A2D2: Evolution Or Status Quo?

It's rare that everyone is happy when something significant changes in downtown Ann Arbor. It's a situation that isn't unique to the college town --most communities resist change-- but it's something local leaders perpetually struggle with as urban practices and tastes evolve. So, how to address the future without compromising what's beloved about the past? The answer - A2D2.

A2D2 (clever shorthand for Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) is the latest initiative to reform downtown's zoning rules and architectural guidelines. The general idea is to streamline the development process to encourage a denser, more urban environment. The problem is, whenever a major change to the city's center is proposed that fits that description (in most cases that means a new building) the current development process often devolves into chaos, leaving all interested parties battered and bruised.

"That (A2D2) came out of years of frustration," says Richard Murphy, who has a masters in urban planning from the University of Michigan. He is a former Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority intern and current city planner with Ypsilanti. "The developers didn't like the process because it was completely unpredictable. The city officials didn't like the process. The city staff didn't like the process. The local residents didn't like the process because the final plan wouldn't come out until the last meeting." 

All of those factions are having their say and then some in developing the A2D2 process, oftentimes bending it to fit their own needs or using it to block and tackle for their own current front burner issue. 

"This is, after all, the community's downtown," says Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. "This is giving everyone the opportunity to put their fingerprints on it."

Hands on

Such thorough and varied inclusion, however, could turn into a double-edged sword. If all sides get their way, then A2D2 runs the risk of building a horse by committee. At what point do the opposing arguments wear down A2D2's foundational goals until the new rules start to closely resemble the old ones? Status quo, anyone?

A2D2 got its start earlier this decade with the city's Downtown Residential Task Force's call for more density and more developer-friendly policies. Only about two percent of residents, or 2,800 people, live downtown as of 2000, according to the Ann Arbor DDA. That led to the hiring of renowned urbanist Peter Calthorpe. His Berkeley, Calif.-based firm was recruited to give its two cents about improving Ann Arbor's downtown and its development environment. 

That transformed into the beginning of the formal A2D2 process about three years ago. Right now it is focusing on inspiring-yet-generic goals, like creating urban design and historic preservation guidelines while improving the development process and creating a strategy for parking and transportation. 

"The A2D2 zoning is a combination of all of these wishes," says Wendy Rampson, a city planner with Ann Arbor who is helping quarterback A2D2.

However, A2D2 lacks a central thesis or direction to steer this ship. Even some of its captains concede it turned into more of an evolution than an intelligent design. Density seems to be the underlying issue that touches all of the subjects A2D2 focuses on, however, the word isn't even mentioned on the front page of A2D2's website. Of course, the very term density means different things to different people and the city has a heated history of factions disagreeing how it might be achieved. Whatever the definition, since downtown Ann Arbor's residents are just a fragment of the city's population it's pretty clear we have yet to find a meaningful solution.

On the surface, many are saying a lot of the politically correct things in regards to A2D2. But where does the rubber hit the road in what they really mean? Developers always say they are pro-preservation, usually when they are proposing the demolition of a historic structure. Local activists habitually say they're pro-density and development, but squeal every time a tall, dense project is proposed on their fringe of downtown. 

If all sides get their way, how does that change the current status quo of development process chaos? Isn't figuring out an answer to this problem how the whole thing got started in the first place?

"Will it be easier? Probably not. Will it be clearer than before? Yes," Rampson says. "When a developer comes in it will be very clear about what zoning applies."

Roger Hewitt, co-owner of the Red Hawk Bar & Grill and the DDA's representative on the A2D2 Steering Committee, adds that A2D2 shouldn't be looked on as a cure-all. 

"One of the problems is that by the time the plan is complete, it's obsolete," Hewitt jokes with a tinge of seriousness in his voice.

He points out that the private sector will ultimately decide what downtown will look like in the future because they are the investors. He adds that there will always be local activists and unhappy people one way or the other. A2D2 can't stop that, but it can make the rules clearer for all involved.

"We can't control all of the elements at play with legislation," Hewitt says.

The Rules

Building height is the big issue. The voices in the debate rise proportionally to how tall developers propose and build structures. The fact that these proposals are mostly on the edges of the city's center and often at the expense of existing building stock only amplifies the argument, especially when people walk past numerous surface parking lots but can't see their sticker price. 

So much so that the city is now entertaining a height limit for buildings. The current proposal stands at a maximum of 180 feet, or about 18 stories. That's shorter than a couple of existing buildings in the city, including Tower Plaza (26 stories) and University Tower (18). The number (180 feet) doesn't have any significance, like the height of Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg. 

And then there are details of how to get there. There is a formula for the maximum square footage, which is four times the lot size at the most. That can bump up to seven times with enough extras, such as sustainable features or affordable housing. The idea is to encourage staggered buildings with some architectural flair instead of big block behemoths. Think of it as the difference between Detroit's Fisher Building and a big box of bricks. 

"Developers aren't going to be as concerned with height restrictions as much as with floor plan restrictions," Rampson says.

The zoning for the downtown area has also been simplified into D-1 (dense) and D-2 (almost as dense) sections. There is also space set aside for public buildings (city, county and university structures) and existing Planned Unit Developments.

Add onto that the "Character Overlay Districts" for neighborhoods like Main Street and Kerrytown. The proposed districts are meant to protect "the character and sense of place" that define these areas. "The idea is that since these are fairly distinctive areas the new regulations would support development of similar buildings," Rampson says.

Dense Density

Somehow it all comes back to the issue of density. Increasing residences per block in the downtown has been a public policy goal for the last decade. 

Expensive and not-so-expensive programs like the Greenbelt, getDowntown and name-your-favorite-mass-transit initiative were born on the premise of building up the city's core. The Greenbelt was explicitly created to fight sprawl. However, without greater density the goal is undermined. Politicians, developers and even community activists all laud Ann Arbor's vibrant downtown core as a key tool in attracting high-tech firms, young people, and more tourism. 

Unfortunately, trends don't exactly bolster that claim. Since the last census, the city has gotten a little older and slightly smaller. Compared with the population growth in the surrounding townships (sometimes in the double digits) and overall growth of Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor is moving in the wrong direction. This has all sorts of implications, from a shrinking tax base to declining primary school attendance to loss of political clout. 

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments shows that Ann Arbor's population has dipped by 500 people today compared to the 2000 Census. In comparison, Washtenaw County's population grew by 26,000 people or about 8 percent. SEMCOG predicts the county will add another 31,763 residents by 2035, a 9 percent growth. Ann Arbor is only set to add 1,697 residents, less than 1.5 percent growth. How can the city continue to compete with surrounding communities, let alone across the nation, if it has to surrender political and economic clout because of stagnant growth?

Which makes the relevance of A2D2 all the more poignant. Will its policies lead to greater density? Most who answer follow with a "but."

"It's going to be dense," says downtown resident Ray Detter, who chairs the city's Citizen Advisory Council. "But one of the things we want to watch out for is negative impacts that we can avoid. ... We want to make sure that what we do doesn't harm the historic elements of the downtown."

Maintaining the city's historic sense of place is a great point, which Detter argues quite eloquently. However, don't rules like an arbitrary building height or boundary lines take away from the overall goal of creating a more vibrant, dense downtown? That is, if A2D2 had such a central thesis. In actuality, density is only implied in its five stated goals.

The save-every-building-at-all-cost ethos (something Detter doesn't subscribe to but many other community activists do) makes sense for a longtime townie's perception of sense of place. But that doesn't match the same up-and-coming-urban-center vision of a young professional. How could one be more valid than the other?

Jeremy Peters is such an up-and-comer. The 29-year-old is director of licensing and publishing for Ghostly International. The Traverse City native attended the University of Michigan and has lived in Ann Arbor for a vast majority of the decade since he started college. He lived downtown for most of that time until moving to the city's southeast side earlier this year.

He wants downtown to evolve so it becomes more of a village core where residents can live a car-free existence with more ease. That means more shops, grocery stores that aren't high-end organics and much more affordable living options. "I'm a fan of having more places to live for young professionals, including restaurant employees," Peters says, adding that such workers needs have to be part of the discussion, too.

Of course supply and demand for housing plays the key role in that equation. How can Ann Arbor satisfy its demand for urban living if every proposed dense development turns into a kicking-and-screaming fight? It stands to reason, and basic economic academics, that downtown living would become more affordable if there were more options.

"I'm a fan of density when it's done in the right place," Peters says. "I would rather see us build up the city's center than sprawl out."

Tunnel light

A2D2 is expected to come before City Council in early September. However, this is not its first appearance and there is always a chance it won't be the last. The City Council already threw it back to the Planning Commission once earlier this year.

It's also quite coincidental that the idea for a building height limit was inserted not long after a rash of tall, dense developments for downtown were proposed. The fights over 601 Forest, City Place and The Madison all came forward before that caveat was added to A2D2.

Could it turn out to be a case where long-term policy loses out to short-term political gain by one side or another? Ann Arbor isn't a city like Chicago where an all-powerful mayor can single-handily green the downtown. Ann Arbor is more like Portland, which has a similar strong City Council structure. Portland, often held up as the model of urban planning and regional cooperation, developed a spanning plan to significantly increase residential density in the city's core while maintaining its unique character.

That is much easier said than done. In fact a lot of places say they're going to do it, try and then don't get it done. It appears that A2D2 could go either way at this point. Rampson believes another delay is possible; however, she thinks the light at the end of the tunnel is closer than it appears. In her words, "City Council is interested in wrapping this up."

Putting the bow on it will be tricky, especially when the city is facing a number of other controversial decisions. The Argo Dam and City Place issues are still on the back burners but are set to come front and center this year. That means A2D2 is something that's going to have be dealt with sooner rather than later.

"I'd rather see the process take another two years to make sure we get it right," Peters says.