Panel throws out proposals for park, town square atop underground parking deck
Proposals to put a park or town square atop the underground parking structure that is being built at the so-called Library Lot in downtown Ann Arbor have been eliminated from contention by an advisory committee.
City officials also are considering hiring a consultant to evaluate the pros and cons of the remaining four proposals, all of which call for private development on the city-owned lot, next to the downtown library on South Fifth Avenue.
The idea of bringing on a consultant received strong support in DDA committee discussions, said Susan Pollay, the authority's executive director.
"I think what I heard from the committee was if we could hire some expertise it might be helpful to all of us as a community," Pollay said. "The city would really benefit from having somebody who could look at a project and help them understand the feasibility."
The city recently issued a request for proposals - or RFP - and received responses from six development teams with plans ranging from open space to high-rise hotels. One project will be selected by the City Council to go atop the DDA's parking garage.
Council Member Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward, is chairman of the RFP advisory committee that has been evaluating the six proposals - now whittled down to four after a first round of eliminations.
Taken out of the running by the committee was an idea for a community commons - or urban park - by a grassroots group of citizens called the Ann Arbor Committee for the Commons.
Also eliminated was a popular proposal by Dahlmann Apartments Ltd. for a town square project with an outdoor ice skating rink and pavilion - a concept that received 46 percent of the vote from 1,483 AnnArbor.com readers who participated in a non-scientific online poll to see which of the six proposals they liked most.
Rapundalo said the two "public option" proposals didn't demonstrate a financial benefit to the city - one of the RFP requirements. In fact, he said, both might even have ended up costing the city money.
"The Ann Arbor Committee for the Commons, they provided no financials whatsoever - no cost estimates or even a basic description where the monies would come from," he said. "In the case of the Dahlmann proposal, the only mention there was of a possible $2.5 million donation - again no cost estimates, and certainly no discussions about future operations and maintenance."
The four proposals left now include a 150-room hotel and conference center plan by Valiant Partners LLC, an 84-room hotel with condos and retail space proposed by Jarratt Architecture, a 190-room hotel and retail center plan by Acquest Realty Advisors Inc., and a 148-unit senior apartment complex by Beztak Land Co.
At least one City Council member stills want more information about the two proposals that were eliminated.
First Ward Democrat Sabra Briere plans to bring forward a resolution at Monday's council meeting asking that backers of the proposals rejected by the RFP advisory committee submit all relevant financial information about their projects to the City Council as soon as possible. Briere says the RFP advisory committee ultimately is charged with making a recommendation to the entire City Council and council members should be given equivalent information about all six proposals.
Dahlmann's proposal for a new town square on the Library Lot features the option of downtown ice skating in the winter.
Briere thinks Ann Arbor may be missing out on a good thing if it doesn't give full consideration to the idea of an urban park to enhance the mix of variety and entertainment options downtown.
"I certainly see upsides to the open space proposals that are so positive for Ann Arbor," she said. "And I see negatives to some of the proposals for structures that are enormous because they require a financial commitment on the part of Ann Arbor that I don't think we can afford ... and I see ways to get around the financial commitment for park maintenance."
Rapundalo said the advisory committee will continue to work to narrow down the proposals to an even shorter list by the end of January before the consultant is asked to evaluate whichever ones remain at that point. He said tying to have the consultant review all six proposals - or even four - would be cost prohibitive.
The advisory committee has set aside Jan. 20 as the date it plans to conduct a full day of interviews with each of the prospective developers. Rapundalo said each interview will last 90 minutes, which includes a half-hour presentation, a half hour for questions from the committee and a half hour for questions from the public. He said the exact time and location still is being worked out.
Rapundalo said he expects the advisory committee will make its final recommendation to the City Council in March. He said the committee is being careful to make sure the right project is chosen - one that is designed to fit its surroundings, provides a financial benefit to the city and offers a significant public component.
"I don't think any of us have our sights set on one proposal or concept over another," he said. "We want to make sure each one is thoroughly vetted. And it has to work financially. That's just the bottom line. This is basically a business proposal."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Grumpy
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 5:33 p.m.
http://www.annarbor.com/community/community_wall/dont_screw_this_up/
pegret
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 2:12 p.m.
Come on Rapundalo & A2 City Council....spending ONLY $50,000 for a "consultant"? Geez, that's not the Ann Arbor way! I mean, couldn't you find one from overseas, and pay them closer to a million dollars? Oh well, I guess I'm just disappointed that the city wasn't able to find any more murals to tear down to make way for this latest project.
bedrog
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 1:33 p.m.
re awakeneds:...and also registered sex offenders and,hell, even a guantanamo north.... you're kidding right?( sometimes its hard to tell on these threads,given the often earnest loopiness of some hereabouts.)
treetowncartel
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 1:33 p.m.
Awakened, what you are describing used to be across the street and was torn down. The powers that be have no interest in anything like that.
Awakened
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 8:40 a.m.
With the economy tanking and so many out of work the city should build a large shelter for the hundreds of displaced and homeless in the area. The location is across from public transportation and near services and businesses needing unskilled labor. As the State closes prisons there will be more parolees and probationers in need of inexpensive housing and supervised half way houses without which they can not be re-integrated successfully into society. Ann Arbor, with it's relatively high standard of living and diverse community, is an ideal spot for these folks too.
bg
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 9:56 p.m.
If you want city living, you need diversity (and I don't mean an east-west fusion restaurant). An indoor market is a great idea (actually would fit well in the vacant glassy space at First & William) as is a skating rink. Yes, Ann Arbor has plenty of parks, but none with a purpose: outdoor skating (I know, Buhr Park - but it is not in the core). Skating would bring revenue (skate rental) in addition to selling hot drinks and snacks. Back to diversity - cities, such as Toronto, have the markets, the skating rinks, the urban drugstores and foodstores, and much more. Those in charge should read a little Jane Jacobs...
Janelle Baranowski
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 9:34 p.m.
voiceofreason, Thanks for your response. I personally feel that in this market none of these proposals should be considered. It was foolish of the DDA and the City to begin construction on a multi-million dollar project and then to have an "whoops...guess we should have thought of something to go on top!" This kind of poor planning highlights the need for change in City Council and the DDA. The city/DDA began this lot without a clear vision of how it would benefit the taxpayers of Ann Arbor. More parking...good. Underground...good. What will fill the void? Well, it's clear they want a convention center...at the expense of taxpayers. The whole thing should have been laid out in the planning stages. I would like to see something that either generates revenue for the city (without ostentatious tax breaks/giveaways and doesn't go to the LFDA or DDA) or is of direct benefit for the community. Want an ice skating rink? Try one or two miles away at either Veterans Park or the Ice Cube. Want a hotel? There are plenty inside and on the outskirts of Ann Arbor. Convention center? Plenty of those too. I don't have a solution; I'm not claiming to. But all of these proposals sound like poor winners to me.
uabchris
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 9:25 p.m.
@townie is right, we MUST be heard! Would anyone have a consolidated list of city POC(s) and contact info they can post so our comments/concerns can be expressed outside this forum?
Michael Christie
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 9:04 p.m.
No one ever accused them of being smart...This large structure will most likely cause lower values in the condo I live in on Liberty Street, of which 1/2 of our units will face this structure and most of the sun will be blocked out. I'm also not sure how many people would want to look at a building out of their main window. I'm sure the powers to be will fail to realize that there's no grocery shopping in town unless you do it before 7pm at Monahan's, which isn't even really a grocery store.
Michael Christie
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 8:54 p.m.
No one ever accused them of being smart...This large structure will most likely cause lower values in the condo I live in on Liberty Street, of which 1/2 of our units will face this structure and most of the sun will be blocked out. I'm also not sure how many people would want to look at a building out of their main window. I'm sure the powers to be will fail to realize that there's no grocery shopping in town unless you do it before 7pm at Monahan's, which isn't even really a grocery store.
voiceofreason
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 8:22 p.m.
Janelle, I never said a conference center was the best option, simply a better one than a public park. Personally, once the market improves I believe the city should sell the space above the structure outright to some type of apartment/condo development.
townie
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 7:42 p.m.
These comments have gotten sidetracked into defense or criticism of one proposal or another instead of focusing on the real problem. City Council and their appointees have failed to include the owners of this property (all Ann Arbor citizens) in any discussion of what is to become of their own land. They have had secret discussions with one of the developers for many months. Worst of all, they seem to have pre-determined the outcome of this RFP, regardless of the public's wishes, what makes the most economic sense for downtown, or how much more public debt and risk they take on in our names. Here we sit on AnnArbor.com trying to re-create some semblance of a public process while Council rushes toward a conference conference center with no research, master planning or public input. It's a disgrace. The arrogance of the majority on Council seems to know no bounds. Regardless of what we personally think belongs on this site, we should all be outraged at our exclusion from the process and the incompetence of this Council. If you are outraged, let them hear it--by email, phone, letter, and especially by your ballot!
Moose
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 6:18 p.m.
The DDA is NOT the designer of any kind of downtown Master Plan. The DDA may have a plan but it is not the City Master Plan.
Janelle Baranowski
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 4:23 p.m.
Michael and voiceofreason, I'm pretty sure all the taxes will be captured by the DDA's TIF system. Taxes will not go into the city's coffers. You can read about TIFs HERE. If you look closer into the hotel and conference center proposals, the purchase price of the land (from the city) goes down if things don't go well (based on things like occupancy, revenue, etc.) The city gets nothing for the land if the project tanks. Also, the city is required to pay for the conference center. How? By issuing bonds (aka debt.) To ice the cake, all of the proposals include huge tax breaks (aka incentives) for the developments. Caveat emptor.
treetowncartel
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 3:59 p.m.
@ Local Guy - Advisory Comittees are exempt from the OMA.
Freemind42
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:52 p.m.
This is typical of our city government. nobody knows what they are doing so they contract every decision out. I bet we could cut our budget down 30% just by electing people with their heads at a safe distance from their backend.
local guy
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:50 p.m.
While I'm reluctant to agree with anyone called "grumpy", I think grumpy is spot-on, as are a number of other commentators. I do not have the information presented to the advisory committee, but I believe eliminating the public space/park use for the space is short-sighted. While such use will not necessarily pay for itself as a property use, it very well could (if managed well) generate more revenue for the businesses downtown, increase property value (and tax revenue) of the downtown area, and provide a much needed green space in the downtown area. Most well-designed cities have urban parks and squares, and we sorely lack in those areas. Let's have a space where people can wonder and hang out and then wonder into the library or the stores and restaurants in the area. Let's have a skating rink/band shell that's near the business area. We are advocating density, but with density we need some significant (not token) park. We're really only limited to the Diag in this regard. That's not enough, and we have this rare opportunity to use this large space for all of us to enjoy. Millenium Park is a great example. I think the skating rink across from the Amway Grand in Grand Rapids is a real asset to that town. Let's use the Library Lot as a park and build a hotel/conference center on the Y lot (which they've renamed, I believe) and over the adjoining Blake Transit Center. This way, we'll get the activity of a hotel and a charming outdoor setting downtown. Let's reconsider this!! Also, I'm not sure if the reporting is correct, but how can an "advisory committee" whittle down the list of potential uses. If that's what happened, then they've violated the Open Meetings Act.
treetowncartel
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:47 p.m.
While I would still prefere a libearl and conservative free zone, I suppose a wildlife prarie with indigenous species and no dogs or humans allowed would be in keeping with the sofisto attitude exuberated by so many in Ann's arbor.
pragmatic
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 2:22 p.m.
It is truly sad that this advisory panel threw out the best possible plan for the use of this land. Let's hope that the City Council wil reconsider this hasty decision. There is so little downtown green space and this would be a great opportunity to add to it. A downtown park would only enhance the attractiveness and appeal of what is one of the nicest downtowns in the state. It will only bring more people downtown to spend money. It is a good financial move. Parks and art are also what make Ann Arbor special not just buildings and businesses. A downtown park is sorely needed.
Lokalisierung
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 12:16 p.m.
Please no more parks; sick of paying for them. "How about a liberal and conservative free zone?" Ha nice...I'll vote for that one!
tdw
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 12:11 p.m.
@treetowncartel I don't know exactly what you're trying to say but it sounds good to me
treetowncartel
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 11:36 a.m.
How about a liberal and conservative free zone?
Blicero
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 10:21 a.m.
What about an indoor market? There is no large market to shop for food downtown. Why only have fresh local produce/food on Saturdays? - There is a similar place in France that would suit Ann Arbor perfectly: Les Halles, Avignon, France (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=les%20halles%20avignon) This market also sits atop an underground parking lot. - Or, if you have visited Toronto's St. Lawrence Market, then you have an idea of what I am suggesting: Rows of specialized kiosks/booths for meat, cheese, produce, wine, fish, baked goods, etc. This is what real cities have. - I'd love to be able to shop for fresh local food in the city, instead of leaving downtown to buy out-of-season food from halfway around the world at the various mega-marts surrounding the city.
sh1
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.
The city has never been interested in citizen input for this project. It was leaked from the very beginning that they wanted a tall hotel/conference center. The mayor has denied this was always in the works, but it sure looks like whoever leaked the information knew what they were talking about.
LocoCit
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 9:04 a.m.
Unbelievable. I have atttended DDA open houses and City Council meetings throughout this development project as a citizen living downtown. During this whole process I have observed that the majority of citizens attending have all been in favor of a park, green space or commons as the choice for the surface of the underground parking structure. Yet, at each turn City Council throws up roadblocks primarily through committee "feedback" meetings to what the majority of its citizens want. Most employed citizens don't have time to attend all of these meetings. So when there is feedback from the citizenry, through meeting attendance or online surveys like this one the strategy still is to use a committee (or panel) to throw out what the majority of citizens want. It seems to me that the only way to hold City Council accountable to represent their citizens would be to hold a referendum on what should be placed on the surface of the parking structure. The majority of the people who are commenting on this article and people I know who attended meetings all would vote to create some type of park/commons/green space. I don't know of any other way to allow the people a say.
Castanza
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 12:36 a.m.
How short sighted and disconnected are elected officials have become. Instead of listening to the calls of their OWN citizens they pay outside consultants to tell them what the city needs. I got one word for that-INSULTING! How bout giving the taxpayers something that they can enjoy and deserve with land that is OURS. But instead these corrupt greedy politicians who never have run successful businesses listen to self serving greedy out of state developers. The Library Lot is public land and should STAY in public hands, not turned over to private developers in a fire sale. The Dalhman's are willing to give the city 2.5 million dollars for a city center that so many want to see, more then ignorant to turn that down. No one is stopping a developer from building a hotel. The FACT is that it doesn't make economic sense to do so, If it did one would have been built already without public subsidizes.
voiceofreason
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 12:19 a.m.
Michael, The brand of thinking you subscribe to is far too logical for most of the commentators on this site. With parking being placed underground, it is now possible for the Ann Arbor "Rockefeller Plaza" to be located on one of the other surface lots. First and Huron perhaps? The DDA obviously has a master plan for the city, and is making the prudent decision by carrying it out slowly. The Hotel and Conference Center is meant to enrich the city, as well as increasing the tax base and making it more affordable for an individual to own a home.
voiceofreason
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 9:20 p.m.
This can't be much of a surprise to anyone. Did people honestly believe a 600 space parking structure is being built for outdoor ice skaters to use 4 months a year?
ERIC MEYERS
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 8:07 p.m.
Why do we need to spend city money on more parking and a ice rink come people.This is just more city wasted money that the city does not have.
limmy
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 7:38 p.m.
Sorry, but I can't get enthused about another park of any kind. The problem is that AA property owners foot the bill for all of the parks, while they are used by absolutely anyone. I am betting that on any given day, at least 50% of the users of Almendinger park are people that live outside the city limits. We need to capture some of their money before we can afford any more parks.
Paul B
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 7:38 p.m.
For those of us who don't like the process or its possible outcomes, there is at least one scheduled public hearing/comment session (Jan. 8th?) where a strong turnout to express concerns might at least give the committee and council pause before making a aesthetically and economically detrimental decision.
ERIC MEYERS
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 6:49 p.m.
No we do not need any more parking in the city. We need JOBS.
townie
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 5:07 p.m.
Perhaps someone at AnnArbor.com can link to an archive article about the 6-10 projects ALREADY APPROVED in downtown or near downtown Ann Arbor that would meet the criteria Andy is referring to. If there were financing and a stronger market for these projects, they would have been built by now. I don't think it's the function of our City government to go out and try to promote private development, especially when we have a glut of projects currently on hold.
Andy Piper
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 4:41 p.m.
More downtown housing that is affordable for those making @ $40,000 to $50,000 per year is what is needed. As an Ann Arbor real estate agent, I receive call after call from people that want to live downtown in a 600 to 1000 sq ft condo or apartment where the rent is reasonable. Not college style housing. Presently there is very little inventory and nothing affordable for these people. At 40k to 60k per year income that comes to around 3.5k to 5k per month, one third of this for rent would be around 1200 - 1600 per month. The City of Ann Arbor should do everything in its power to work with developers to get this kind of housing built.
HBA
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 3:38 p.m.
If we are going to spend money for an outside consultant, then ALL proposals should be considered by that consultant--and not only those remaining after some arbitrary decisions by an advisory committee to eliminate others. We agree with Sabra Briere. H.A.
flintcitylimit
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 2:52 p.m.
@uabchris--it's not the shopping, shopping, shopping that's the problem, it's the endless parade of pricey restaurants. I used to buy my kids' Christmas toys downtown, and real clothes, believe it or not. Shopping in Ann Arbor has been reduced to artsy stuff nobody really needs, t-shirts and chocolate. For the tourist trade--just like the restaurants.
uabchris
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 2:22 p.m.
I am a new resident to Ann Arbor. I am VERY disappointed by the continued lack of responsible management from the city and disregard for the public's opinion. My family moved here after a job transfer because Ann Arbor regularly makes the top list of best towns to live. Its always about MONEY, MONEY, MONEY - Lets stop the band-aids, greed, and quick fixes. This city must start thinking responsibly for the longterm or else it will cease to generate positive national recognition as a nice town to live/visit and then NO ONE will want to come here - not for conferences and certianly not to shop at the mom-n-pop shops - so then WE ALL lose. Most of the comments are spot on: WE NEED DIVERSITY. Our downtown area is nothing more than shopping, shopping, shopping. What happens when consumption is reduced? Empty retail space and reduced tax revenue. Don't we have enough of that already?!!! We need the diversity that Plymouth, NYC, etc have or we end up no better off than an empty strip mall in times of reduced consumption...thats not the Ann Arbor I know!!! WE MUST FIGHT THIS and push for a city center commons area to bring diversity, improve quality of life for OUR OWN citizens, and bring back a PROPER city center to the downtown area for the A2 townies. Doesen't it make you sick when you look at the historical markers downtown and see what the city used to be, with all its charm? Granted we have to change with the times but more hotels and unsightly structures are not the answer...
glacialerratic
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 2:14 p.m.
Check out the pdf versions of the student plans for the library lot area: Library Gardens and City Center. These can be found at the bottom of the webpage listed above.
glacialerratic
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 2 p.m.
As a class assignment, members of a U-M graduate urban planning/design class developed proposals for the library lot. They offered some very creative thinking about how this lot and adjacent public spaces might be incorporated into a broader plan. Here's a link: http://annarborchronicle.com/2009/12/28/column-visions-for-the-library-lot/
cgrantski
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 1:43 p.m.
The advisory committee, as filtered through the voice of Stephen Rapundalo, feels a little inept to me. It sounds like they evaluated some proposals on the basis of completeness about financials, and they made some huge assumptions about the missing financial information. Have they asked the proposers for a more complete proposal? The bottom line, according to Rapundalo, is entirely financial. Why? Don't give us generalities about the city going through a tough time. Be specific. Is the underground parking structure going to be a huge waste of money ---- never even remotely paying for itself? Is that what they're worried about? Would leaving it as a surface lot have been the more financially sound decision? Who put that single criterion on the table and said it's to be the only criterion? A city is a bit more than a business, with far more intangibles and indirect effects than an ordinary business. I really don't like having business people making these decisions rather than honest-to-goodness urban planners (who see the big picture). I know I don't want another doggone hotel and definitely not another so-called conference center. I'd like to see an unbiased financial justification for either of those. Are we really short on hotel and meeting space around here? Is there really a future for more of those kinds of facilities? Where I work, our business travel (including conferences) is a tenth of what it was ten years ago, not because of financial restrictions but because other things have taken the place of sending bodies. Do they really think downtown hotels and conference centers are a growth industry? For me as someone who lives here and pays taxes, a hotel would just be a big blank spot in the downtown, without any interest, a place to walk past while getting to a real destination. An expensive chain store on the first floor won't really help me perceive it as anything other than... something that makes downtown less interesting. We do need a consultant on board because the current group seems unable to do the job. I hope the consultant doesn't turn out to be chosen with the same bias that the committee has shown so far.
Phaedrusandme?
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 12:35 p.m.
I am stunned by the lack of vision and limited strategic thought coming from the "advisory committee". To eliminate the 2 primary culturally benefiting proposals from contention because they do not generate revenue is absurd. How do you think Central Park was established in NYC... and likely contributes untold revenue as a draw into the center of Manhattan. Now we will spend another $50k to hire a "consultant".. what a shame!
townie
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 11:10 a.m.
Wake up fellow citizens and hold on to your wallets! City Council is at it again! The committee they selected (with no at-large citizen representation) eliminated two proposals within 3 minutes during their last meeting, citing lack of financial return, which was only supposed to be 10% of the evaluation criteria. Then, in the next breath, they announced to the world that they were incompetent to evaluate the financial aspects of any of the RFP responses and must hire a consultant to do it for them! Now the committee chair says they might eliminate two more responses before they even hire the consultant? Could this get any more ridiculous? BEWARE! The two conference center proposals remaining BOTH require that the City finance the conference center portion, as well as absorb huge financial risks for the rest of the project. One of them even demands the City build its own conference center across the street. Why were these two proposals not dismissed out of hand like the other two? The open space/parks proposals might need to present ways of providing for ongoing maintenance, but the committee didn't even seem to notice that the Dahlmann proposal called for a small building that would house a cafe. Surely leasing this space to one of our local coffee businesses, along with skate rental and a small fee to use the ice would provide at least SOME revenue (as well as renting the lawn space for weddings, etc., in warmer weather... It has been clear to most of us who follow local politics that the DDA and many on Council are determined to get a new conference center and hotel downtown even though they have never done any research on the viability of such an enterprise. According to Valiant partners, who have been secretly discussing their proposal with City and DDA officials for over a year and a half, conference centers rarely cover their own debt! This statement is right there in their proposal (along with the admission about discussing this proposal with City officials long before the RFP was ever issued). Worse, the City has never properly or purposefully engaged the public in any sort of polling, visioning, or discussion of what should go on this site (or any of the other public land on these blocks). Council needs to call a halt to all this foolishness and start over with some focused and thoroughly researched master planning together with the AATA, DDA, the Library, neighboring property business/owners, and most importantly, the PUBLIC. You know, the ones who own this property! At a minimum, we should be allowed to vote on the issuing of millions more dollars worth of bonds for yet another dubious capital project.
Dr. I. Emsayin
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 11:02 a.m.
A hotel for more rich out of towners so that restaurants can continue to raise prices so that townies can't afford to enjoy their own downtown. A public space where people who actually live in Ann Arbor could enjoy THEIR OWN DOWNTOWN would be nice, but who cares about the people who live here and eat at Jerusalem Garden and Earthen Jar? Better to bring in some out of town developer to put in a conference center to take up all the parking and make it even more impossible to use our own library. Shame on DDA!
David Cahill
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 10:36 a.m.
The AnnArbor.com poll is important because it measures the preferences of those who care enough to vote. Those same people are the kinds of people who are involved enough in City affairs to vote in local elections. So this "self-selection" kind of poll is a good indicator of the opinions of the politically active. Also, it is impossible for any business to successfully "stack" a poll with almost 1500 votes cast. I heard that the Chamber of Commerce was trying to get its members to vote for the Valiant proposal, but this proposal finished a distant second in the poll.
bruno_uno
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 10:31 a.m.
btw, anyone know the status of the lawsuit from the plaintiffs Herb David Guitar Studio; Kiki Properties, LLC; Jerusalem Garden; and the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center? It was in the summer I recall that they were suing over the city developing in a downtown area that would be a redevelopment of a surface parking lot(asphalt)with concerns over the environmental impacts.
tcmilam
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
This is/should be a simple decision. A2 could use more hotels downtown as could any medium sized city. A park or community gathering place is without question the best option. The person who commented on re-doing older buildings from the 60s and 70s is right on target. How exciting it would be to have large scale community events or ice skating in this area or simply a nice green community park to sit down and relax.
a2grateful
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 10:06 a.m.
@Mike D: "... Given what the Dahlmanns have to lose..." The existing properties have been on the tax rolls for decades. The City is in a reprehensible position of using tax dollars to fund and subsidize the competition of existing and viable private business. U of M holds most of the conferences in this area. There are plenty of hotel rooms to accomodate these activities. Non U of M conferences can lease U of M space... ie Michigan League, Michigan Union... the list reaches far longer than these two obvious examples. City of Ann Arbor taxpayers will receive no benefit from subsidizing unneeded conference or hotel space, especially when longtime local business will be hurt.
a2grateful
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.
The DDA is eliminating proposals, even though they need consultant help for the process? What if they already eliminated the consultant's recommendation?
bruno_uno
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 9:42 a.m.
50,000 dollars for a consultant to advise the city? who actually wrote the RFP? I imagine it was a consultant. Hasnt the DDA and city brass already been hand held enough in this process? They have to lay off city planners who are paid professionals to assess these types of developments but they have to find an outside consultant to do the exact same job duties they could perform. Nice city management.
Grumpy
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 9:26 a.m.
What a missed opportunity. This is the last parcel downtown that could be turned into a centrally located green space similar to what Plymouth has. If generating cash was the only concern, Plymouth's town square and on larger scales, Chicago's Millenium Park and NY's central park, wouldn't exist. Yes, it would cost money to maintain, but a park & ice rink would bring people downtown. We could use more downtown hotel rooms, but I wish they could replace other ugly buildings built in the 60s & 70s.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 9:10 a.m.
If at all possible the property needs a private sector job and tax generating enterprise. There are plenty of virtually unused parks in the city already.
Mike D.
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 8:54 a.m.
I don't enjoy biased reporting. The following sentence is contradictory: "Also eliminated was a popular proposal by Dahlmann Apartments Ltd. for a town square project with an outdoor ice skating rink and pavilion - a concept that received 46 percent of the vote from 1,483 AnnArbor.com readers who participated in a non-scientific online poll to see which of the six proposals they liked most." Given that you admit the poll is "unscientific," how would you know the proposal is actually "popular?" The Dahlmanns could have stacked the survey votes in their own favor for all we know. Perhaps a scientific poll would have found that actual voters with common sense see right through the Dahlmann's pretty rendering. Given what the Dahlmanns have to lose (namely a complete monopoly on downtown hotels), they have a lot to gain by fostering the appearance that the public supports their absurd proposal for a money losing skating rink on the same block as another park nobody uses (Liberty Crack Plaza).
a2grateful
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 7:14 a.m.
The DDA will spend $50,000 to hire a "real estate advisor" to help them understand that the commercial real estate market in Michigan is, shall we say in a polite way, in stasis? Tax dollars at work!