You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Tue, Nov 27, 2012 : 4:44 p.m.

Parks and open space should be options for city-owned lots on William Street

By Guest Column

Library_Lot_61512_RJS_001.jpg
Editor's note: This story has been updated.

As those of us know who participated in the recent Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority exercise featuring “scenarios,” it had boxes to check for several kinds of development on five city-owned lots on or near William Street. Retail, Office, Indoor Performance Space, Residential — these were among the options. Missing was a box for a Park, a Public Open Space.

Because ”Park” was not included in the options, respondents could not check a box that could be counted. Therefore “Park” will not appear in the DDA’s report of this exercise when it goes to City Council.

The same defect marred the DDA’s online survey of public opinion in February and March of this year. The survey offered a dozen or so possible responses to each question, for people to choose. “Park,” or “open plaza,” or “green space,” was not offered as a choice.

However, the survey included several open-ended questions inviting respondents to expand on the choices that were offered. Many people gladly named parks, green space, public open space, outdoor performance space, and other names for what they felt was missing from the survey.

Until now, no one has read and counted all those responses that fell “outside the box.” Vivienne Armentrout made a good start last summer, tabulating 464 responses to Question 3. Picking up where Vivienne had left off, I have now finished reading all the individual responses in the 400-page report of the survey. Considering that there was no easy way to register support for a park (each person had to take time to compose an answer) it is impressive how many seized this slim opportunity.

Question 1 of the survey invited people to rank 12 goals from one to five in order of importance. A goal which had a kinship to a park was “opportunities for spontaneous social interaction.” It was ranked a four or a five (important or “extremely important”) by 1399 out of 2,041 respondents. Another such goal was “opportunities for outdoor community events.” It was ranked a four or a five by 1243 out of 2038 respondents.

Question 2 asked respondents to choose (from the list of 12) three goals “that are most important to you.” This time “opportunities for outdoor community events” and “opportunities for spontaneous social interactions” were the top choices. They were checked by 40.7 percent and 43.6 percent of respondents respectively. Note that neither of these options mentions a park. The DDA’s question about social interactions could have envisioned events such as Taste of Ann Arbor, or Festifools. The one about outdoor events referred to sidewalk cafes as an example. We would not know what the respondents envisioned, except that many of them took the opportunity to write an open-ended answer to the next question.

Question 3 asked, “Please feel free to share an extremely important goal.” Of 815 who composed answers, 201 (24.7 percent) named parks or open space. Others chose various goals, such as economic development or housing. It was not an either/or choice; most of the goals were mutually compatible, given the 5 sites under consideration.

Question 4 asked, “Please select the things you’d like to see more of downtown.” A list was offered. The last option was “other.” Of 426 who wrote in the “other” space, 142 (33.3 percent) mentioned a park.

Question 5 asked, “What economic benefits are most important to you?—select all that apply.” Of 293 respondents who used the “other” space, 60 (20.5 percent) mentioned parks and the economic benefits that flow from them.

Question 7 asked, “What environmental benefits are most important to you?” A list was suggested. Sixty-eight respondents wrote about parks and open, green spaces, which were not on the list.

Question 8 asked, “What social benefits are most important to you?” Here again, 71 participants chose to step out of the box and mention the social benefits of an urban public park.

Question 9 asked respondents to “Envision a really great time you had in another downtown. Please briefly describe what you were doing, your surroundings, and why it was such a great experience.” This was a completely open-ended question, and people responded by describing a day, or an evening, a cluster of happy experiences. These answers are hard to break down into quantifiable lists. An expert in analyzing survey data named Dorothy Nordness, of the Institute for Social Research at the UM, applied her skills to Question 9. Coding key words in 302 of the 1,310 responses, she found that walking, parks, events, and dining/shopping were the features most often mentioned first in a response. (28 percent, 18 percent, 14 percent, 13 percent, respectively) They also were the features most often mentioned second, third, or fourth. (“Events” was the code Dorothy assigned to a variety of experiences: ”outdoor, free, museum, street performers, architecture, music, public art, festivals.”)

Question 10 asked whether such an experience could be enjoyed in Ann Arbor, and if not, why not? What was missing? Of the responses to this question, 149 (16 percent) mentioned the lack of a downtown park or green space.

Question 11 invited people to “provide any additional comments about the Connecting William Street process or this survey.” Of the 647 responses, 111 (17 percent) pleaded for a park.

When the DDA published the results of this survey (on their website), their “Overview” did note the high proportion who favored “opportunities for outdoor community events” and “opportunities for spontaneous social interactions.” They also acknowledged in several places — appreciatively — the desire for parks and green space which had been expressed by respondents. At the end of their overview, the DDA asked, “What does this all mean and what are the next steps?

In their answer they promised to strive for five goals: a vibrant sidewalk experience, attention to quality and design of buildings, economic development, housing, and open space/plazas.

It seemed like they “got it.” They understood and accepted that their survey, perhaps inadvertently, had revealed the real thinking of a significant proportion of the people— who were trying hard to communicate despite obstacles.

Why was this revelation subsequently ignored when the DDA designed the Connecting William Street project? The three “scenarios” make no mention of parks or green spaces. Who at the DDA decided to reverse course? Who are the faceless unelected people who are pulling the strings? We need to know who they are. Citizens may well feel cheated by a process which ignores them. They have a right to be angry when jerked around so capriciously.

The following is a summary of responses to open-ended questions on the DDA online survey, spring of 2012.

The percentage of respondents who used this opportunity to write in “park,” “open space,” or something equivalent:

Question 3: “Please feel free to share a very important goal”: Of those who responded, 24.7 percent named parks or open space.

Question 4: Please select the things you’d like to see more of downtown.” Of those who used the space for “other,” 33.3 percent mentioned a park.

Question 5: What economic benefits are most important to you? Of those who used the space for “other,” 20.5 percent mentioned economic benefits that flow from parks.

Question 7: What environmental benefits are important to you? Of those who used the space for “other,” 20.5 percent mentioned parks and open spaces.

Question 8: What social benefits are most important to you? Of those who wrote in the space for “other,” 33.3 percent mentioned social benefits flowing from parks.

Question 9: “…A great time in another downtown…please describe.” Consistently in the first four key words was “park.”

Question 10: Are you able to get the same experience in downtown Ann Arbor? Why or why not? Of 1298 responses to this question, 149 (16 percent) mentioned the lack of a downtown park or green space.

Question 11: Provide any additional comments about the Connecting William Street process or this survey. Of 647 responses, 111 (17 percent) asked for a park.

Here's the conclusion: When asked open-ended questions, a significant proportion of respondents took the opportunity to ask for a park. Depending on the question, they ranged from 1/6 to 1/3 of respondents. These are people who made an effort to put in to their own words what was missing from the questionnaire. Please note the other respondents, with very few exceptions, did not oppose a park. They used the space to mention other goals.

Council members evaluating the “Connecting William Street” exercise should also study this earlier DDA survey, particularly the open-ended responses. It would be folly to ignore up to a third of any group of constituents. These are highly motivated citizens and voters. They have confirmed, in 2012, the results of the Calthorpe report 0f 2005-6. Ann Arborites want and deserve a central downtown park.

Comments

kittybkahn

Thu, Nov 29, 2012 : 8:11 p.m.

Thank you, Mary, for shining light on the community's wish for a park. The DDA tried to hide that wish by they way they formatted their surveys and by the questions they asked - almost like push polling - but the people used the open ended questions to make their desires known.

LiberalNIMBY

Thu, Nov 29, 2012 : 3:04 a.m.

Is it because Liberty Plaza is working so well that folks want another one, except bigger and tucked behind a bus station? That sounds really appealing. Listen, if "Library Green" doesn't have the "green" to buy these properties and pay property taxes on them, I'd suggest patronizing the incredible number of parks the city is already struggling to maintain.

Jamie Pitts

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 6:52 p.m.

Why are we letting our local government prioritize business development over all other concerns with these parcels? If the majority of people asked in the survey had said "business development" I would understand standing by while downtown builds up to the sky. But even if that were the case, there still should be a balance between business needs and human needs. A large park downtown would even help business by creating a special attraction downtown, and help people grow and be more productive. And it would create more of a sense of community for all of us. It is worth the investment, and has been for all towns and cities that want to attract talented people to live and work in their city centers. Search this term in google to see the DDA survey results that Mary Hathaway is referring to: "Connecting William Street Vision Survey".

Jamie Pitts

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.

That is a very good point about increasing usable "floor space" in order to make life more affordable downtown. As much as I like the idea, the greenbelt policies will lead to a long-term housing supply crunch unless more apartment buildings are built throughout the city. Beyond the current "allocate some apartments for low-income people", affordability definitely needs to be in the mix of considerations for what to do with these public properties downtown.

rusty shackelford

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 6:56 p.m.

My concern is that we've only enacted the anti-sprawl part of the greenbelt, while increased density in town (the other, just as crucial part) has been fought tooth and nail at every single instance. The result has been dramatic increase in rents and home prices. While new development may spike rents somewhat initially, the fact is that more usable space in the core of town helps to prevent the town from becoming even more expensive than it already has. Of course, those who already own property are more than happy to see this trend continue.

Alan Goldsmith

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 5:36 p.m.

Yes! Let's put the option of continuing the DDA on the ballot, next November, for voters to decide? I'm sure mavens of democracy Ms. Lowenstein and Ms. Gunn should be fine with that. What do you say?

Patricia Lesko

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 2:49 p.m.

The Hieftje cronies on the DDA Board are pushing the ALEC-inspired agenda of our local pseudo-Dems who believe that smaller government, cuts to services, attacks on labor unions, public-private partnerships and Regan-era economic policies will make our city a better place to live. Are the city's roads in better shape? Storm water system? Do we all enjoy paying higher fees for services for everything from water, using the swimming pools, to recycling? Meanwhile, Hieftje and his Council allies spend $1.2 million on sewer improvements to an empty field on Fuller Road, and Hieftje's cronies on the AATA Board blew how many millions on a transit plan it turns out no one (not even Ann Arbor) wanted. As @Veracity explains, the DDA Board needs to develop those parcels because of poor decisions made over the course of the past 4 years which have put the organization in the position of eventually running a deficit. Imagine voters' reactions if City Council put a "Millage proposal to support the DDA" on the ballot. Let's see DDA Board members Joan Lowenstein and Leah Gunn "explain" why Ann Arbor's "old, xenophobic, selfish" Republican voters (to quote Lowenstein's December 2011 piece in The Ann) don't understand why a millage to support the DDA is vital to downtown. The DDA has doubled parking rates in a short period to meet bond payments for the new city hall and to desperately try to cover bond payments for the new underground parking garage. These are the last people who should decide what is done with public land; they simply can't demonstrate they have the best interests of the public (or our wallets) in mind when they make their the bulk of their decisions.

Veracity

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 7:17 a.m.

Citizens should understand the motivation of the DDA for developing the five remaining city-owned properties involved with the "Connecting Williams Street" effort. For four or five years the DDA has produced budgets with deficits averaging $2 million per year. Capital investments have created lingering debt obligations which can not be met by revenue from its two sources, parking fees and TIF (Tax-Incremental Financing). The DDA has raided its reserve fund in order to balance its budget each year. The reserve fund will be drained within two years if deficit budgets persist as is expected. The DDA is in the process of increasing parking fees which will raise more revenue (as long as parking is not discouraged) but not enough to cover indebtedness. Likewise, present TIF payments do not cover remaining expenses. If the DDA does not find additional money to balance the annual budget then the DDA may be become insolvent in another year or two at which time it must be disbanded and existing debt obligations transferred to the City. Another option is to have a millage or income tax created to cover outstanding expenses. To avoid this catastrophic ending, the DDA wishes to create more TIF payments by encouraging private development of its remaining publicly owned properties. Also, the size of TIF payments is directly related to the increased property value of a development and the DDA will encourage large projects. Twelve story buildings costing up to $50 million dollars or more would be ideal for maximizing TIF payments. The problem is that major residential and commercial developments may not always be successful. For example, the Ashley-Terrace condominium building was recently sold out of bankruptcy for 30 cents on the dollar. As a result, the DDA will not receive nearly the TIF funds that it hoped to receive and desperately requires in order to remain solvent. The DDA is dysfunctional and should be disbanded before causing more financial damage.

Will Hathaway

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 3:59 a.m.

In case the reader is wondering why the opinion article above ends so abruptly, somehow annarbor.com omitted the conclusion of the opinion piece by Mary Hathaway. The complete missing text is too long to fit into a comment, but here is a portion. We will post a graph of the survey data on the Library Green website: http://a2centralpark.org "In their answer they promised to strive for five goals: a vibrant sidewalk experience, attention to quality and design of buildings, economic development, housing, and open space/plazas. It seemed like they "got it." They understood and accepted that their survey, perhaps inadvertently, had revealed the real thinking of a significant proportion of the people—who were trying hard to communicate despite obstacles. Why was this revelation subsequently ignored when the DDA designed the Connecting William Street project? The three "scenarios" make no mention of parks or green spaces. Who at the DDA decided to reverse course? Citizens may well feel cheated by a process which ignores them. They have a right to be angry when jerked around so capriciously... ...Conclusion: When asked open-ended questions, a significant proportion of respondents took the opportunity to ask for a park. Depending on the question, they ranged from 1/6 to 1/3 of respondents. These are people who made an effort to put into their own words what was missing from the questionnaire. Please note that the other respondents, with very few exceptions, did not oppose a park. They used the space to mention other goals. Council members evaluating the "Connecting William Street" exercise should also study this earlier DDA survey, particularly the open-ended responses. It would be folly to ignore up to 1/3 of any group of constituents. These are highly motivated citizens and voters. They have confirmed, in 2012, the results of the Calthorpe report 0f 2005-6. Ann Arborites want and deserve a central downtown park." Mary Hathaway

uabchris

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 3:31 a.m.

Who is "pulling the strings" here and why does it seem obviously clear to me that the City is totally against even ONE blade of grass in the immediate downtown area? We have enough concrete and hardscape already. Hey City/DDA...don't you want to lure people to actually live downtoen? Is it too much to ask for a little greenery or are we stuck with sitting on all the horrible concrete planters? Take $100 of my taxes and plant some grass...as the surveys suggested!!!

SonnyDog09

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 12:06 p.m.

If you want blades of grass, not the smoking kind, don't live downtown. How simple is that. If you choose to live downtown, live with the consequences of that decision.

Ron Granger

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 1 a.m.

To whom is the DDA accountable? They serve the business owners, many of whom do not even live in this town.

Vivienne Armentrout

Thu, Nov 29, 2012 : 6:39 p.m.

They are accountable only to the Mayor, who has handpicked this board. Not to business owners, who may have influence but no vote.

rusty shackelford

Tue, Nov 27, 2012 : 11:42 p.m.

Your data are not nearly as convincing as you seem to think they are. What I see from them is that, despite a concerted effort going on a year now by "park boosters" you're able to garner, at a maximum, support for the idea from 25% of respondents. Why not push to remodel Liberty Square instead? That park could be quite nice with some design changes. It would have lower costs, of both the monetary and opportunity variety. Then, we could have a park downtown AND increased density of development.

Jamie Pitts

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 1:52 a.m.

I see, and I jumped to conclusions too quickly there... The reaction to homeless people always gets in the way of rational discussions about Liberty Plaza, the library, and parks downtown in general!

Jamie Pitts

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 1:49 a.m.

Correction: I should have emphasized that we should remodel Liberty Plaza in addition to creating a park (not instead of)!

rusty shackelford

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 1:43 a.m.

I'm not against homeless people using the park when it's open (i.e. during the day) merely was trying to preëmpt what I perceived to be a likely counterargument to my point re: Liberty.

Jamie Pitts

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 1:24 a.m.

In the case of Question 3, park/open space was the one goal that was mentioned more than any other. While 25% may seem small, this answer is one of any number of ideas -- many good -- that can be on the mind of the person responding. Shouldn't the DDA and City Council listen to what the majority wants? I totally agree about Liberty Plaza. It is ridiculous that the parking lot was put there without much thought put into how it could help address the design problems in Liberty. They are a pebble's throw from each other, yet someone forgot to connect them. Lastly, these unpleasant homeless people that you seem to want to not "use" our common space are actually not as much of a problem when there is more space, more people walking through, more kids playing on a playground, etc. But there has to be somewhere to walk through to, a playground to play on, something more than a set of hidden benches to eat a sandwich on. When one group of people are making a space an undesirable place for others the problem can be addressed through better use of the space!

rusty shackelford

Tue, Nov 27, 2012 : 11:45 p.m.

SW....sorry

rusty shackelford

Tue, Nov 27, 2012 : 11:45 p.m.

Before anyone responds to the effect that there are "too many homeless" at Liberty Square for this idea to work, consider: who are going to be the main users at a park effectively surrounded by the library, the bus stop, a liquor store, and (1 block SE) a large subsidized housing complex?