a2grateful

Mon, Jul 12, 2010 : 8:07 a.m.

Council was willing to consider the neighborhood's status as historic. Some neighborhood residents supported historic status... not all. In the end, the historic study commission was the true weak link. They were unable to convince council of the validity of historic status by their untenable, "include every property, regardless of condition and current composition" point of view. Their position seemed to be, "If a house is old, then it is clearly historic." Their brush stroke was too wide, at the expense of saving properties that may have actually qualifed for historic status in a clear, concise, defensible manner. There's plenty of sadness to go around at the end of the study process, to the extent that is felt by many participants in multiple perspectives.

a2grateful

Mon, Jul 12, 2010 : 7:40 a.m.

Any owner in the "Germantown" neighborhood can preserve their house exactly as it exists today by granting an historic facade easement for their specific property. Individual owners are able to protect the "historic characteristics" of their owned property, on a case-by-case basis. This is voluntary, and performed one property at a time. However, if enough owners are truly interested in historic preservation, they can preserve their neighborhood in a substantial manner, by volunteering to donate their facade rights. In return, they receive a tax deduction for the value of the donated facade. The neighborhood can look the same in 100+ years as it does today. Are there owners in "Germantown" that are truly interested in historic integrity and preservation, to the extent that they are willing to grant historic facade easements for their owned properties?

Speechless

Fri, Jul 9, 2010 : 12:25 p.m.

"... There is a tremendous amount of capital and risk required for development (as we have observed in action as Deparry has gone through this process). Why don't you and others that so highly value these houses pool some money and buy them at their true market value? ..." That begs the question as to why de Parry bought all these properties in the first place. If, in order to turn a profit on owning this group of homes, he really does needs to assault local history by constructing either Heritage Row or City Place, then he overbought and had no business acquiring all of them. Following the national housing collapse, 'true market value' ain't quite what it used to be, although the drop in residential value near the central city has been less substantial, I think. His big project proposals on S. Fifth Ave., or at least an elevation to PUD status, is one way to rebound from evaporation of upward, speculative price gains due to the demise of the housing bubble. He should sell the homes one by one to different buyers. Maybe Avalon Housing can pick up one or two of them down the road, with assistance from the city on the basis of both full preservation and affordable housing. ---------------- "... Council members: suck it up and vote for Heritage Row... and THEN make sure junk like City Place won't get built in the future...." Yes, City Place is the loaded shotgun that the developer points at the neighborhood and city council. Give me my PUD now — or else! The city allowed him to get away with this by dithering for years following the loss via court ruling of Ann Arbor's non-contiguous historical district. Then, when he later brought the 'by right' City Place to council (causing even Leigh Greden to roll his eyes), this earlier lack of action and change meant council had to approve, since it technically fell within still-existing requirements. If not for its complete removal of architectural history, I'd prefer a modified City Place over Heritage Row. In the drawings, Heritage Row's proposed new apartment edifices lurk like Soviet-era block structures behind the homes on both S. Fifth Ave. and Hamilton Place. As seen from across either street, a passerby may ask, "What on earth are those doing there?

LiberalNIMBY

Fri, Jul 9, 2010 : 9:43 a.m.

It's understandable that people are afraid of creating another historic district. It seems as though our historic district "enforcers" are a lot more strict than those in other communities, forcing people to pay through the nose for any repairs (e.g., craftsman to refurbish ancient windows). Hence we see most historic district houses in shambles around the city -- it's too expensive to repair them once they get designated "historic." There are other ways to protect these homes, or encourage better looking new ones that aren't the boxy City Place type, without draconian historic district laws. The city should have started with the question, "What's best for this neighborhood and the city?" instead of "Should we have a historic district here?" They made the right decision -- a historic district is not the right tool. But now that they've wasted time chasing what a few council people thought was a forgone conclusion, they're left to flail around in desperation. Goes to show that it pays to agree on the question before you start getting the answers (and wasting money on a consultant in the meantime). Council members: suck it up and vote for Heritage Row... and THEN make sure junk like City Place won't get built in the future. There are a bunch of people in city hall who know how to do this, if you'd only step off the campaign trail and ask.

westsider

Fri, Jul 9, 2010 : 7:39 a.m.

Speechless and others that want to rennovate the houses as they stand: The value of investment property is a function of the income it makes today and the value of the land if purchased for redevelopment based on the zoning. There is a tremendous amount of capital and risk required for development (as we have observed in action as Deparry has gone through this process). Why don't you and others that so highly value these houses pool some money and buy them at their true market value? Put your money where your mouth is. If Deparry is the profit driven monster some make him out to be then he would surely sell at the market value (take the money and run) and the new owners can then do what they wish with the houses and get those oh so valueable tax credits after making them historic.

Speechless

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 10:25 p.m.

The idea, then, is to reward years of neglect and alleged shoddy interior work by granting a singe PUD status to all of these houses — which will jump up the properties' market value and pave the way for a big project on a residential street? Such a deal. Everyone in town should try it! You know, if the developer/landlord spoke to a some of the neighbors and convinced them to apply for historic district status, he could gain access to a worthwhile Michigan subsidy that would aid in rehabilitating these homes. As for the offered sale price, do you think de Parry set it too high? http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/05/this_home_in_ann_arbor_for_1_w.html ---------------- By the way, any chance that the developer might soon bring forward a 'by right' reconfiguration for the twice-rejected Heritage Row PUD proposal?

pseudo

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 8:17 p.m.

@ Speechless re: fixing the houses up and charging high rent...because the reality of what it would take to really fix up those houses and what someone might really get for rent doesn't make sense from a business perspective. Its my understanding that these houses were offered for sale at one point or another. Nobody came forward to purchase them for to "save" them. Too hacked up, too unmaintained, too abused.

Speechless

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 12:23 p.m.

"... What is proposed is the preservation and rennovation of the entire house(s) as free standing single family homes on the exterior...." Then why not fix just up the homes right where they currently stand and call it a day? Leave them exactly in place, don't move them forward, and remove any poor additions work dating to later decades. Lose that mediocre new building proposed for the back side. Make all these houses look real nice inside and outside, and then charge a very high rent to pay for it over time. This is the rare situation where I'd rather see places converted into vintage luxury apartments aimed at elite townies or students of wealthy background — if that's what it takes to more fully preserve local architectural history. Then responsibly add more student or workforce housing elsewhere in the vicinity. In terms of treatment and renovation, do for these S. Fifth Ave. homes what former mayor Lou Belcher did for the Michigan Theater. ---------------------- As for neighborhood zoning and the alternate City Place plan, granted that it does technically follow the rules. In this case, the developer takes advantage of a court ruling that overturned noncontiguous, catch-all historic districts. He makes a proposal testing the the limits of overly flexible zoning on that block, while the city drags its feet for years in response to residents' and preservationists' concern over carefully defining what can happen there. For a bit more background, here's an excerpt from an Ann Arbor Chronicle summary for a public comment recently made to city council: "... When the historic designation of houses in the area was lost [in the Draprop court case, which disallowed the creation of a catchall historic district of various individual, unrelated properties], Eisen said, residents tried but failed to restore the houses historic designation. The new A2D2 rezoning, she said, recognized the appeal of the historic neighborhoods in making Ann Arbor special and attractive...." In addition, here are two comment excerpts from annarborisoverrated.com on the topic of City Place and the S. Fifth Ave. houses in question, dating to 2008, starting with a reference by Larry Kestenbaum to contiguous historic districts (as opposed to the former catch-all designation noted above): "... This block has never been included in any historic district, but really should have been. The houses are considerably fancier (more architecturally interesting) than the average of century-plus-old Ann Arbor houses...." And a little later in the same discussion, per 'Landlord of the Rings': "... I lived at 415 and the place was pretty much falling apart. We complained about the back staircase being broken and possibly dangerous and the landlord/developer simply told me that they werent going to fix it since they were going to tear the house down in a couple of years...." Lastly — A limited time offer:Older Fifth Avenue Homes On Sale for $1.... blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/05/this_home_in_ann_arbor_for_1_w.html

Mick52

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 10:37 a.m.

@annarbor28, what history? That's the problem here, no history.= just old. And with old homes, its not simply a matter of upkeep. When these homes were built, the materials and methods were not equal to what is available presently. Old stuff wears out and get very expensive to maintain. I really wish the old courthouse was still standing, it was a grand building. But the accounts indicate wear lead to its destruction, starting with the bell tower. That was a city owned building. Is it fair to require private property owners to bear an additional burden without funding? Tax breaks are not funding.

My2bits

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 7:55 a.m.

For people bickering about the name Germantown - separate the name you don't like from the issue of whether an historic district is appropriate for this neighborhood. City Place won't be built because it is not what the marketplace wants! Developers have often presented "This is what I could build if you don't give me what I really want". But they don't intend to build the by-right development because it would not be marketable. It is a scare tactic that apparently works on lots of people. Council saw through it. De Parry will come back with something different in the end. Historic Districts are ORDINANCES and thus a valuable part of the process along with "regular" zoning. Two tools in the tool box for US citizens (through our elected representatives) to get appropriate development in appropriate areas. They work. When high end student towers are overbuilt and if/when our economy recovers/booms, neighborhoods like this one could see owner occupants moving back in and fixing up these old houses - but not if we ruin the neighborhood with inappropriate development. This is not conjecture. This was happening in some neighborhoods before the economy crashed. There will be a day when people wished Germantown Historic District was approved. Take a look at Susan Wineberg's book "Lost Ann Arbor". Our housing stock is one of the most admired assets of the city.

Rasputin

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 6:13 a.m.

This is a mistake. I am disappointed. Once again, the preservation of historical neighborhoods is put behind cash in the hopes of making a few extra dollars in unwanted developments. Tsk.

annarbor28

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 10:39 p.m.

It is very sad that this small group of politicians and developers have the power to destroy Ann Arbor's history. These houses need to be preserved, and the city can help ensure that they are kept in better shape. In 50 years, another eyesore of a 2010 built development will be nothing compared to older, historic houses. There is enough shoddiness in the world. Keep the little left that reflects our history and culture. That is one thing that makes Ann Arbor great, or at least a reflection of what used to be great.

yua

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 10:28 p.m.

I have plenty I could say about both Germantown and Heritage Row (in short: pro and pro), but mostly I have to say I find it mind-blowing that Anglin voted Heritage Row down, *then* did not even bother to show up for the Germantown meeting. This is *his ward*. I'm hopeful there were extenuating circumstances. If not, what excuse could there possibly be?

westsider

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 9:34 p.m.

In order for there to be meaningful dialog about the Heritage Row version of this project people need to educate themselves about what the project is and is not. Can we all please get on the same page that this is not about facade preservation? What is proposed is the preservation and rennovation of the entire house(s) as free standing single family homes on the exterior(in spite of the fact that they will be subdivided into apartments inside like they are now). And Speechless - the City Place version expressly respects the zoning, it complies completely, exactly, 100% with the existing zoning requiring precisely zero variances or other considerations. Your arguement isn't about zoning, it is about imposing your set of priorities on another property owner and his use of his land. The picture some paint makes it sound like De parry is proposing this project on someone else's property and will be kicking them off their land to do it.

Alfie

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 9:33 p.m.

For the (almost)last time, The Zaragon project and Heritage Row are two COMPLETELY different projects! They are geared to different markets and the developer of Zaragon even admits his project is aimed to students. The fact is that Zaragon will NEVER attract anything but students. Heritage Row was different. While Heritage Row might get some students, the unit type (mostly one and two bedrooms) was much more likely to attract a different kind of resident: A resident that doesnt WANT a to live in a high-rise student dorm and would like to live adjacent to downtown. It was an innovative, unique project like the city has never seen(and unlikely ever will again). Despite what the opposition says, Ann Arbor needs to diversify its housing choices. No radical changes needed, but a project like Heritage Row would have gone a long way toward strengthening our great city.

Speechless

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 8:16 p.m.

The real controversy isn't over new construction that increases student or workforce housing in the area. Much of it has to do with placing a proposed housing complex in a location where it appropriately belongs. It's about respecting general zoning intent, as well as the existing character of a particular residential street. Contrary to rational development, what de Parry demands to do is shove the proverbial square peg down a round hole. He insists on doing a project that belongs on a different block, not this one. This is why Zaragon II sails right through the approval process, while his 'Heritage Row' instigates a long dogfight. Zaragon will fit in just fine with its older neighbors at William & Thompson, in sharp contrast to either Heritage or City Place. For the de Parry fanboys under age 35 who claim sincerity about wanting improved housing options in the central area, the lesson from the Zaragon experience is that you do better to build in a more commercial zone nearby, one more suitable for higher density. Along these lines, a new housing development would look pretty good one day resting on top the library lot. It's also about trying to preserve a rare slice of Ann Arbor's early history on S. Fifth Ave., one no longer common elsewhere in town. These aren't faded, forgotten, leaning shacks that no one's bothered yet to fully disassemble. When built between 100-160 years ago, they were among the nicest home designs in the central city, and they remain so today, despite the developer's exterior negligence. Zaragon II, meanwhile, replaces a 1960s bank building. So, we're supposed to destroy a set of historical architecture, leaving behind a limited "heritage" facade, in order to deliver a fat payday to the developer?

Mick52

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 6:50 p.m.

Katie, A high ranking city official told me in re to this issue, that the folks leading the charge here likely are area landlords who fear Mr. De Parry's project out of fear the best tenants will flee to his nice buildings. Is that close?

pseudo

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 5:33 p.m.

@PersonX: its important to remember that City attorneys are not the judges or final word on a subject. In fact, these are the guys who chose this path instead of the high flying expertise of law firms. That is just the opinion he was paid to come up with and thus two attorneys disagree - shocking! my point remains that city council has to make decisions for the whole of the city not just a few active property owners. I don't think the support is there for the historic district from the property owners. Ann Arbor is going to continue to grow. This is where and how growth happens in other places unless there are innovative and positive zoning and project processes in place. I am still incredibly bothered that Heritage Row was also defeated and that City Place is the likely result - more likely with every step and every fight from here on out.

kate717

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 5:18 p.m.

Mick 52. Guess who the landlord is?

kate717

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 5:12 p.m.

What makes anyone think that a development with many bedrooms will be attractive to young families? The thought of the facades being "saved" reminds me of the Meijer stores that have the fake facades on the front. The building towering behind them will be an eyesore, and may I repeat myself, is unnecessary and is proposed solely for personal gain. What will be the rent on these "dorm rooms"? The gouging of students in Ann Arbor is horrible. I know from personal experience with my daughter. I am so disappointed with Council.

Mick52

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 5:03 p.m.

Many thanks to Ryan Stanton for several great articles on this popular issue. I am one of those 50+ people who adore history and historic buildings. Oddly, I personally prefer there be some "history" when it comes to preservation. I do not agree that old equals historic and I do not like history being altered inappropriately for financial purposes. And thanks to city council members who voted down this supposed historic district. I reckon all of them do not approve, but a few likely had to vote for it for their own political preservation. If not then we have an example of some people who are seriously lacking in gutsy decision making, and one who sounds like he is in panic mode. As I have noted before in posts on this issue, there is little if any documentation to call this area Germantown. I rely on facts (sorry) and used Grace Shackman's great book, "Ann Arbor in the 19th Century" to note some facts that German immigrants settled on the west side, not in this area. Now had this district been labeled as "Fairytale Town," "or "Political Preservation Town," maybe it would have passed! Anyone interested in the history of Ann Arbor should read Ms. Shackman's book. But if you were in favor of this Germantown distric, and like to make up history, don't read it, you will be disappointed. To have approved this as a historic district would seriously impaired A2's credibility. I would approve, if say, someone figured out who A2's historic German immigrants were (that would be prominent businessmen, leaders, etc) then note which homes they lived, in, which buildings their businesses were in, their schools, churches and so on. I looked at these homes and blight may be a better label than historic. I agree with JPhil, the brownstone project was the best, by far. It will upgrade the neighborhood and hopefully make area landlords improve their properties. Thanks again Ryan for your reporting on this issue.

kate717

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 4:58 p.m.

JPhil Students are very important to Ann Arbor and there is no attempt to limit housing. There are many buildings going up despite the lack of need. I have wondered why the U of Mich is sitting by and allowing competition to the dorms. While I have heard that the interiors of Mr. DeParry's home are nice. Any deterioration that you see from the street is his responsibility. As far as I know, he has not put these houses up for sale to those who may be interested in preserving them. There is also no indication that purchasers would not continue to rent these properties as Mr. & Mrs. Whitaker are doing with the house next door to them. There is plenty of student housing and rental properties available to young families - many in my neighborhood on a great bus line that I use frequently. I'm a taxpayer who believes that we must preserve neighborhoods while taking care of community needs. City Place is completely unnecessary and will destroy one of the attractions to our city. Many visitors walk down that street on the way to sporting events.

Alfie

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 4:39 p.m.

Although I do not agree with his opinions, Mr. Whitaker is a local home owner who put much time and thought into his arguments about why he felt the project was not acceptable. Although he was a big reason the project was defeated, personal attacks on him are uncalled for. I object more to the slumlord owners who oppose the project simply to prevent competition and to the typical 'No-on-anything-that-a-neighbor-opposes' council members. At least Mr. Whitaker lives in the immediate area and has invested in a owner-occupied home.

T-bone

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 4:32 p.m.

The six council members that voted to oppose this district are mistaken. Nowhere in the city is there a more intact, contiguous and compact collection of worthy historic buildings than those located between Division and Fourth, William and Madison. This area would nicely buffer the downtown from the inevitable development to the south around the railroad/Fingerle corridor. Too bad the Repub and Real Estate faction is too blind to do the right thing.

joescia

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 4:29 p.m.

To say that there is a generational divide is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I am also a twenty-something Ann Arbor resident, and care very much about historic preservation, but it needs to be combined with thoughtful development and adaptive reuse. To imply that all those in younger generations only want to see new, ridiculous looking Zaragon Place type developments is just wrong. However given the state of disrepair the city of Ann Arbor has allowed these homes and those south of campus and in the Old Fourth Ward to deteriorate to through their lax and permissive attitude toward rental property regulations further necessitates new development. If residents of Ann Arbor care about historic preservation and continued development, they would tackle the issue of rental-property neglect in the student neighborhoods.

kate717

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 4:13 p.m.

I am very disappointed (and by saying that I am being more than tactful) in those who are commenting against the historic district and making such vitriolic comments about Tom Whitaker. Tom is not acting in self interest and is not against progress. He has done his homework, have you? Have you seen the work he and neighbors have done at their own expense to restore and beautify this neighborhood? Houses were built in the early 1900's. Why would anyone want to destroy this part of our history? Have you read the history of our town? Have you read the studies that indicate the positive results from having historic districts? Tom is a preservationist, with extensive education, and he and his wife have done extensive research on Ann Arbor history, code and charters. They are NOT self-interested. They love Ann Arbor and also purchased the house next door to theirs as a rental property which they are maintaining and improving. They are committed to sustainability and green building. Who could possible oppose this? The neighbors desire to maintain a lovely downtown neighborhood. There is ample housing for students in Ann Arbor now and much is currently being built. What benefit is there for creating another dorm-like box building. I am a taxpayer in Ann Arbor and know that our neighborhoods our critical to our viability. To accuse the Whitaker's of self interest is just abominable and shows that the people who criticize and recommend ostracism are clearly uniformed and not interested in the viability of our town.

Jamie Weeder

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 4:09 p.m.

I'm German, so I'm going to immediately spark an argument and bad mouth those who opposed with no knowledge of what goes in to the opposition. Then I'm going to briefly mention that I don't even live in Ann Arbor. Then I'm going to make a distasteful joke about the German culture (in efforts to lighten what I had said before which now I'm starting to realize made little to no sense but I have already started to type a comment so I must commit) citing my own heritage as a reason why it's ok for me to make said joke. Then I'll add a quote in, said by someone vastly more intelligent than me and hope I'll impress someone or at least leave a few commentators baffled.

Alfie

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 4:04 p.m.

Heritage Row did preserve AND restore the existing houses, even the interior floor plans. The fact is that certain council members caved into a vocal small minority of people and cost the entire city a beneficial project. NOBODY likes the 'by right' project, but then the neighbors dont like the new version that is innovative and protects the streetscape. So the lesson learned is to just cram a 'by right' project into the neighborhood because investing $$$$ to make a compromise was a waste of time. Use some logic, if de Parry was after a 'get rich quick scheme' he would have never bothered to prepare the Heritage Row plan and invest all the $$$$$ trying to appease the NIMBYhood.

westsider

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 4:03 p.m.

Have to laugh at the irony in suswhit's comment. Maybe suswhit should look at the current rendition of Heritage Row that leaves the houses as fully rennovated free standing houses with completely seperate new structures behind them.

suswhit

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 3:33 p.m.

To those of you who think Heritage Row "saved the houses" I've got a bridge to sell you (over State at Stadium -- many good years left in it!) The latest incarnation of DeParry's get rich quick scheme is simply City Place with the fronts of the houses tacked on to it. If you insist on maligning involved citizens at least do a little homework.

LBH

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 2:54 p.m.

@LindaPeck unfortunately that neighborhood is pretty much already in the pocket of off site landlords. There are, admittedly some BEAUTIFUL homes which are lovingly maintained and I am sure I am one of the people who has stopped and chatted with a @happy about their lovely home. Unfortunately there are too few of those and too many which are in disrepair and/or have plastic beer cups in their ratty bushes, peeling paint, mud/gravel parking in what once was the back yard, and ratty stuffed furniture on the porches.

5c0++ H4d13y

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 2:47 p.m.

@Linda Peck Welcome to private ownership and respect for the Bill of Rights. If someone buys something they can do what they want with it within the zoning laws. You want to turn over 200 years of history and the constitution upside down because you are against private ownership and enterprise.

LBH

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 2:45 p.m.

It is puzzling that Kunselman, Hohnke, and Briere cannot figure out that they have just shot themselves in the foot. The historic district fails, (as it should have for many, many of the reasons listed in the article and in comments), they have an opportunity to vote again on a project which would at least preserve houses and the look from the street, and yet they again vote no. That makes no sense unless the thought process is, if I can't have it exactly the way I want it, then I don't care what happens.

JPhil

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 2:39 p.m.

If DeParry has to start over, bring back the Brownstone proposal. That was the best so far.

Linda Peck

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 2:22 p.m.

Okay, so I am taking names and will carry these names on a list to the polls. I really am against the destruction of good neighborhoods just to line the private pockets of a few developers. No way! New development here in town mostly provides windfalls of money for a few people (not even necessarily local people) and leaved ugly places to look at that are not kept up.

lou glorie

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 2:18 p.m.

One thing missing from this discussion is a question about how Ann Arbor rental housing has deteriorated into "puke pits" (as described by a recent commentator at council). If the issue is the city code for rentals, we need to strengthen the codes. If the issue is enforcement of those codes, we need to enforce the laws. I'm puzzled that so much of this housing unfit as storage for a potato--how can a musty, flea infested basement apartment be habitable? I know many rental property owners have paid too much for their properties. This leads to a vicious circle of deferred maintenance, jacked-up rents, increases in property taxes, more deferred maintenance and jacked-up rents. I get it--it is not a simple problem. But we have arrived at a fork in the road. Many of you prefer what is best described as a cat-in-the-hat solution to the problem of property owners' neglect: tear everything down, build shiny new. The problem is that these places will likely be owned by people or companies who will be over-leveraged and the cycle of neglect, high rents will continue. Historic preservation has some potent foes: aside from the ideological imperatives of modernism--which has declared war on all things "old", there is the faux-green assertion that more density is the environmentally correct thing to do. No discussion has taken place about the carrying capacity of this particular eco-region. No one is counting the number of toilets, showers, dishwashers. The boosters of new and shiny want us to believe that engineered stormwater systems are even better than unpaved surfaces at handling flood risks and protecting our river. South Fifth and Fourth Avenues already are urban. They just are not modern. But modernism eschews diversity of form. This diversity is healthy and should be defended. Concrete is not the new green--grass is green, trees are green.

JPhil

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 2 p.m.

seriously doubt that anyone who was disappointed by this decision has been in (or near) these rental houses. they are in a state of disrepair that i find absolutely disgusting - i would never even consider living in one. OK Townie. I too don't get your comment (see SusWhit) You must be one those very wealthy who thinks downtown AA housing is for the lower class...

Machine

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 1:08 p.m.

I thought one of the main selling points of the Ann Arbor greenbelt initiative was to reduce sprawl and increase density. At some point, the city is going to have to start ignoring the NIMBYs and approve some projects that will give us greater density. If they don't, the net result will be MORE sprawl as people have to drive even farther to get through the greenbelt to their home on the other side.

suswhit

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 1:03 p.m.

@stillatownie This is one of the houses that you say "are in a state of disrepair that i find absolutely disgusting - i would never even consider living in one." from the developers own website: http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=454243166&albumId=145149 That is an amazing kitchen - and the woodwork! Original tile bathroom! Doesn't look too disgusting to me.

Mumbambu, Esq.

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 12:38 p.m.

I thought most of the buildings in German Town were apartments.

Speechless

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 12:36 p.m.

Quote time: "... There WILL be a development there...." Don't necessarily count on it, at least not during the next few years. There may yet be no there there. You're assuming that, in terms of major financing, the developer has successfully 'crossed his tees' and 'dotted his eyes.' We'll see about that. A few other big projects around town are flailing right now due to a lack of expected capital. What has de Parry raised to underwrite either of his two dueling proposals? Will he be another Zaragon, building early & often — or else will he bring the spirit of Georgetown to downtown? "... I seriously doubt that anyone who was disappointed by this decision has been in (or near) these rental houses. they are in a state of disrepair that i find absolutely disgusting..." Have you brought this up with the developer? What did he tell you? After all, he's responsible for these conditions. By spending less than adequately on maintenance, landlords seeking approval for demolition can make more money while also creating a superficial appearance that promotes their interests.

Lokalisierung

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 12:33 p.m.

"Is this the same council that is worried about AZ? Why not take care of one's own house first!" They are, by keeping a pointless "Historic" district away.

CobraII

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 12:25 p.m.

Is this the same council that is worried about AZ? Why not take care of one's own house first!

Phil Dokas

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 12:21 p.m.

That is true, John of Saline, I've seen it first hand. Then again, this falls into the broken window theory and on that note I really have to think more before writing. BTW, Mayor Hieftje and councilman Derezinski's email addresses are JHieftje@a2gov.org and TDerezinski@a2gov.org. A previous comment had typos in them.

John of Saline

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 11:57 a.m.

I was a student, I lived in such a house on Oakland for two years and I've seen my share of how Ann Arbor's overabundance of property companies rake money out of students and put the bare minimum back into their houses. I don't doubt that's often the case. But students can, and do, routinely trash their rental units in both houses and buildings. I spoke to a fellow who is a former landlord in Ann Arbor. He said about one time in 20, the students would pretty much functionally destroy their apartment.

Veggie Burrito

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 11:51 a.m.

@stillatownie Good for you, you sound like you will be able to afford the new overpriced housing that will stand atop these "absolutely disgusting" demolished homes! I, on the other hand, appreciated living in the historic Henry and Mary Mann House - and although you have condemned it in a "state of disrepair" from the exterior, the interior is beautiful and perfectly suited for grad student living. Historic district quarreling aside: please find me another suitable downtown apartment within walking distance to campus for $350/mo.

Moonmaiden

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 11:47 a.m.

Let's ignore our own appointed study committee's recommendation and deny this so we can let a developer have his way. Maybe the council should spend more time working on resolutions involving other states and countries, then they won't have time to continue to mess up Ann Arbor.

James

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 11:41 a.m.

#1 Historic district study committees always produce reports recommending historic districts be created because they are peopled for the most part by people with a narrow special interest namely historic preservation. Empanel such a committee to study making Briarwood an historic district and the outcome will be a recommendation to do so. They truly believe that anything old is historic. #2 What is this resentment of developers making a profit in their businesses? Didnt the near total collapse of our local economy with the failure to make profits on the part of Chrysler, Ford & GM profits teach us anything? Profits are what our economy is built upon and are a good thing. Profits allow people to be employed, buy things, save, etc., lack thereof means high unemployment hows that working for you Michigan? #3 German Town didnt exist until a minority of citizens, with a narrow special interest, namely controlling what other people do with their own property (irrespective of their private rights under Michigan law) sought to deny Mr. DeParry what he was rightfully permitted to do! If you want to control a piece of land BUY IT! Ann Arbor is not colonial Williamsburg for Petes sake!! #4 Councilperson Smith had it right when she opined that the city did not need more elitist high-end housing. No one but rich college kids will be able to afford Zaragon 2 with $1,100/month per bedroom rents! Heritage Row would have had a range of units and pricing including permanently affordable units that would have supported diversity in the down town and Im sorry the City Place/Heritage Row site is as down town Ashley Mews or the Library or the Farmers Market #5 As regards council persons Honke & Briere they have their own inflated egos too highly invested in their no progress vote to do the best thing for the city. As regards the GNA members the same is true so you cant really expect them to do the smart thing and get the petition requiring the super majority rescinded. Maybe the one council person who was not at last nights meeting, Mike Anglin, will be able to see things rationally and find a way to bring back and approve Heritage Row before we end up with City Place! One can only hope! But then again maybe we should spend more time trying to run Arizona instead!!!

Somewhat Concerned

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 11:36 a.m.

deParry and his bullying tactics prevail. With help from arbor.com. Money talks. Preservationists don't buy ads. Normal residents don't buy ads. And they don't buy politicians. Hopefully, they can vote them out.

stillatownie

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 11:24 a.m.

i guess that this would be an interesting historical district - it really captures forty years of slumlords in our fair city...

demistify

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 11:21 a.m.

It was refreshing to have Council come to grip with some complex city business. Unfortunately, they did not have enough time to finish sorting it out. Too busy trying to run Arizona.

stillatownie

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 11:11 a.m.

I seriously doubt that anyone who was disappointed by this decision has been in (or near) these rental houses. they are in a state of disrepair that i find absolutely disgusting - i would never even consider living in one.

rusty shackelford

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 10:33 a.m.

Look, this isn't really that hard. The developer essentially already has the right to build City Place. He put himself to considerable expense and aggravation to make something closer to what council wanted--only to be rejected in the end by dithering fools. It is unbelievable that some on council would STILL oppose Heritage Row, knowing that the near-certain alternative is one that they themselves say is a worse alternative. There WILL be a development there. The choice now is either keep the houses up or tear them down. And they effectively voted for tearing them down. Who is in favor of preservation again? Looks like it's the big bad developer, not the council. It's clearly not about preservation at this point. It's either stubborn pride or a real desire to prevent more housing stock from entering the city, even if that new stock takes into account and preserves historic structures. Honestly, why is Hohnke and others STILL opposed to this, knowing the alternative is worse?

James

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.

Before these houses come down and Ann Arbor gets stuck with something nobody wants (thanks to Briere, Kunselman and Hohnke) Council can revise it's vote on Heritage Row (a reasonable compromise between historic preservation and new development)! Let council know that Heritage Row is the better option by sending comments directly to city council members. Their email addresses are: JHeiftje@a2gov.org SBriere@a2gov.org CHohnke@a2gov.org MAnglin@a2gov.org SKunselman@a2gov.org CTaylor@a2gov.org SSmith@a2gov.org SRapundalo@a2gov.org MHiggins@a2gov.org MTeall@a2gov.org TDerezenski@a2gov.org

5c0++ H4d13y

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.

It's interesting to see how some of the players in this painted themselves into the corner.

Speechless

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.

It's very sad that the city has decided to support destruction of a group of homes that includes architecture dating to before the Civil War. Previously, I was confident of a 7-4 or 6-5 vote favoring the historic district. At least for now the council did not rescind its earlier vote to deny approval for Heritage Row. The level of destruction to historic homes under that proposal is great enough that de Parry may as well take them down completely. As it is, damage has been going on through a program of deferred maintenance. What makes this decision especially sad is that a far more appropriate site exists just a couple hundred feet away. The temporary parking lot across the S. Fifth Ave. & William intersection (on the former "Y" site) doesn't have many spaces anyway, and it should allow for very dense use. I'd favor destroying this lot, despite its heritage dating back to the Bush administration. Is a kind of land swap arrangement possible? Can we trade for some of the city's oldest architecture in exchange for the parking lot almost next door? The city could even organize a public street party to cheer on de Parry's contractors as they rip up the lot's asphalt following a groundbreaking. The one problem with the land swap idea is if de Parry's plans ultimately call for selling his group of homes on S. Fifth Ave. and cashing out. Not insignificantly, approval for Heritage Row would group these properties and give them PUD status, which creates an incentive for other developers to purchase the group at a much higher price. (Think of this like acquiring a liquor license for a restaurant, after a years-long wait, and then turning around and selling the business.) Due to the poor economy, should de Parry not be able to arrange all the necessary financing for his development, he can subsequently sell at a tidy profit to someone else with deeper pockets. With the historic district and PUD proposals both voted down, a project can still be built there by anyone, but only under greater land use restrictions. So, the developer wins a big victory by defeating a move to historic status, but has lost a potential gain in property value through denial of PUD status.

SemperFi

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.

There's only one sure thing... change. The trick is getting the new to blend with the old and making something better in the process. Heritage Row makes sense for the future of Ann Arbor and the neighborhood.

vg550

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 9:33 a.m.

How very, very, very, sad :( Another piece of history will bite the dust.

noreaster

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 9:24 a.m.

If we end up stuck with City Place I think it should be nicknamed "The Hohnke-Town Briere Patch", as a permanent reminder to Council that if you are not careful to consider both past and future you might just end up with what you don't want today. And yes, if I could vote for Hohnke or Briere, I wouldn't!

Phil Dokas

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 9:17 a.m.

Forever27 makes a good point. Many of these affected houses are in a shameful state given their beauty and history (several are former mansions of mayors!) but this is far too often the case with houses around town that are predominantly rented by students. I was a student, I lived in such a house on Oakland for two years and I've seen my share of how Ann Arbor's overabundance of property companies rake money out of students and put the bare minimum back into their houses. I'm a 20-something AA native who moved from town after college but I've since moved back because I care. But while I absolutely care about historic preservation (very, very clear generational divide be damned) I care just as much about having a vibrant, dense downtown. Heritage Row is clearly the superior plan on the table to advance all of these achievements whereas City Place is an utter thumbing of the nose at our city's history and character. I wholeheartedly agree with Jeremy Peters when he says "It would behoove you [Germantown Property Owners Association] to come forth with a petition to your council members to rescind the petition and allow for building what everyone perceives to be a more interesting and visually stimulating project to be built." Hear, hear! Changes come and changes happen, the trick is to prevent change for the worse when change for the better is on the table. Or should that tense be "was"? This is such an unfortunate turn of events and drastic action appears to be very much needed before that scar is built over historical foundations.

suswhit

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 9:11 a.m.

@aabikes http://annarbor.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=ann+arbor+downtown&srchType=A&bedrooms= There are 696 listings on Craigslist for "downtown Ann Arbor" apartments. Including a number of them on the very street you are apparently interested in living. Hey, you could help the developer by putting more money in his pocket. Win-win for you. http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewAlbums&friendID=454243166

westsider

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 9:08 a.m.

Re. what the owners of the properties in question think, it is my understanding that they opposed the historic district by a roughly 2 to 1 majority according to a petition that was submitted to the City. Also, regardless of what you think of the outcome, kudos to Chris Taylor for taking time to thoughtfully analyze the statute for establishing a district and how this area does or does not meet it. Contrast this with some others who take the perspective of what outcome would satisfy my or my constituent's personal goals.

Theresa Taylor

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 8:51 a.m.

I am so disappointed. Major props to Patrick McCauley for standing up for this historic district.

Forever27

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 8:33 a.m.

The houses in this area are in a general state of disrepair. There are far too many students renting out houses for it to be considered a historical neighborhood. It's a shame, because the houses are beautiful, as they are in most student neighborhoods. Maybe if the owners of the houses actually cared about the area it would be a different story.

Carole

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 8:03 a.m.

Big $$$ win again. Leave the ole German Historic community alone. Why do those wonderful ole homes have to be destroyed in favor of a development of apartments -- don't even fit in. There are plenty of apartments in the downtown area -- Tell the developer to go elsewhere.

Brian Kuehn

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 7:53 a.m.

There are 47 homes in the proposed district. It seems reasonable to take a poll of 100 percent of the owners to gauge their feelings prior to making a decision. Was such a poll ever taken? What was the result? I did not see one in the Historic District report. Anecdotally I understand a number of homes are rentals. The owner(s) of these homes should be allowed votes consistent with the number of homes owned. If a super-majority (let's say 70 percent) of the votes are in favor of a historic district, then the residents should have their way. If less than 33 "Yea" votes are tabulated, end of the discussion.

Jeremy

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 7:51 a.m.

Cheers to the Ann Arbor City Council for making a gutsy decision, one that supports planned growth, and one that supports a vibrant downtown and downtown area within Ann Arbor. To the Germantown Property Owners Association: congratulations on putting yourself in a situation where City Place is the only legal thing that can be built, by-right. It would behoove you to come forth with a petition to your council members to rescind the petition and allow for building what everyone perceives to be a more interesting and visually stimulating project to be built. I'm one of these younger individuals who has spoken up about development. Feel free to dislike me, make smarmy remarks on my behalf, or assume you know what interests my colleagues and I. I pay taxes (yes, those property taxes are paid via the rent that I am charged, I vote, I'm interested in the health of not only Ann Arbor, but Ypsilanti (where I'm now moving to) and the entirety of Washtenaw county, and this is why I speak up - to promote ideas that prevent sprawl from eating up further greenspace and to promote my idea of what a healthy, non-stagnant community can and should look like. If there's places others thing development should go, would you mind telling me exactly where? If it is not supposed to be near you, then I'd love to know exactly where and what housing stock is available and on the market.

xmo

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 7:46 a.m.

The city should set the zoning requirements and then let the "free market" decide who and what they will build there! All of this drama against progress!

Erich Jensen

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 7:39 a.m.

Courageous decision, but at least City Council took a stand on a local issue (see Arizona immigration law comments, too!!!)

earthchick

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 7:31 a.m.

I'm disappointed that the council chose to go against the recommendations of its study committee. For the record, I am under 40 and very much support historic preservation. I cringe at the idea of the "development" being proposed for this area. We can look toward the future without demolishing the past.

Elaine F. Owsley

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 7:13 a.m.

This gets sillier every year. Since German immigrants settled Ann Arbor, maybe the whole place should be named German Town. Or - here's an idea, call the new building "German Town Place".

PersonX

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 7:08 a.m.

In response to Lorie: I am sorry to disagree, but I do not know where you get the idea that there were legal reasons to turn down the historic district. The city attorney refuted all the legal challenges, which were hardly unusual in such situations and have all been dealt with before. The fact is that a dominant group on council wants to subvert existing city plans that were established with general citizen input and agreement. A few developers will profit from all of this, but the city will lose in the long run. Just take a look at all the housing developments that have been approved for the general downtown area--and more are coming--and compare that with projections about housing needs for the next few decades. Fortunately, not all approved building have been actually realized for a variety of reasons, but the fact remains that there is a real threat of too many empty units because demand will never live up to what is being put up. Tax laws are such that developers can fail and still walk away with some profit, but the city, and its citizens will be left to deal with these failures. last night's vote was a tragedy for the future of the near-downtown. Some council members have been consistent in their intentions, but others have been bending in the wind and their positions have been contradictory and illogical;, their vote was cynical and opportunist. One can only hope that their constituents will toss them out.

pseudo

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 6:49 a.m.

@Lynn and Happy. I appreciate the perspective that your neighborhood seems like your property exclusively but its not. The council is charged with making decisions based on the needs and wants of everyone. The historic designation was not supported enough but your neighbors and/or the city at large. It appeared to be construed simply to prevent this development. Unfortunately, this was clearly the case and with the litigation moving forward, your city council made a wise decision in this instance. Now the decision is "Which development do you want?" and last night cleared the way for the one nobody likes. To my mind this is silly and it was an unwise move on the part of Council and its members. First: clearly Ann Arbor's zoning and master plan don't fit reality and its planning tools seems to be outdated and ineffective. I would also add that the business case for development based on those tools almost require moving into neighborhoods rather than dealing with formal downtown requirements. Second: the mayor is correct about the generational changes and progress. Those under (I would say 50 not 40) have a perspective that Ann Arbor is stuck in some twisted version of a liberal past that is more restrictive than some outwardly conservative cities. Its stagnant, unwilling to change and NIMBY-esque to an extreme. Change is coming. Finally: don't under estimate the litigation in the background. deParry is sitting nicely from what I can tell.

Phil Dokas

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 6:40 a.m.

The political calculus the homeowners used in signing that petition that caused Heritage Row to require an 8 vote supermajority and not a 6 vote majority (which it got twice!) is the most sadly ironic stuff I've seen in a long time. Here's hoping for some miracle to prevent City Place from scarring our city!

happy

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 6:30 a.m.

Thanks to Lynn for her comments about this neighborhood. I am a homeowner here who takes great pride in my historic home and garden. Almost daily I am told by passersby how much they enjoy walking by and am thanked for all the time I put into the garden and the maintenance of our home. But......given how City Council has made it clear that this neighborhood should be razed and replaced by higher density (a comment by one City Councilperson last night: "we have downtown to the west, commercial to the north, the University to the east and industrial to the south~this neighborhood is ripe for re-development), it's time to get out the wrecking ball.

Suitsme

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 6:14 a.m.

What do the property owner's of this area want? City council representatives should be voting for what the neighborhood wants not for some future student or young person that supposedly cannot find housing downtown. There is housing just not affordable housing. The charm is in the homes of this area some of which date from the civil war. I know because my father grew up on fifth ave. in such a home. If people are going to live in giant apartment complexes we need parks where they can walk their dogs and have some quality of life. Where is the park? Do we want more pavement with water running into the sewers instead of gardens? The houses are charming and have yards. I truly hope City Council revisits this issue. Try walking the neighborhood and looking at these homes. Questions to James, Why "of course they don't deserve historic status"? Is James a home owner of this area?

James

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 5:46 a.m.

Of course this area was not deserving of historic district status! Glad most people on council were intellectually honest. But why not approve a vastly superior development (Heritage Row), which preserves the streetscape, over an historically irreverent plan (City Place) that nobody, allegedly even the developer, wants to see built. This is governmental stupidity at its most obvious. Its like the council people who lost in their bid to further encumber the city with yet another historic district are little kids, who not having had their way stomp off in a pout taking their marbles with them. Grow up city council - please. I know it is an election year but please approve Heritage Row over City Place - where is the wisdom in doing otherwise?

dading dont delete me bro

Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 5:34 a.m.

council thinks this neighborhood is underserving of a historic district, but... they'll unanimously pass a resolution to oppose ARIZONA's immigration law... glad to see they have their priorities. remember this people during the election time.