings continue to not want this risky design that is not needed in anyway for the city. (A little digging by Ryan Stanton has disproved Valient's Convention and Visitor's Bureau support. This group in fact believes a convention center will be a losing business venture.) I hope city council and the mayor will remember to represent the people who put them in those positions versus the corporate interests who site fictinal support of their project.
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 12:07 p.m.
a few observations... based from above: "Both proposals ask the city to front millions of dollars to develop a publicly [ed: taxpayer] owned conference center that will drive the success of a [ed: privately owned] new hotel." "That factor alone could place both ideas in jeopardy since they come at a time when the city [ed: and all capitalist business] is struggling financially, and officials are unwilling to take many risks." "Bailkin says public [ed: taxpayer] financing of the conference center contained in Valiant's proposal is crucial to the overall project's success." "I'm very familiar with conference centers or convention centers that are built by the public [ed: taxpayer] sector - they're built that way because the private market simply can't support them [ed: ummm, but the taxpayer can be forced (extorted?) to support them, right]," he said. "Our life and blood [ed: whose?], and the success of the [ed: for-profit, privately owned] hotel, depends on us [ed: who is this "us" to whom you refer?] building that conference center." [ed: there is a peculiar audacity of hope claiming that what the private market -cannot- do must be foisted onto the taxpayers back while (and in the same ($@#$%) breath) reserving the profitable success only to them (or is that 'us'?)] [ed: surely, i cannot the only observer with an unoccluded thought process.] ======= "If Ann Arbor is the hotel and conference goldmine that the gold diggers [ed: (sic)] claim, they will have no problem paying for [ed: and profiting from] their project with THEIR own gold." [ed: what? the rarity of reality intrudes into a midas fable?] ======= "Businesses cannot afford [ed: and do not want to pay for] conferences to the degree they once did [ed: when there was no alternative... oh, wait]. Lots of video conferences these days." [ed: how many/much parking, or clean sheets, or jet fuel, or lamb chops does an lcd screen really need?] ======= "I see no system benefit from increasing hotel/conference space where our existing space is underutilized." [ed: a vacancy study would seem to be somewhat useful here, eh, what?] ======= [ed: i think i'm balkin' about now]
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 3:39 a.m.
a few observations... based from above: "Both proposals ask the city to front millions of dollars to develop a publicly [ed: taxpayer] owned conference center that will drive the success of a [ed: privately owned] new hotel." "That factor alone could place both ideas in jeopardy since they come at a time when the city [ed: and all capitalist business] is struggling financially, and officials are unwilling to take many risks." "Bailkin says public [ed: taxpayer] financing of the conference center contained in Valiant's proposal is crucial to the overall project's success." "I'm very familiar with conference centers or convention centers that are built by the public [ed: taxpayer] sector - they're built that way because the private market simply can't support them [ed: ummm, but the taxpayer can be forced (extorted?) to support them, right]," he said. "Our life and blood [ed: whose?], and the success of the [ed: for-profit, privately owned] hotel, depends on us [ed: who is this "us" to whom you refer?] building that conference center." [ed: there is a peculiar audacity of hope claiming that what the private market -cannot- do must be foisted onto the taxpayers back while (and in the same ($@#$%) breath) reserving the profitable success only to them (or is that 'us'?)] [ed: surely, i cannot the only observer with an unoccluded thought process.] ============== "If Ann Arbor is the hotel and conference goldmine that the gold diggers [ed: (sic)] claim, they will have no problem paying for [ed: and profiting from] their project with THEIR own gold." [ed: what? the rarity of reality intrudes into a midas fable?] ==================== "Businesses cannot afford [ed: and do not want to pay for] conferences to the degree they once did [ed: when there was no alternative... oh, wait]. Lots of video conferences these days." [ed: how many/much parking, or clean sheets, or jet fuel, or lamb chops does an lcd screen really need?] ========================= "I see no system benefit from increasing hotel/conference space where our existing space is underutilized." [ed: a vacancy study would seem to be somewhat useful here, eh, what?] ============== [ed: i think i am balkin' about now.]
annarbor28
Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 12:17 a.m.
Conferences need to be held in places that are either attractive for families with good weather such as Disney Land,Disney World, beaches, etc, or places that are seen as fun for adults such as Las Vegas. No one wants to bring their family to Ann Arbor during the winter unless Mom and Dad or the grandchildren live here. In thee summer, there's still not much to do here, vs Disney World. In addition,conferences are going out of style, unless they are very justifiable and in attractive spots. Most meetings I am required to attend are done electronically. I rarely travel for meetings, even though I have travel money, because it's a hassle and mostly everything can be done online instead, which is far more convenient. This monstrosity is going to bite the city eventually. Even if the developers pick up 100% of the initial cost and and risks, eventually when it goes bankrupt, the taxpayers will have to blow up the ugly building. Or the U will buy it for research facilities or a dorm, and not pay any taxes, as usual. Maybe it can house the city government; if there is a fountain, maybe they will be ready for another new building in 5 years. Could you get Pfizer back here with a free, slightly used conference center to lease for research?
MikeyP
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 8:50 p.m.
I'm seeing the Valiant proposal as quite inevitable. It has appeared to be that way since the first time I saw it. I happen to be in favor of it myself. I don't think the site would work as a park, it isn't large enough to serve that purpose IMHO, nor is it a good fit for one. To me the site calls out for a large business generator, one unique to the area. The demographics of SE Michigan are changing, and Ann Arbor is benefitting from that. It isn't a coincidence that AA has lower unemployment than anywhere else in the state. People WANT to come here, as do businesses and that includes conferences. Yes, it is about the money, but nearly every comment on this story is about money. This kind of investment could bring in plenty of money if done right... and a park isn't doing it right. A hotel/conference center could very well be the best answer, and I'm not seeing anything to say it can't be.
Lynn Lumbard
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 8:29 p.m.
Perhaps Valiant has made it more palatable for the Mayor and council to take a 3% pay cut.
sh1
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 5:04 p.m.
I just find it odd that almost two years ago it was leaked that a New York firm was building a hotel on the library lot, though the city denied that. Now that the City Council is getting ready (apparently) to reward this contract to Valiant, we are being asked to believe it's a coincidence.
HBA
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 3:50 p.m.
There is no question this is a very unique design. The real question is whether or not it is totally out of scale for this site. But more important, with the City in dire financial straits and the Mayor talking about the need for an income tax vs, dire cuts in basic services, how can any responsible leadership talk about the need for a project that is requiring the investment of City (our) monies at this time. What has happened to fiduciary and responsible leadership? H.A.
a2grateful
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 3:47 p.m.
Although Ann Arbor has many parks, most people don't know where many of them are. Few of them are destinations. Some of them don't have easy access. The more-used parks are neighborhood oriented. However, some, like Gallup, are mainly destination oriented. The downtown park would be both neighborhood and destination oriented. It would be attractive to inhabitants of neighboring high- and low-density residential development. It would be attractive as a venue for destination oriented events. Top of the Park, for example, is a destination event. Events like this could held there. Many other downtown events could use the park as a staging area. It would be great for downtown running events, parades, classic car shows, art fair activity, etc. Consider open skating in the winter. Can you imagine that any college students might enjoy this? None of these activity types ever occur in any other park. It is a mistake to underestimate the value of the potential high civic contribution this location offers as a park.
LBH
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 2:27 p.m.
Given that Ann Arbor is a park rich environment, and I do like the parks and use them, I don't think that we can afford to turn this space into yet another park, particularly because it is in the middle of down town. It doesn't seem likely that people are going to hop in their cars, or onto a bus, or their bikes and get themselves downtown to hang out in a park. Also, a park won't generate revenue, it will cost money to maintain. This may not be the right time to take on the risk, and this plan may not be 'the one', but please do not give in to the short sighted, warm and fuzzy notion of a park. It will cost more to maintain than it can possibly generate and we don't need another maintenance drag on our tax dollars stretching out into the future...
pragmatic
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.
Nice design but there is already too much development, congestion and noise downtown. How about a nice quiet and attractive park at this location? A greenspace in the midst of all this pavement would have much greater value to the workers,residents and visitors to downtown than any building would. Parks are restorative places and important to the human psyche. This "Grow or Die" mentality is destructive.
Chase Ingersoll
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 1:49 p.m.
Take a look at the fact-sheet for the Hyatt Regency in Columbus Ohio. http://columbusregency.hyatt.com/hyatt/images/hotels/cmhrc/factsheet.pdf It is a similar design, but looks a lot better in that it does not have a huge suspended wall of concrete. Ann Arbor already has more than a couple of those massive, blank concrete walls that have all of the architectural flair of a federal cell-block.
a2jean
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 1:29 p.m.
"I am being told by officials from both the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce that neither group has formally endorsed the hotel and conference center proposal, despite what comments made by Valiant representatives in this story might lead some to believe." (Ryan Stanton) This alone should put the kibosh on the Valiant proposal. They're liars. What else in their proposal are they misrepresenting? I would start with occupancy rate projections... Their endorsement claim was easy to check -- what about the less transparent details of this deal?
brad
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 12:29 p.m.
about design: it was a great day in architecture when cheap could be sold as modern. The project attempts too much without any internal balance (literally and figuratively). About finance: I agree with Townie that the parking's reinforced support is a relevant increase in the land value and should be repaid by the development. I have three other points. 1) If the Citys mortgage is subordinate, does that mean it gets the leftover crumbs if there's a Valiant bankruptcy? 2) How firm is the $375k/year for land payment? According to the proposal, this amount is derived from the net operating income from the 3rd year of operation. Since this is unknowable, the $375k seems like a hypothetical fantasy figure. 3) If the property taxes for the next 20 years repays the bond, the City (i.e. the DDA) wont receive any direct tax benefit from the project; then the City gets a 20-year-old building that will need major repairs & renovations to remain competitive (i.e. another bond supported by property taxes). Im not opposed to a hotel/conference center, but this specific plan doesn't contain enough guarantees the City should require.
Lokalisierung
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 12:27 p.m.
"Serious concerns about this building "tipping over"? Seriously? I propose that a field trip to Chicago take place for Ann Arbor residents." Yeah That's usually my feeling when reading posts here. Not everything has to match everything around it 100%...that's boring. Especially when the surronding area is quite ugly.
a2grateful
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 12:06 p.m.
The Valiant building design is reminiscent of a giant Sanford Magic Rub eraser turned on its edge. See it? Now, imagine the Valiant building as the new symbol for the eraser of the magic of Ann Arbor. It magically erases elements that contributed to Ann Arbor being the City that we once loved: 1) Transparent and responsive government process 2) Public voice in decision making 3) Private developer risk borne by risk taker 4) Civic benefit 5) Intelligent leadership and decision making by DDA, council, and mayor Sadly, these items are the tip of the iceberg for effects of Ann Arbors magic eraser. The symbol for the giant eraser is the "Valiant" building. The people holding the eraser are the mayor, council, and DDA, with support of silent citizens. Get ready for the Magic Rub you are about to feel when you receive your next tax assessment. Although your SEV is going down, your Taxable Value continues to increase, as it likely will for several years. Your taxes are going up in the midst of your house value going down! At the same time, your benefit of municipal service and protection are declining much faster than your tax increase. That's some rub! Possible irony: A civic-oriented open space amenity could help fuel density that many desire. The open-space amenity further promotes and establishes the downtown area as a desirable living space and destination. Density will occur naturally when the economy, financing, timing, and demand are supportive. Now is not the time. The failures of the hotel buildings on the library lot, or adverse effects on surrounding business, will likely discourage density on other parcels, thus forming the idea of irony.
voiceofreason
Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 11:53 a.m.
In my opinion, concerns about not wanting tax dollars to be risked for this project are very legitimate. However, it is apparent to me that some people need to venture outside of Ann Arbor more often. Serious concerns about this building "tipping over"? Seriously? I propose that a field trip to Chicago take place for Ann Arbor residents.
Jack Edelstein
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:54 p.m.
Engineering Mom: Your comments are right on -- the city government should WANT TO support local businesses rather than reward 'absent' developers with this project. There is a good chance that if this is built, it will flounder because of low occupancy, while at the same time hurting the existing hotels in town.
townie
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:13 p.m.
To me, it looks like someone chopped off the top 13 floors of Tower Plaza and stuck them on top of a big fish tank.
yua
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 7:11 p.m.
As interesting as this proposal is, it still feels just a bit too big for the site, and for the city. Whereas the Acquest proposal, while scaled better, seems too small (and boring). Something in the middle would probably be best. I still feel strongly that the entire two-block area straddling S. Fifth needs to be considered as a whole. If you think broadly about the whole site, there is plenty of room there for a conference center, new library, and a public park. *If* a conference center is built, and not a park, it needs to be built with its future surroundings in mind. Could a park be put in on the library grounds when it gets rebuilt? What about across the street? Can we please build a new federal building? Can we please rebuild Liberty Plaza? This site is very closely linked to its surroundings, and I think it would be wrong to put a building there that stuck out from its location like a sore thumb.
glacialerratic
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 6:45 p.m.
The design is trite, tired and in no way distinguished. The condescending effort at flattery--"a kind of local Rockefeller Center"--says volumes about the opportunism of these operators. A publically-funded conference center to feed customers for private investors--this isn't a private-public partnership, it's parasitism at its worst.
wlhneighbor
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 5:50 p.m.
Yikes. It looks like it will tip over. I imagine they will build it so it will not, but I will not be walking by it on the cantilevered side. It is creepy.
Val Losse
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 5:29 p.m.
Just wondering; will the underground parking structure support construction on top i.e. will the columns for the parking structure support a building on top? Any large structure as pictured requires substantial support. H'mm the underground parking structure is underway. Has any study been commissioned to determine if a hotel/convention center is required given the extensive conference areas that the University of Michigan has? Remember the Sheradon on Fourth and Huron? It was turned into a senior center or something like that. What is the cost to the City for that gem?
GoodKitty
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 5:26 p.m.
Has anyone given any thought as to how the City will provide Police and Fire services to this monstrosity?
steve pezda
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 5:15 p.m.
Wow, this Valiant proposal is exactly what Ann Arbor needs! All the basic elements are there, including hotel, conference center, town square, condominiums, restaurant, and retail. And the architecture is so unique and fabulous that people will want to see and use the complex. What a breath of fresh air this would be for Ann Arbor.
Ryan J. Stanton
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 4:50 p.m.
I am being told by officials from both the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce that neither group has formally endorsed the hotel and conference center proposal, despite what comments made by Valiant representatives in this story might lead some to believe. Both groups say their boards have not had a discussion about it yet, but could take it up for consideration in the near future. The Convention and Visitors Bureau has a meeting scheduled for the third week in February and officials believe this will be a priority agenda item at that meeting. For further reference on the chamber's downtown area growth ideals, check out its official Business Environment Policy Statement.
EngineeringMom
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 4:21 p.m.
Lets look at this from a total system point of view. Consider downtown Ann Arbor as a system rather than looking at the lot in question (this is the DDAs job by the way). We have some hotels in downtown A2 that, apparently, dont meet some expectation on the part of city officials. Either they are too small, or out of date (Im not certain, because I dont need to stay in an A2 hotel). Why wouldnt we simply support upgrading/expanding those existing hotels? From a total system viewpoint this would be a much better solution: --Significantly less investment and corresponding financial risk --Greener solution (minimized construction impact to environment) --Prevent driving existing hotels (that have paid taxes for years) out of business --Eliminate negative impact on neighborhood around the proposed site --Invest in business people who have a personal interest in A2 I see no system benefit from increasing hotel/conference space where our existing space is underutilized. Why would we ever consider paying an outsider to do something our own business community could do?
Lokalisierung
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 3:55 p.m.
While it may not have the "character" of filthy diryness of J. Garden next door, the ugly blockie Library, or even the ho-hum functinality of the federal building, I think it'll be fine.
a2miguy
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 3:42 p.m.
A more attractive design could be built with Lego blocks. This structure would fit in nicely in an open area such as south of downtown, like the somewhere in the Briarwood area (I'm speaking aesthetically here). But that behemoth jammed into a postage stamp of a lot, forget it. What was once a unique, charming town is slowly being destroyed. Ann Arbor is beginning to look like just another suburb.
Lokalisierung
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 3 p.m.
Still think it's not that bad looking.
Grumpy
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 2:24 p.m.
@alan. I could not agree more with you. But this ship sailed 4 years ago right under our noses. The outcome of the recent presentations was predetermined from the start. The politicians held those to create the perception of public input. Perhaps those in the Liberty condo building, especially the ones with southern exposure that are going to now have a view of the back of a building, should have gotten together with Dahlmann's people to figure out what it takes to start a conservancy. I for one would have been happy to join/donate to it. How much could it cost to pay a guy to cut the grass for 6 months out of the year?
Bill
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 1:59 p.m.
Who will pay to tear it down and restore the parking lot if it is vacant in five years? Didn't we have another eyesore several years ago one block west and a few blocks north of here? A white five(?) story building no one wanted?
alan haber
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 1:50 p.m.
the library lot is uniquely suited to the purpose of a public gathering place such as proposed in the commons and dahlmann town square proposals. if there is the market to support addition downtown commercial hotel and conference space, for out of towners to come here and spend, and enjoy, the space for that development should be on the y lot, now the 4th and william parking lot, and air rights over the transit station. the city could also be more assertive in negotiating with the federal government for air rights over the post office parking. the point is, there is space for down town commercial density, it should not be on the library lot. the library lot should be developed for community density. park, performance, cultural and art space, flowers and imagination. if not there, it will never be. any big building on that lot forecloses the future of a downtown open space, public place. the developers should be directed across the street or to privately owned land on huron or the other side of main. that's close enough for the market purposes they seek to satisfy. this lot belongs to the people and we should keep it and make it beautiful to serve community purpose. that is what is the best interest of the city. alan haber
Marvin Face
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 1:32 p.m.
It's good to see that architects are still making monuments to themselves and designing to please other architects. What I want to know is: why do architects love overhangs and cantelevers so damn much? The spaces under them are typically dark, hard, lifeless, cold, windy places. With all due respect to Mr Norten, architecture should be better than this. On the other hand, it reminds me of the look of The Standard Hotel in NYC http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20100113/voyeurs-delight. If we could get that, then I think it is well worth it!
pegret
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 1:02 p.m.
Haha, I think it's pretty funny that the really ugly expensive condos on Liberty might be 'shadowed' too much by the really hideously ugly conference center/hotel that will be shoved down our throats. Thank you City Council and DDA for continuing to contribute to the 'uglification' of Ann Arbor!
Grumpy
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 12:22 p.m.
@Julie. See "Eurocenter" in the Mixed Use category of projects on Enrique Norton's website. Basically plop that on one of his boxy exhibition hall designs. This guy actually does some really neat stuff. I like the AA building, but it could use some windows on the east and west sides. The Federal Building already has the solid windowless brick wall prison look going on.
Chris Taylor
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 11:41 a.m.
I can't believe the stupidity of this idea. How many hotels are there in Ann Arbor? A lot. They should turn the library lot into the Ann Arbor Skateboard Park. Make it a place for the people of Ann Arbor. You'll have tons of families downtown spending money. It could double as a ice skating rink in the winter. The project being suggested is just another give away to outside development companies and does nothing to make our city a better place to live. The design is terrible and I can't believe someone got paid to draw it. I wonder what the under the table $$ kick back is for the counsel members and the DDA if this deal goes through? Someone is going to get paid and it won't be the tax paying citizens of Ann Arbor.
townie
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 10:55 a.m.
Keep in mind that the City/DDA has ALREADY committed close to $10 MILLION for whatever goes on top in the form of structural support for a 25-story building (built into the parking structure) as well as utility improvements/relocations. It's not enough to simply say that the development proposal must not require any taxpayer financing or risk. The proposal should also reimburse the City/DDA for this $10 million as part of the land sale or lease. This doesn't even include the value of the land itself. Council was foolish to approve the parking structure with no plan for what was to go on top, and they were warned not to do it. If there had been a proper opportunity given for area planning with other agencies, research into the market and what would best support the local economy, not to mention a thorough public forum, they may have decided that a park was indeed appropriate. If so, we could have saved that $10 million from the parking structure and used it for the park. At a minimum, the support structure and the utilities could have been customized for whatever was decided instead of built to maximum capacity to cover any and all possibilities. @redridinghood: No, the parking structure cannot be used for what goes on top unless it is public building, like a library or city hall. The bonds used to finance the structure do not allow any more than 10% of the value to benefit a private party. Depends on whose doing the math, but it would appear we've already met or exceeded that 10% figure. The parking spaces will cost about $71,000 each to construct (a lot more if you factor in the surface lot spaces that were lost), so their value adds up fast.
busguy5
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 10:35 a.m.
Why not make a parking lot for large buses..for tourists or school children that come to the area, it wouldn't require much maintenace and also get them off the streets. Many school buses come to the museums in town or tour buses for events at Hill or the Power Center with not much available on street parking for them.
Julie
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 10:32 a.m.
@Bob Tinker -- I couldn't find anything on the architect's website that looked like this.... did I miss it?
Red Riding Hood
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 10:29 a.m.
I think it is a great idea...a hotel and conference center would surely fill the underground parking lot (was that what it was meant for?). Here's a thought..why not build a conference center where the Argo damn has a problem that way the repair could be incorporated into the price of the construction taking the park district off the hook. As for the downtown area I think Ann Arbor needs a monument to draw tourists. Something like the Statue of Liberty or the Washington Monument. How about a giant Arbor Arch...like St. Louis or McDonalds?
katie
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 10:10 a.m.
I should have said "the cost to heat and cool" this building with it's South and West orientation, not just the heating.
cfsunlet
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 10:04 a.m.
A few random thoughts: >The sun should reach the plaza just fine as it as South and West orientation. >I like the light, airy structure and think it will have a positive impact on the Ann Arbor skyline. >Has anyone considered a grocery store? Right now there is no grocery store anywhere in downtown Ann Arbor. There is a lot of condo development with limited parking and no place to walk to to buy food. Would a Trader Joe's (or similar) on street level of the proposed conference center help to cover the city's investment?
a2huron
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 10:03 a.m.
RE: Convention and Visitors Bureau perspective. Is the CVB board comprised of owners/managers of existing hotels/conference space from this county? If so, and since the Valiant proposal may represent direct competition to existing hotel spaces throughout the county, might the CVB in turn vote to reject it? I don't know whether this is/will be the case or not. Just asking the question.
katie
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 10:01 a.m.
Get with it folks! Anyone is favor of this is living in the past. Out of step with the times. It's no longer pre-September 2008. The bubbles have burst or are bursting. In case you haven't noticed, the real estate bubble for commercial buildings is now going "poof", following the real estate housing market. Plus, people are no longer attending conferences in large numbers. The airline business is down. Businesses cannot afford conferences to the degree they once did. Lots of video conferences these days. This is not a sustainable building for our community. The taxes to build it will drain our community of resources needed for the average taxpayer, like fire, police, and parks. I guess it will provide a few jobs for people to wash all those windows. Or will they be grimy once the building decides it can no longer afford to keep them sparkling clean like in the drawing. How much to heat that glass box? So, get up to speed, get in step with the times, council members. This is NOT an idea whose time has come. Besides, it's cold-looking and ugly.
bg
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.
Museums designed by Frank Gehry (or Brad Coepfil of Allied Works), monuments by Maya Lin, and stores designed by Rem Koolhaas all attract people to cities. Hotels, regardless of their aesthetic appeal, have no draw.
Ted Annis
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:48 a.m.
Mary Kerr, ED of The Convention and Visitors Bureau, was gracious enough to spend one and a half hours with me yesterday on this subject. Her organization has not taken a postion on a downtown conference center. They plan to discuss the matter at their February Board meeting. They have no data or analyses that support or repudiate the need for a downtown convention center. One of their Board members, Chuck Skelton, is the president of Hospitality Advisors Consulting Group. He is an expert on these matters. Councilwoman Sabra Briere talked with him on Jan 14, 2010 about this. The following is from her notes on this meeting: "He warned however that meeting and convention business is on the decline nationally and any facility would be risky and more than likely would not pay for itself though there could be some economic impact if in fact the new markets could be attracted." I plan to ask the Chamber and the DDA for their data and analyses.
Moose
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:47 a.m.
After specifically mentioning the UM, the Chamber of Commerce and the Convention and Vistors Bureau who obviously support their project, I would like to know the names of the other community and broader interest groups to which Mr Bailkin makes reference. Valiant is selling very expensive snake oil.
janofmi
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:42 a.m.
You know those sorting drawers that you use in the garage for nuts and bolts...Does this new building remind you of that? So modern...yes. Utilitarian...yes (for sorting people into compartments). Ugly...a matter of opinion; my opinion...yuck. It looks like a sorting box, stuck on a shelf that is to small. JanofMI
Bob Tinker
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.
The building is hideous and totally out of scale for its site. That 'hotel' high rise that you see was just taken from another project (check the architect's web site) and plopped onto this one. What is the point of that enormous cantilever? And, yes, this building would obliterate the rights to solar access for all the property owners to the north, as do all high rise structures. This is the path to sustainability for downtown Ann Arbor? I don't think so.
PersonX
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:29 a.m.
I, for one, am not opposed to the design; something new like this downtown could be interesting. I do think, however, that there are too many reasons why the project could be a disaster for the community. No matter what the spin says, much of the occupancy of such a hotel would simply draw off people from other ones in the city. This could put one or more of them out of business and leave us with another abandoned monstrosity to deal with. The shops and restaurants would all be chains--look at how many empty storefronts we already have--do we really want a mall downtown? The bottom line is that no matter what the committee decides, the city cannot afford this. The process going on right now is a total waste of time and money and should be brought to a rapid end.
Kevin S. Devine
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:27 a.m.
"De gustibus non est disputandum" and all, but as Joe Citizen, I think it's kind of ugly; as Joe Taxpayer, I don't want to pay for it. The Valiant team can make all the rosy projections they want, but how about seeing some worst-case projections, too, like a 40% occupancy rate, etc.? The fact that the Valiant team has spent two years working on this proposal should be of no concern to the citizens - that is their job as real estate developers and it should not be a weighted factor for those of us who will have to live with and pay for the building for decades to come.
truenorth
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:22 a.m.
Absolutely beautiful design. Cities continually make investments into companies and projects. Quite funny that they say that they don't. This would be so amazing for downtown and thank you to Valiant to looking at this so far in advance. Good planning is needed and shouldn't be frowned upon. Ann Arbor officials- don't screw this up like you have almost every other private public partnerships.
Dr. I. Emsayin
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.
I agree with the comment that the building would cast too much shadow over Liberty and the expensive condos people bought next to Seva which would now be shaded by the massive, hideous building. It is unfortunate that the people who make the decisions only care about money. There is no voice for regular citizens who would like to maintain Ann Arbor as a town more concerned about the locals than the visitors who come with more money than the local folks have and jack up rates for food and hotel and rent. Since the Calthorpe debacle where no citizen got a real say about development, I would not trust the DDA on anything other than their own self interests. The people can't speak, there is no listening.
mcm
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 9:06 a.m.
Please do not build this. I agree completely with the comment "The design is hideous." Ann Arbor is not a big city, respect this and design appropriately.
kaw-goosh-kaw-nick
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 8:57 a.m.
I applaude the bold idea of a modern building at this site and especially like the idea of the wide stairway that faces the plaza. This could be very much like the red glass stairs that now face Times Square as a great public space or a small version of the Spanish Steps in Rome, providing a kinetic place to relax and view the action of the plaza. I just think the massive cantilevers provide way too much shade over the new plaza and Library Lane. The wide and tall building will also cast deep shadows over Libery Street. These massive cantilevers are completely contrary to the requiremments of the A2D2 D1 regulations that mandate that tall buildings reduce in mass as they rise from the ground, allowing daylight to reach the street. I simply do not see how this can comply with the spirit of the new regulations. Since the 32,000 SF Conference center is "sancrosanct" according to the developer, the design as proposed is simply not approvable under our new zoning ordinace without major variances.
Mark Lipowski
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 8:42 a.m.
(DISCLAIMER: My information is second hand and I don't know as much about the subject as I would prefer.) I would like to applaud Peter Allen's recent stand on the matter, seconding the opinion that the development of this part of town provides us with a rare opportunity. We should strongly consider creating a quality town square (think Rittendon Square / Union Station / Bryant Park). Create a destination for families and visitors; one where they can enjoy the city and support our existing vendors. As a business owner, I'm pro business. A2 does need conference facilities and hotel offerings that differ from the $89/night chains. The sheer location of this site begs for something special. What developer wouldn't want to build on this prime site? But we need something for the community... this community that is searching for reasons to stay and to grow.
Mike D.
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 8:41 a.m.
I also like the design. Where was all the outcry about the positively hideous building that recently went up on Huron between Ashley and First? At least this hotel is modern, clean, and timeless.
a2grateful
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 8:40 a.m.
If the City cared about its citizens, here's a clue as to how the proper development of a City-owned parcel would occur. The City controls the development by signed agreement. Cash penalties for agreement violation are stipulated up front, as well as property abandonment clauses for agreement breaches. Then, the developer pays for the total project without City funding. For example, the developer pays for the land (deed restricted by agreement) up front in cash, and all subsequent city fees. If the developer needs a parking garage to support their improvements, they pay for it. If Ann Arbor is the hotel and conference goldmine that the gold diggers claim, they will have no problem paying for their project with THEIR own gold. The City has abandoned its fiduciary responsibility in their real estate follies. The City's philosophy and behavior in these endeavors can easily be described: throw the taxpayer money into a hole. There's one on Washington Street. There's one to be, next to the library. The only thing Valiant (sic) about the library lot project is the audacity of stupidity, selfishness, greed, and ego that fuel it. The City should be considering valiance in City service. The leadership that destroyed valiant city service for psychotic real estate disasters should be removed. November elections approach. Council and mayoral seats could be low hanging fruit for anyone that pledges recommitment to municipal service and public protection. There are many voters in the City that struggle to make ends meet. Their taxes continue to escalate while bridges and roads crumble. Now is not the time to throw money in holes. Wake up City leadership!
a2huron
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 8:25 a.m.
I happen to think the design is positively unique and very attractive. It would draw people to this area of the city and dramatically increase business opportunities for every business in the region.
Daniel Piedra
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 7:59 a.m.
The design is hideous. It is eerily similar to the controversial Tower Plaze condominium building which is generally regarded to be a regrettable development. Why would the City of Ann Arbor approve such a development that will clearly be an eyesore in ten years and a housing project in fifteen years?
greenwoodkody
Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 7:52 a.m.
Two initial thoughts, one pro, one con: Pro: The Valiant proposal appears to be an architecturally notable one, which is certainly welcome in Ann Arbor, a town that has allowed WAY too many mediocre buildings to go up over the past decade. Con: In today's economy, at least, the very notion of a 75% occupancy rate for a hotel is laughable. The hotel industry is in the tanker, folks.