Ann Arbor needs a site related master planning process
Recent solutions in downtown development show not only contextual problems, such as insensitivity to concerns of neighborhood, but a general lack of architectural imagination. One reason is the rigidity which results from excessive reliance on zoning. There are better ways to urban planning. Note the word “process” in the title of my remarks. We lack two basic assets: preliminary, documented visions for all sites under consideration and flexibility to change such visions into alternatives when new understanding of the particular circumstances arises.
The current zoning map of Ann Arbor.
With these entities synergized, development with continuity can be initiated which is much preferable to what we experience now with at hoc confrontations. Consider the following scenario.
- The City with input from interested parties identifies all potential sites for urban redevelopment.
- Each site is developed toward preliminary design by architecture and planning student teams in their design classes with input by professionals in addition to their teachers. During the 16 years of my teaching here I used often downtown sites. Many of the solutions which we came up with were superior to what exists now on some of these sites or is presently proposed for them.
- Why? We had usually several projects for the same site with various perspectives for development and made adjustments according to dialectic and sympathetic argumentation. We could change the ‘rules of the game’ somewhat when we felt that circumstances favored a change in zoning requirements.
- The proposals are exhibited in suitable spaces (libraries, warehouse spaces, etc.) for further discussions and input by professionals and laypeople. The proposals will provide evolving frameworks for particular site developments. All involved will have to agree that participation does not constitute any rights of individuals or entities but brings the proposals into public ownership as contribution to the welfare of the city.
- After each site has been developed and publicly discussed to the point of reasonable consensus, City awards the site ‘preliminary site master plan approval’.
- A small budget is approved by City and funds solicited from the public not for salaries but for expenses of documentation and exhibition of results.
A group of local architects and other professionals recently visited Tubingen, our sister city in Germany. They could see excellent examples of highly flexible urban planning according to site-specific circumstances. Although the background conditions are different, we can learn from some basic principles applied there, and we can find our own approaches derived from them.
My proposal is probably controversial, not least for my own profession. But an approach somewhat like it would provide the opportunity to develop a highly adaptable environment of comprehensive urban planning. The City would retain its powers but could make decisions based on better site related input and on broader consensus because of the many people productively involved before final decisions have to be made.
Kurt Brandle is an Ann Arbor resident and Professor Emeritus of Architecture at the University of Michigan
Comments
SonnyDog09
Mon, May 27, 2013 : 12:50 p.m.
This is an interesting idea. Can we begin by piloting the process on property that the UofM purchases to develop in a2?
brimble
Mon, May 27, 2013 : 12:13 p.m.
Another guest columnist suggested involving the students and faculty from the University's School of Information / Library Science in helping the Library Board find a way forward following the downtown library debacle. This column, too, is evidence that academics want to and can positively contribute to the functional good of the community. We have a particular opportunity in our university town to take advantage of the resources the can bring to the table, and at the same time, to evolve the nature of "town and gown" dynamics from the adversarial to a true partnership. Professor Brandle and the aforementioned columnist (can't remember who it was) are two among those who share that vision; the next step is to find a way to coordinate the effort. The right leadership -- something sorely missing -- will drive that vision to reality.
Gill
Mon, May 27, 2013 : 12:27 a.m.
If you all want to pitch in and buy these properties, and then hire architects and contractors, then I think this might work. If you want the City to claim ownership of these properties, then this might work. If you want to stop all development in the City, this process would do it. If you want to maintain a 1950s look of the downtown, then we should start talking about knocking down everything beyond the historic City limits and restoring it to farm fields and pastureland. If we want to stop vertical development, we need to be discussing zero or negative population growth to support it.
timjbd
Mon, May 27, 2013 : 11:38 a.m.
So let the out of town money determine the future of the city?
1bit
Mon, May 27, 2013 : 12:42 a.m.
I think you're right. Would the collective Groupthink ever allow the Fleetwood to exist? Would the powers-that-be proved a downtown that looks like the new city hall?
DonBee
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 4:53 p.m.
I love Dr Brandle's ideas. I would hope that Ann Arbor can put them to use. I would also hope that our local State Representatives could get behind it and introduce bills that would support the use of this kind of process. I would also like to see the current site owner included in the process, so they feel that the value of the site is retained or enhanced in the process. Maybe at first, the owners agree to a deed restriction as part of being an early participant. So if the property is sold, the new owner is bound by the site plan process.
1bit
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 7:29 p.m.
@DonBee: I think this is a "be careful what you wish for" type of thing. Would we have a Fleetwood Diner in this process? When the City runs things we get things like the new city hall as well. I think you are advocating a more inclusive process, as you allude in your last paragraph. But it is a fine line where the deed restrictions would curtail development rather than encourage good development. I haven't seen much from the City lately that makes me believe that they can walk on this line.
DJBudSonic
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 1:47 p.m.
I agree with most that our planning process is broken. The same handful of people make all the decisions, which leave us with the same results. Citizen input is gathered after the zoning is made law, which removes any effect it might have on the outcome of a property, community feedback is now a formality or sped bump on the way to construction. I don't know if this is a better solution, this article is so riddled with academic buzzwords I am having a hard time separating the thought from the action. We need concrete solutions that slow down the process of development and return the value and weight of citizen and planning staff input to the process. I saw someone speak at the planning commission asking that the building envelope size for the Lowertown area be reduced to a max of 2-3 stories, from the master plans suggested max of 5-8, and that developers would have to petition for a variance to exceed this size on a site by site basis. I have to agree that lowering the max size in much of the city and allowing developers to request variance for large projects ala 413 Huron would give the planning commission and the city more input on what gets built in this town. Under the current process, everything seems to be getting built to fill the maximum size allowed, and the planning commission and council have little recourse. Maybe they like it this way? But the recent and ongoing efforts by many to stop or reduce in scale of the project at 413 shows that many others feel the current system is broken.
DJBudSonic
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 1:48 p.m.
That's "speed bump"
timjbd
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 1:37 p.m.
First off, I agree that single-use zoning is a big problem. The urban planning profession has had a very difficult time figuring out how to do place-making in the past 50 years or so. Very difficult. Judging by the "Connecting William Street" grand scheme, Ann Arbor is no different. Architects are beholden to the developers writing the checks. In that relationship, the pressure will always be on to maximize profit, not please the community, so how do you take the developer out of the driver's seat? You also have to be careful letting the architects do the driving. If you look at a city like Doha, Qatar, or the newly re-developed parts of London, where all the world's starchitects have been engaged to let their freak flag fly, you end up with an unliveable ghetto of giant, odd (often empty) buildings which- while perhaps pushing the edge of the design envelope- do not relate in any obvious way to the civic life of the places where they stand. Take a look at the sections of cities where people DO congregate- the Village in NY; Lincoln Park and Andersonville in Chicago; the North End of Boston; Main Street in Ann Arbor. What about these places makes them desirable places to be? Hint: it isn't tall, modern skyscrapers or massive landscrapers with acres of parking.
Veracity
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 12:59 p.m.
The present approach to developing downtown Ann Arbor by dominate members of the Planning Commission and City Council is to build big and build blind. The dollar is the motivating factor with increased TIF receipts dependent on the overall size of construction. The DDA needs TIF badly in order to balance its budget which suffers from wasteful spending that has not benefited the general population. City Council needs TIF money in order to expand the police and fire departments, worthy services that they are. Lost in the Planning Commission and City Council discussions of urban development are Professor Brandle's buzz words such as "imagination," "vision," "synergy," and "continuity." Missing from conversations are also the terms "flexible" and "adaptable." Instead, elected City Council members and the mayor's select appointees to the Planning Commission have defined downtown development narrowly and rigidly with maximum density its sole objective. Their passion leaves no room for Professor Brandle's entreaties to include input from many sources and to include participation by Ann Arbor citizens in general. Professor Brandle writes ardently about the schism between architecture and our city development and wishes to eliminate the riff and repair the damage which he believes can still happen.
timjbd
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.
The DDA plus the desires of out of town developers both work against the civic needs of the city. The people are behind the 8 ball.
My2bits
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.
The city staff, planning commision, city attorney, and city council have failed us miserably lately. City Place, Glenn Ann, The Varsity and last but absolutely not least 413 Huron have been failures in the planning, zoning and approval process. A new approach should be welcomed.
Tom Teague
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 12:29 p.m.
Professor Brandle has some excellent suggestions here. Would love to see Council give him 30 minutes to make a presentation on this. AA.com - the sister city's name is Tubingen with an umlaut over the "u." Somehow this got weirded up in the posting.
Kyle Mattson
Tue, May 28, 2013 : 9:22 p.m.
Luckily I took a number of years of German during my school days and have a numer of others in the newsroom who did as well so we're set on that language.
1bit
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 7:22 p.m.
Kyle, ditto Dog Guy and Brad. However, the more correct English translation in the absence of an umlaut would be to place an 'e' after the 'u' (Tuebingen).
Brad
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 4:05 p.m.
Looks like you should hire Dog Guy as a consultant, Kyle.
Kyle Mattson
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 3:42 p.m.
Thanks Tom/DogG, our system does not accpt umlauts so I've changed it to be Tubingen.
Dog Guy
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 1:36 p.m.
Tübingen
1bit
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 12:21 p.m.
"Real estate and other business professionals will become occasionally important resources." As these folks are going to be the ones paying the bills and taking the risks, shouldn't they be considered more important stakeholders than "occasional" resources? While a holistic approach is welcome, this proposal seems to basically turn the whole city into a protected historic district and I worry that a design-by-committee approach would not be as utopian as portrayed.
Grumpy
Sun, May 26, 2013 : 10:57 a.m.
Brilliant! It's too bad so much damage has already been done. And I'm convinced these suggestions will fall on the deaf ears of our local government. Never understood why AA doesn't take advantage of having an amazing school of architecture and their students in its own back yard.