Ann Arbor Photo of the Day

[RustTown]

Wolvie,

Is that lot where St. Nicholas Place was originally supposed to go not too long ago before the city killed the plan because it was too ambitious?

[wolverine]

No, the St. Nicholas plan was for downtown Ann Arbor. It was nearly twice as high, and built in an area that had no other buildings around it. I've only heard small tibbets of info on the project I posted. As far as I know, it's a go ahead.

[LA Dave]

Here's a couple pic's I took this evening:

There is a proposed structure for the spot where the surface lot is in the above photo. I don't know much about it, but here's a rendering:

Great pics -- one of them looks like West Quad -- Chicago House -- Room 201. Ah, memories.

[RustTown]

No, the St. Nicholas plan was for downtown Ann Arbor. It was nearly twice as high, and built in an area that had no other buildings around it. I've only heard small tibbets of info on the project I posted. As far as I know, it's a go ahead.

LA Dave, you don't have to quote a picture post.

Wolverine, you don't consider where Plaza Towers, Maynard House...downtown Ann Arbor? Just driving through central Ann Arbor, it would seem that it would be hard to define "downtown." Are you talking the central business district as opposed to greater downtown? It's one of those rare Michigan cities where the central city all seems to connect easily.

[wolverine]

Well, whenever anyone talks about the area over by main street, they call it downtown. We refer to the areas where Plaza Tower is as "State" or where that area over by University tower is as "South U" But if you were to say downtown, people would ask "Why are you going there?" Conner O'Neils? Heidelberg? Palio? Or many refer to districts simply by street name. "I'm going to club Necto on Liberty." There's a residential barier that seperates downtown from the rest of the city. I have a map on my door that highlights the various areas. Only liberty street has a continuous band of purple that represents commercial stretching across the map. Ann Arbor has a really strange layout for a city. A lot of it is due to the university which every business wants to be near.

EDIT: Division street would be the official seperation of one part of Ann Arbor from the next. The university acts as another which set off the South U. District.

Edited March 17, 2006 by wolverine

[RustTown]

lol, that was more confusing than my question. I need a map.

[tomo]

I consider everything covered by the Downtown Development Authority to be "downtown", which includes Tower Plaza as well as South U, I believe, but not the Packard/State area. It's all relative... if you're outside of Ann Arbor, it's all downtown, if you're a student living near South U, you'd differentiate it from the State Street area or Main Street or Kerrytown, etc. When I lived in Tower Plaza, I lived downtown, just like when my office was at State and Liberty.

Wow, I really hope that proposed building happens. That old bank has sat underused for some time now.

[wolverine]

Here's the map of AA I was talking about. I had forgotten it was on my door because it was underneath another poster.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ifmuth/mapofaa.JPG

Hope it helps.

EDIT: The bank is being used again as the TCF employee training center. The fix-up was ghetto style. They painted the plywood white and called it a facade.

Edited March 17, 2006 by wolverine

[wolverine]

This should be demolished.

[RustTown]

I agree. Much of downtown Ann Arbor skyline looks incredibly dated now (Tower Plaza, University Towers, Maynard House/Apartments, Dahlman Campus Inn...) Hopefully, most of the new tower proposal will come through to offset this ugly era in high-rises.

[wolverine]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing all of those torn down, but only if we could build new towers, and at least cluster them somewhere. At least somewhere! It think the university caused a lot of the higrhise development since students live in most of these highrises. It can also be due to poor planning of the city. U Towers around 2 story buildings at the edge of a residential neighborhood is just ridiculous.

[tomo]

There's no way in hell the residents of Ann Arbor would allow anything the same height of Tower Plaza were it to go down. The reason the city has height restrictions is because of that.

[LA Dave]

I agree. Much of downtown Ann Arbor skyline looks incredibly dated now (Tower Plaza, University Towers, Maynard House/Apartments, Dahlman Campus Inn...) Hopefully, most of the new tower proposal will come through to offset this ugly era in high-rises.

Uh -- Lmichigan -- Tower Plaza and University Towers, etc. are not "downtown." As Wolverine explained, downtown Ann Arbor is a distinct area, primarily west of Division, though centered around Main Street and Huron.

And as for dated -- nothing can beat those State of Michigan office buildings in your favorite Michigan city. yeech.

[RustTown]

Uh -- Lmichigan -- Tower Plaza and University Towers, etc. are not "downtown." As Wolverine explained, downtown Ann Arbor is a distinct area, primarily west of Division, though centered around Main Street and Huron.

And as for dated -- nothing can beat those State of Michigan office buildings in your favorite Michigan city. yeech.

A little testy, I see? Really, I didn't mean in harm, simply stating my opinion. I will stop using "downtown" since a few are so incredibly picky about the word, and simply use "skyline." I'm not a big fan of much of Ann Arbor's skyline (especially the 60's additions), and I'm not going to apologize for that.

[LA Dave]

A little testy, I see? Really, I didn't mean in harm, simply stating my opinion. I will stop using "downtown" since a few are so incredibly picky about the word, and simply use "skyline." I'm not a big fan of much of Ann Arbor's skyline (especially the 60's additions), and I'm not going to apologize for that.

"Testy?"

Perhaps. But as someone who lived in Ann Arbor for seven years, I think that it is the most charming of Michigan's larger cities, and certainly far more liveable than most, some ugly 1960s high rises aside.

Hey, I actually once posted a positive comment about buildings in Lansing -- a city that, with all due respect, is hardly one to shout about, architecturally speaking.

[RustTown]

Not to be rude, but I really don't care if you've posted positive things about Lansing architecture as it has no bearing on my opinion of the Ann Arbor skyline. Even more so, I think Ann Arbor is a great town, skyline architecture aside, which I place very little importance on, anyway. And I'm confused as to why you want to keep bringing that city into the Ann Arbor discussion.

[LA Dave]

Not to be rude, but I really don't care if you've posted positive things about Lansing architecture as it has no bearing on my opinion of the Ann Arbor skyline. Even more so, I think Ann Arbor is a great town, skyline architecture aside, which I place very little importance on, anyway. And I'm confused as to why you want to keep bringing that city into the Ann Arbor discussion.

OK, truce. I was a little peeved at the admonishment relating to the reposting of Woverine's great pictures of a former residence hall of mine, given that you are not a moderator of the Ann Arbor forum.

[wolverine]

Okay, chill everyone.

LA Dave, LMich wasn't being nasty about Ann Arbor. He was merely commenting on how AA could use a few new tall buildings since our city council has its tail between its legs on new highrises. One can only admit that our highrises aren't the best.

Additionally, it's very difficult for outsiders to understand the layout of Ann Arbor. It's easy for any non-resident to refer to the whole built up commercial area as downtown, whereas we think downtown is nowhere near the university.

Historically, unlike most cities, Ann Arbor had no real grand scheme for where things would go. In fact, when the university moved from Detroit in 1837, it was supposed to go nowhere near where it was supposed to today. It's placement ended up causing commercial districts to expand, trying to get access to the university. Nearly 130 years later, it was the interest of developers to provide affordable living to lots of students. U of M wasn't really expanding or building new residence halls, and there wasn't a lot of room to build new units. The result was building highrises. They were built with trend architecture, which most architects know professionally is not a good idea. What we got was not well appreciated. As a result, the city council dropped height limits and established stylistic guidelines for new buildings. When was the last non-university building you've ever seen go up what didn't look like it was from the 1920's?

It's okay to be critical of architecture. It's also okay to defend it. (I have to do it all the time in college)

Please do not turn things into city battles.

[LA Dave]

Okay, chill everyone.

LA Dave, LMich wasn't being nasty about Ann Arbor. He was merely commenting on how AA could use a few new tall buildings since our city council has its tail between its legs on new highrises. One can only admit that our highrises aren't the best.

Additionally, it's very difficult for outsiders to understand the layout of Ann Arbor. It's easy for any non-resident to refer to the whole built up commercial area as downtown, whereas we think downtown is nowhere near the university.

Historically, unlike most cities, Ann Arbor had no real grand scheme for where things would go. In fact, when the university moved from Detroit in 1837, it was supposed to go nowhere near where it was supposed to today. It's placement ended up causing commercial districts to expand, trying to get access to the university. Nearly 130 years later, it was the interest of developers to provide affordable living to lots of students. U of M wasn't really expanding or building new residence halls, and there wasn't a lot of room to build new units. The result was building highrises. They were built with trend architecture, which most architects know professionally is not a good idea. What we got was not well appreciated. As a result, the city council dropped height limits and established stylistic guidelines for new buildings. When was the last non-university building you've ever seen go up what didn't look like it was from the 1920's?

It's okay to be critical of architecture. It's also okay to defend it. (I have to do it all the time in college)

Please do not turn things into city battles.

I wasn't. I declared a truce. 'Nuff said.

Regarding residence halls. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, when the University was growing very quickly, the only new residence halls to be built were Markley and Bursley. As a result, not only did you get high-rises but also a lot of new low-rise apartments. At this time, the fashion for students was to get out of university housing ASAP and into an apartment, so they could live like "adults."

Now, that fashions have changed and students (and parents) realize the value of residence hall living, new dorms are being planned. North Quad is an attempt to redress the situation, I guess.

I must disagree a bit about high-rises, also -- I don't think they are needed in the student area. Quality low-rises (five to six-story maximum) preserve the streetscape and sunlight (always a rare commodity in Ann Arbor in the winter) and don't contribute to massive traffic jams. Downtown may be a different story, but I agree that given the political landscape in Ann Arbor, that is unlikely.

Curious where the University was supposed to be located -- I was always under the impression that it was placed exactly where it was intended -- a cow pasture.

[wolverine]

I wasn't. I declared a truce. 'Nuff said.

Regarding residence halls. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, when the University was growing very quickly, the only new residence halls to be built were Markley and Bursley. As a result, not only did you get high-rises but also a lot of new low-rise apartments. At this time, the fashion for students was to get out of university housing ASAP and into an apartment, so they could live like "adults."

Now, that fashions have changed and students (and parents) realize the value of residence hall living, new dorms are being planned. North Quad is an attempt to redress the situation, I guess.

I must disagree a bit about high-rises, also -- I don't think they are needed in the student area. Quality low-rises (five to six-story maximum) preserve the streetscape and sunlight (always a rare commodity in Ann Arbor in the winter) and don't contribute to massive traffic jams. Downtown may be a different story, but I agree that given the political landscape in Ann Arbor, that is unlikely.

Curious where the University was supposed to be located -- I was always under the impression that it was placed exactly where it was intended -- a cow pasture.

I was saying that the towers WERE built close to the university, and also in areas that were near commercial corridors.

I disagree that we should be looking at lowrises though. There simply is not a lot of available real estate to carry this idea through, unless existing structures (like individual houses) are demolished. A chief concern is preservation of existing structures, height comes second to that. There are only about a dozen major parking lots left within the the center of the city that are open to development for residential where parking is consolidated into a garage or put underground. There was recently a meeting with the city about this issue where Ann Arbor would have to get more dense or it would not survive. The fact is, in order for this city to grow, but preserve its existing environment, it will have to build up.

This doesn't mean there isn't room for lowrise development though. Surely, in some of the surrounding neighborhoods, landlords will sell some of their rental houses to clear way for a small apartment building. In certain areas, I'd like to see that happen. But for areas downtown and near the university, I don't see lowrise structures as a practical solution to solving housing problems.

Although parking can be an issue, there are ways to solve this. One is to continue improving Ann Arbor's transit. I've done 3 years so far without a car. My friends who do have cars and live in the dorms park there's way out in Pittsfield and take the bus back into the city. Nearly every major destination in this city is accessible by bus. It's fortunate for development's sake that the tenants can deal without having their car footsteps away. When you sit back and look at Ann Arbor in terms of traffic congestion, it's really not all that bad. Maybe on game days, but that's something that everyone just has to accept.

The university was supposed to be located where the medical campus is today. I have the book on the entire university's history. When I get the chance I look up the reasons why it didn't locate there, but was instead built on the original 40 acres.

[GR8scott]

nice pics.

most people dont like those "ugly" 60s towers, but I can appriciate them. I like AAs stylee and hopefully with a mix of more modern and older looking high and mid rises like the proposed one above, the 60s buildings will add too it in the future.

Although I am not a big fan of the futuristic looking glass towers I think one would fit here and it would be nice to see a high rise 300-400 footer go in the middle of the skline

it will be interesting to see in 10 years

good to see ace duce got its own fourum too

[wolverine]

Lurie Tower on North Campus, U of M's second bell tower. I took this picture around 7:00 a.m Monday through a window at the media Union. It was kind of nice to see the sun rise. North Campus is qutie beautiful in the early morning. I never really noticed the whole top section is slightly angled.

[wolverine]

[Southernyank]

Great Shot of the bell tower!!

[Michi]

Is that last building burning down?