Citizen's Report on Reuse of the Top of the Library Lot, January 2013

7/29/2019 Citizen's Report on Reuse of the Top of the Library Lot, January 2013

1/19

The City of Ann Arbor hasbuilt a huge 770 space under-ground parking structure on 5thAvenue next to the Public Li-brary at a cost of over $55million dollars. What should goon top?

Why not seize this opportuni-ty to create a place for peopleinstead of cars? We can cre-ate the central park Ann Arborcurrently lacks on a downtownsite that the people of Ann Ar-bor already own. We can have aLibrary Green.

A Green Roof Seasonal Park on Top of the

Parking Lot Next to our Public Library

An artists concept

Citizens Report on Reuse of the Top of the Library Lot

Ann Arbor, January 2013

Library Green ConservancyNow is the time to

develop our central urban park


2/19

7KLVUHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\FLWL]HQYROXQWHHUVXVLQJGRQDWHGPDWHULDOVDQGHPSOR\LQJQRSDLGVWDI

RUFRQVXOWDQW

'UDZLQJVDQGSKRWRVDUHWRVWLPXODWHGLVFXVVLRQDQGYLVLRQLQJDQGDUHQRWLQWHQGHGDVFRQFUHWH

SURSRVDOV

:KHQZHVD\SDUNZHPHDQWRLQFOXGHSXEOLFRSHQVSDFHZKHWKHUJUHHQSDYHGRUDFRPELQD-

WLRQXVHGIRUUHOD[DWLRQUHFUHDWLRQFXOWXUDOHYHQWVDQGSHUIRUPDQFHVDQGWRGHOLJKWSDVVHUVE\

1HZDUWLFOHRQ3ODFH0DNLQJLQ0LFKLJDQKWWSZZZSSVRUJSODFHPDNLQJLQPLFKLJDQ

2

&LWL]HQV5HSRUWRQ5HXVHRIWKH7RSRIWKH/LEUDU\/RW ,&KRRVHD3DUNRYHUWKH3DUNLQJ SJ

,,$)ODZHG3XEOLF3URFHVV SJ

,,,&HQWUDO/RFDWLRQ SJ

,93DUNV*HQHUDWH(FRQRPLF%HQHWV SJ

96XPPDU\RIWKH&DOWKRUSH5HSRUW SJ

9,&RQFOXVLRQ SJ

website: http://a2centralpark.org

We are a group of Ann Arbor residents who believe that the social and cultural value of a community owned public spacein downtown Ann Arbor far exceeds anynancial value such a space might have. We seek to encourage both public andprivate agencies and individuals to work together towards creating a green space on the last remaining site where it could beaccomplished, the roof of the Library Parking structure. Such a space will help to make Ann Arbor even more a special cityby providing a common location where people can meet for social, civic, and recreational purposes. We wish to incorporatea broad range of public input in the creation of such a facility and intend that the result will be a signicant communityasset, ecologically, socially, andnancially.

Library Green Conservancy Mission Statement


3/19

I. Choose a Park

over the Parking

3


4/19

The Library Green Conservancy

When the City voted down the hotel/conference cen-ter proposal in spring 2011, a group of citizens be-gan meeting with the goal of promoting a park on the Library

Lot. We call this vision for a future park Library Green. Weformed a non-prot organization called the Library GreenConservancy. While the construction crew was busy excavat-ing the hole for the new underground parking, we were busymeeting with members of City Council, developers, businessand community leaders, adjacent property owners and neigh-bors to talk about our idea of a central downtown park andto listen to their concerns and suggestions. We learned a lot.We know that there are otherpotentially competingviewsfor the future of the Library Lot. We also know that there aremany people who have concerns about the possible negativeimpacts of public, open spaceparticularly in the downtown.

e Library Green Conservancy would likethe City to reconsider and move to create a pub-lic place on that portion of the Library Lot nowrather than waiting for some future developer.We recognize that it will take creative design toensure that this plaza is a vibrant public space.We imagine an interactive water feature withkids playing and parents watchingan ice rinkin winter. How about interactive public art likethe Cube on Regents Plaza?ere should be ta-

bles and chairs on the Library Lot as there are atsculpture plaza near the Peoples Food Co-op.

Our vision for a downtown park is informedby the concept of place-making through which many urbanneighborhoods and downtowns around the world are beingtransformed. Place-making relies on economic developmentgenerated by proximity to an attractive public open space.Once a lively public plaza is created, the existing buildings nearthe Library Lot could be reborn, with new, expanded uses.New construction would occur nearby and more customerswill be drawn to the area.

According to the City of Ann Arbors 2009 DowntownPlan, the only downtown park right now is Liberty Plaza arelatively small public space with limitations due in part to itssunken physical design. By creating a pedestrian link from Lib-erty Plaza to a Library Green both places would be enhanced.It would be Ann Arbors downtown Diag. e Ann ArborDistrict Library draws thousands of people downtown. Likelibraries in other cities, the Ann Arbor public library couldextend itself in relation to an adjacent park.

Anyone who has used the new underground structurewould agree that it is well designed in some ways architec-turally beautiful. It merits a green crown. Replace surfaceparking with a beautiful central public square Ann Arbordeserves.

Background

As long as most people can remember, there was alarge, surface parking lot next to the library. Over theyears, people advocated for it to become a downtown parkWhen the pocket park of Liberty Plaza was created in thelate 1970s, many saw the potential for connecting it with thelarger, adjacent Library Lot. e dream of a central park forAnn Arbor seemed attainable. Our town could nally reclaimthe downtown public square we lost in the 1950s when thestately, old County Courthouse was torn downits generous

lawn replaced with more concrete. e vi-sion of a city plaza on the Library Lot wasenshrined in the 2006 Calthorpe Reportthe result of a lengthy public process whichproposed a Town Square or central civicarea that incorporates an outdoor meetingplace, an art center, underground parkingan indoor facility and mixed-use buildings.

e City of Ann Arborthrough theDDAdid push forward with creation o

the underground parking. However, the vi-sion of a public plaza was subordinated toa competing vision for dense developmente underground parking structure was de-

signed with the assumption that a skyscraper would be builton top. Extra millions were spent on reinforced footings andinfrastructure to support the speculative tower.

In 2009 the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP)for development of the Library Lot. A long process followedduring which two proposals for public parks were dismissedout of hand. A 15-story, combination hotel/conference cente

seemed to be the winning proposal. Upon closer examinationthe hotel/conference center was determined to be economi-cally unfeasible without a huge nancial commitment fromthe City. City Council said no. After it rejected the Valianthotel/conference center, Ann Arbor City Council sought an-other way to build consensus for the decision about how to usethe publicly owned land downtown. To oversee a process thatwould solicit input from the public and help decide the futureof the downtown, City Council turned to another branch oflocal government, the DDA.

$QQ$UERUV0LVVLQJ&HQWUDO3DUN

Our vision for a down-

town park is informed by

the concept of place-

making through which

many urban neighbor-

hoods and downtowns

around the world are

being transformed.

4


5/19

Campus Martius in Detroit outdoor performance

in sunshine and ice skating in winter

Interactive,playful

sculptures

like the Wave

Field on U-Ms

North Campus

Successful urban parks offer activities

5


6/19

Arobust public process was the charge to the Down-town Development Authority (DDA) in spring 2011when City Council directed that it study and make recommen-dations for the future ofve publicly owned properties. Manypeople probably interpreted that description to mean that theresulting process would allow for meaningful input from theentire community and that the process would be open to perhaps even embrace and support the ideas that emerged.Unfortunately, that has not been the case.e DDA leadershipentered into this project which it named Connecting Wil-liam Street with a preconceived desired outcome densedevelopment including a downtown hotel. e process it hasdesigned and executed has, unsurprisingly, con-rmed those preconceived ideas - resisting anycontrary inputs such as lack of public supportfor a hotel and the persistent and overwhelming

call for downtown public parks. What did theDDA do to create a public process?

t &YDMVEFEQFPQMFXJUIEJFSFOUWJFXTGSPNits steering committee a tactic proudlyannounced in advance by one DDA leader and then gave no opportunity for publiccomment during committee meetings.

t 4FMFDUJWFMZ i$IFSSZQJDLFEw GSPN QBTU QMBOOJOH EPDV-ments those items that supported dense development andthen claimed an archival consensus.

t %FTJHOFEBOVOTDJFOUJDBOECJBTFENVMUJQMFDIPJDFTVS-vey as the primary means for public input. en limitedthe pool of respondents by distributing the survey almostentirely online.

t %JTNJTTFE UIF PWFSXIFMNJOH QSPQBSL TVSWFZ SFTQPOTFwhich was received despite the surveys designed bias infavor of development.

t )JSFEBMBOEVTFFDPOPNJTUXJUIFYQFSUJTFJOUIFFDPOPN-ic benets of urban parks, but did not ask him to assessthe potential benets of a downtown park for Ann Arbor

t $PNNJTTJPOFEUIFDPOTVMUBOUUPDPOEVDUBTQFDJBMGFBTJ-bility study for a downtown hotel/conference center forAnn Arbor the same idea that was rejected as unfeasiblea year earlier by City Council.

-t )FMEBTFSJFTPGGPDVTHSPVQNFFUJOHTEVSJOHwhich three development scenarios were pre-sented and feedback was channeled toward se-

lecting between dense, denser and densest op-tions for new construction on the public land.

Despite repeated protests, the DDA movedforward with this process as if it would yield atrue representation of what the public wantsAnalysis of the DDAs own survey data showthat walking, parks and events/culture are the

top items the public wants.ose of us who tried to representthe publics interest in downtown parks eventually concludedthat there was no way to be given a fair hearing. To have theDDA overseeing a public process to determine the future ofthe downtown was at least in this instance a fox guardingthe chicken coop. No amount of contradictory informationwould shake the fox from its instinctive appetite.

Analysis of the

DDAs own survey

data shows thatwalking, parks

and events/culture

at the top items

public wants.

II. A Flawed Public Process

6

Millenium Park Chicago


7/19

e recent DDA exercise featuring scenarios had boxesto check for several kinds of development on ve city-ownedlots on or near William Street. Retail, Oce, Indoor Perfor-mance Space, Residentialthese were among the options.

Missing was a box for Public Open Space, Urban Park, orCommunity Green.

e same defect marred the DDAs online survey of publicPQJOJPOJOFBSMZFTVSWFZPFSFEBEP[FOPSTPQPT-sible responses to each question, for people to choose. Park,PSiPQFOQMB[BwPSiHSFFOTQBDFwXBTOPUPFSFEBTBDIPJDFHowever, the survey included several open-ended questionsinviting respondents to expand on the choices that were of-fered. Many people gladly named parks, green space, public

open space, outdoor performance space, and other names forwhat they felt was missing from the survey.

When asked open-ended questions, a signicant propor-tion of respondents took the opportunity to ask for a park

Depending on the question, they ranged from 1/6 to 1/3 oSFTQPOEFOUTFTFBSFQFPQMFXIPNBEFBOFPSUUPQVUJOUPtheir own words what was missing from the questionnaireOther respondents, with very few exceptions, did not opposea park. ey used the space to mention other goals. ese arehighly motivated citizens and voters. ey have conrmed, in2012, the results of the Calthorpe report 0f 2005-6.

The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) has overseen a process to gather pub-

OLFLQSXWDQGPDNHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUYHSXEOLFO\RZQHGGRZQWRZQVLWHVLQFOXG -

ing the Library Lot. But the DDA has ignored the call for public open space!

7


8/19

The Library Lot is well connect-

ed in all directions to becomean inviting pedestrian pathway.

Ann Arbor District Library

Liberty Plaza

Dividison

Street

8

III. Central Location


9/19

Pedestrian connections should be the theme of everyproposal for every site in the DDAs Connecting WilliamStreet project. e Library Block is the key to connectivitybecause it has openings to east, west and north, as well as astrong diagonal pathway which, although compromised bythe concrete structures on top of the parking ramp, can be

restored by good planning.e Library Green Conservancy has given careful thought

to the kind of structure that should be built above the in-outramps and the elevator towers existing on the surface now.FOFXTUSVDUVSFNVTUIFMQQFEFTUSJBOTCZPFSJOHBCSJEHF

Major Pedestrian Attractions

Town Square

gazebo concerts in

Dexter and

Manchester

9

over the ramps, restoring the customary footpath from Lib-erty Plaza to the Library. It should house destinations such asBDPFFIPVTFQMBZTDIPPMBSUHBMMFSZDPNNVOJUZDFOUFSPSother highly active use, to bring pedestrian trac to the park.is would bring activity throughout the day and evening andwould bring new customers to merchants and restaurants on

State Street, Liberty, and Main.

e Library Green Conservancy asks that the park itselfremain a city property, belonging to the people of Ann Ar-bor in perpetuity.


10/19

More customers would bedrawn to nearby businesses.

Lets make it possible for patronsof neighboring restaurants to carry

their food to tables in the park.

10


11/19

Parks for all seasons

11


12/19

,93DUNVJHQHUDWHHFRQRPLFEHQHWV

through Placemaking

3ODFHPDNLQJLVWKHFUHDWLRQRIDG\QDPLF

attractive public space to revitalize and bring

new investment to a downtown neighborhood.

Placemaking Pays Off

12


13/19

Below are Summaries and citations for numerous studiesthat document the economic and social benets of parks andopen spaces for downtowns, in terms of community well-be-ing and economic development.

http://www.pps.org/parks_plazas_squares/info/whyneed/econbenets/

Information and resources on the positive impacts parkshave on local businesses, real estate, and more.

t &DPOPNJD#FOFUTPG0QFO4QBDFCommunities around the country are learning that

open-space conservation is not an expense, but an invest-ment that produces important economic benets. eTrust for Public Lands entire report on the economic ben-ets of open space is available online.

t #JCJMJPHSBQIZ&DPOPNJD#FOFUTPG0QFO4QBDFe bibliography accompanying the Trust for Public

Lands report contains more than a hundred citations onthe economic benets of protecting open space.

t 3FBM&TUBUF*NQBDUTPG6SCBO1BSLTBrief case studies of how six recently built or rehabil-

itated downtown parks have impacted the value of sur-rounding properties, and a summary of previous researchon the topic. Examples from New York City, Bellevue(Wash.), Atlanta, Boston and Shreveport (La.)Economic Research Associates

t 0QFO 4QBDF 4VSWFZ /BUJPOBM "TTPDJBUJPO PGRealtors

Among the ndings in this 2001 survey: voters sup-port for open space depends on costs and use (neighbor-hood parks, playgrounds, and walking trails over golfcourses, for instance); and 50% of voters would pay 10%more for a house near a park or other open space.

t &DPOPNJD#FOFUT.PEFMAn economic model that could be used to estimate

economic benets of parks for local economies. Devel-oped for and by the National Park Service.

t &DPOPNJD3FJOWFTUNFOUJO"MM0QFO4QBDFTJim Lyons, Under Secretary for Natural Resources

and Environment, USDA, on the need for public in-vestment in what he calls the greenfrastructure.

t (SFFOXBZ 7JTJPO 4BWFT 3JWFS BOE (FOFSBUFTInvestment

An article chronicling how Denver civic and politi-cal leaders organized the reclamation of the South PlatteRiver into a regional greenway system, spurring not only

(FRQRPLF%HQHWVRI'RZQWRZQ3DUNVDQG2SHQ6SDFHVparkland and environmental benets but also redevelop-ment of large tracts of industrial land downtown.Project for Public Spaces/Urban Parks Institute

t F $IBUUBOPPHB 3JWFSQBSL 5SBOTGPSNJOH B $JUZBOEJUT&DPOPNZ

How a park helped this once-faded industrial town be-come one of the most talked-about cities in the SoutheastA Success Story from the Urban Parks Institute.

t 8IZ0QFO4QBDF1SPNPUFT6SCBO%FWFMPQNFOUA Denver business leader explains why the creation of

Commons Park, along the Central Platte Valley, was a cor-nerstone in developing new mixed-use downtown neigh-borhoods.Project for Public Spaces/Urban Parks Institute

t .BLJOH1BSLT8PSL*O$MFWFMBOE

In Cleveland, good public spaces and parks are regard-ed as critical in helping the city attract highly mobile NewEconomy businesses and workers. is article reports onBOFPSUUPJEFOUJGZQPUFOUJBMOFXPQFOTQBDFTEPXOUPXOand build a constituency for investing in them.Project for Public Spaces/Urban Parks Institute

t F #FOFUT PG 1BSLT 8IZ "NFSJDB /FFET .PSF$JUZ1BSLTBOE0QFO4QBDF

A highly informative examination of the essential roleparks play in urban neighborhoods, this white paper fromTrust for Public Land includes chapters on the health, en-vironmental, economic, and social benets of parks andopen spaces.

13


14/19

'RZQORDGWKH(QYLURQPHQWDO%HQHWV)DFW6KHHW

http://www.projectevergreen.com/why-green-matters/economic-benets/

*UHHQVSDFHVEHQHWWKHHFRQRP\LQPDQ\ZD\V t /BUVSFJODSFBTFTXPSLFSQSPEVDUJWJUZ Psychologists

have found that access to plants and green spaces pro-vides a sense of rest and allows workers to be moreproductive.1

t Landscaping renews business districts. Greening ofbusiness districts increases community pride and posi-tive perception of an area, drawing customers to thebusinesses.2

t Quality landscaping means quality goods. A recentstudy found that consumers would be willing to pay,on average, a 12% premium for goods purchased inretail establishments that are accompanied by qualitylandscaping.3

t &NQMPZNFOU BOEUPVSJTNCPPTU Employment op-portunities are associated with the creation and longterm maintenance of urban open space, as well astourism dollars of visitors from parks, gardens andcivic areas (Woolley 2003).4

t Increases retail activity. Studies have proven thatgreenery and owers attract shoppers and residents tourban areasspurring economic growth.5

t Business growth. Small businesses choosing a new

business location rank the amount of open spaceand proximity to parks and recreation as the num-ber-one priority in site selection.6

t Protects drainage systems.e crown of a large tree isa freestanding anti-ood reservoir, in some cases inter-cepting so much rainfall that more than 1,500 gallonsa year evaporates instead of hitting the ground. Chopdown the tree, and you increase the volume of stormwater a city must manage something that especiallyBFDUTPMEFSDJUJFTXJUIaging drainage systems.7

%LEOLRJUDSK\(FRQRPLF)DFW6KHHW

1. 1 Virginia Cooperative Extension: Nutrient Management; http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/turf/430-400/430400.html

2. 2 Virginia Cooperative Extension: e Value oLandscaping; http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/enviro-hort/426-721/426-721.html#TOC

3. 3 Virginia Cooperative Extension; op. cit.4. 4 Virginia Cooperative Extension; op. cit.5. 5 Wolf, Kathleen. University of Washington: _Eco

nomic and Public Value of Urban Forests; _ http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.envmind/urbanhtml

6. 6 University of Southern California: Teen and AdulPerceptions of Urban Green Space Los Angeles; http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/

7. 7 Hauer, Jeanne: WOW! in the Warehouse DistrictGreen-Space Project to Accelerate Downtown Devel-opment; http://www.wowinwarehouse.com/

8. 8 e Trust for Public Land: Economic Benets oOpen Space; http://www.tpl.org/

9. 9 Time Magazine: Why Are Cities Cutting DownTrees; http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/ar-ticle/9263

t http://www.dfwi.org/Development/Urban-DesignStandards/Current-Projects.aspx

)URP'RZQWRZQ)RUW:RUWK,QF

Downtown Parks and Open Space Plan

With residents, tourists and a larger work force usingDowntown in greater numbers - almost 40,000 employeesand millions of visitors each year - the need for parks andopen space is greater than ever. Fortunately, DowntownFort Worth has signicant existing green and open spacethat, with improved design, can provide usable places forrelaxation and play.

Active public spaces, including urban parks, plazasopen spaces, and streetscape linkages, can be great publicdestinations and add to the livability, economic and socialvitality of Downtown. e DFWI Downtown Green SpaceCommittee collaborated for a year to analyze existing greenand open spaces Downtown, and explore the needs andopportunities for new parks. is report summarizes theirrecommendations. Copies can be obtained by calling theoce at (817)870-1692.

(FRQRPLF%HQHWVRI8UEDQ*UHHQDQG2SHQ6SDFHV

14


15/19

In 2005, the highly respected urban planning group, Calt-horpe Associates along with Strategic Economics was hired bythe city and the DDA to study the Downtown; to conduct aseries of citizen participation workshops; and to prepare a planfor the future of Downtown based on all of the above. iswas in conjunction with the A2D2 planning project which the

current DDA Connecting William Street Program claims tobe incorporating.

e Calthorpe study was the most public, exhaustive,comprehensive, inclusive, systematic study process ever con-ducted for downtown Ann Arbor.

One of the main conclusions was that the city should:i1VSTVFBOEEFTJHOB5PXO4RVBSFPSDFOUSBMDJWJDBSFB

that incorporates an outdoor meeting place, an art center,underground parking, an indoor facility, and mixed-usebuildings on the library lot.

Below is a summary of the process as well as the conclu-sions of that study regarding the library lot, public amenitiesand pedestrian-friendly design.

e Library Green Conservancy asks this question: Whydid the DDA ignore this study and undertake a new study,with much less public input, which omitted the recommenda-tions of the Calthorpe process regarding a Town Center on theLibrary Lot?

Below are verbatim exerpts from that Study. Any clarifyingedits from the Library Green Conservancy are in italics.

To view the complete report, here is the link:

Recommended Vision & Policy Frameworkfor Downtown Ann ArborDowntown Development Strategies ProjectPrepared for the City of Ann Arbor By Calthorpe

Associates and Strategic Economics December 5, 2005FINAL REVISION - FEBRUARY 17, 2006

Introduction:

is Report outlines a series of recommended goals and poli-cies that sets a direction for future growth in Downtown AnnArbor.As described below in greater detail, this Report is the productof numerous public design workshops, stakeholder input, anddata gathering. Much of the vision and policy direction is acompilation from citizens and other stakeholders.

Contents:

1SPKFDUBOE0VUSFBDI4VNNBSZDescribes the public and

TUBLFIPMEFS PVUSFBDI FPSU VTFE UP QSFQBSF BOE SFmOF UIFplans recommendations.

7JTJPOBOE(PBMTAn annotated list of priorities for Downtown.

%PXOUPXO 0QQPSUVOJUJFT BOE $IBMMFOHFT Describes theopportunities and challenges for Downtown by topic arealand use, urban design, housing, economic conditions, publicspace, and mobility. Each section concludes with a series ofgeneral policy recommendations. Steps to achieve each policyrecommendation are listed in the appendix.

7JTJPO 1MBO BOE 4QFDJmD 0QQPSUVOJUJFTe section de-scribes one potential vision for Downtown Ann Arbor and aTFSJFTPGTQFDJmDPQQPSUVOJUJFTGPSBSFBTJMMVTUSBUFEJOUIF4USVD-tural Plan.

1SPKFDUBOE0VUSFBDI4VNNBSZ

is report is the product of a wide range of exercises - com-munity design workshops, stakeholder meetings, data gather-ing, research analysis and professional opinion. is sectiondescribes the outreach strategy for the Downtown Develop-ment Strategies Project and how it has shaped the recommen-dations of this report.

Downtown Development Strategies Project SummaryIn 2003, the Downtown Residential Task Force began to ex-

plore four types of barriers to residential development: eco-nomic, City policy, zoning, and livability. After the comple-tion of the Downtown Residential Task Force work in the falof 2004, Calthorpe Associates was retained to assess whetherDowntown Ann Arbor zoning and development policy metthe future desires of Ann Arbor residents.

To that end, the following action steps were taken:

Convene a series of public design workshops and informational meetings with City Council, Project Steering Committee

Downtown Development Authority, and Planning Commis-sion;Reviewexisting site and zoning conditions;&TUBCMJTI a potential Illustrative Vision to assess the existingzoning;Conducta Downtown market analysis;Recommendupdates to existing documents or policies; andConsider a sequence of implementation strategies.

Public Design Workshops SummarySeveral hundred community members participated in threePublic Design Workshops held on July 28, September 22, and

V. WHY DID THE DDA IGNORE THE CALTHROPE REPORT?

15


16/19

November 3, 2005. e workshops built upon one anotherNPWJOHGSPNCJHQJDUVSFEFWFMPQNFOUJTTVFTUPTQFDJmD%PXO -town policy questions and implementation issues.

Interactive Public Design Workshop #10O+VMZPWFSDJUJ[FOTBUUFOEFEUIFmSTUQVCMJD

design workshops. Citizens listened to several presentationsthen participated in a facilitated table exercise. e exerciseallowed participants to choose one of three potential growthTDFOBSJPTUIBUIJHIMJHIUFEUISFFEJFSFOUXBZTGPS%PXOUPXOAnn Arbor to grow.

Participants included members of the DDA, Planning Commis-sion, City Council, City staand general citizens.

With the assistance of facilitators, teams of 6-10 citizensworked together at tables to identify where future develop-ment would be appropriate.

Interactive Public Design Workshop #2

On September 22, citizens engaged in a similar process toWorkshop #1 with a presentation period and a facilitated tableFYFSDJTF$PNNPOUIFNFTFNFSHFEGSPNUIFmSTUXPSLTIPQexercise. ese common density and design themes were syn-thesized into a single Conceptual Land Use Diagram.

Participants used a more detailed series of land-use chips togive specic input on identied opportunity sites.

Interactive Public Design Workshop #3On November 3, citizens engaged in a similar process to Work-shop #1 and #2. Participants were asked to evaluate, annotate,and modify the updated Conceptual Land Use Diagram anda sketch Illustrative Vision. e participants were asked toanswer a series of questions designed to solicit input on thedraft plans. In addition to draft plan input, participants madegeneral policy and implementation comments. e questiontopics (land use and urban design, housing, circulation, andPQFOTQBDFXFSFJEFOUJmFEBTDSJUJDBMUPQJDTEVSJOHUIFQSFWJ -ous workshops.

e following goals guided the Downtown DevelopmentStrategies Project:

Goal #1:Encourage a transparent process with public input, debate,and consensus building:Convene public workshops that allow participants to discussfuture development in Downtown Ann Arbor;Emphasize neighborhood involvement; andListen to and incorporate community input.

Goal #2:Increase the diversity of housing types and uses in the Down-town:Reinforce and build upon the importance of Downtown as acenter for jobs, cultural, and housing activities which wouldhelp keep it vibrant all day and active all year round;

Create a balance of uses;

Goal #3:Recommend a plan that connects land use, transportationand pedestrian-friendly design:Reinforce and create prominent mixed use corridors withhousing, jobs and commercial uses within the existing landuse pattern;Goal #4:Recommend a set of Downtown development standards whichare easy to follow and enforce:

Goal #5:Provide the City Council with clear direction on a DowntownDevelopment Strategy:Consider a strategy for implementation steps;Identify catalyst sites for short term and long term develop-ment.

Ultimately, one of the policy recommendations regarded openspace, in particular, the library lot. Here are the selected policyand open space recommendations made by the Calthorpe Study.

Policy: Encourage the creation of new public spaces withinthe Downtown and rehabilitation of existing spaces:

1VSTVFBOEEFTJHOB5PXO4RVBSFPSDFOUSBMDJWJDBSFthat incorporates an outdoor meeting place, an artcenter, underground parking, an indoor facility, andmixed-use buildings: (bold added)

Use streetscape improvements to create pedestrian friendlyspaces;Reinforce pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Huron

River Greenway along Division and Main streets;Rehabilitate Liberty Plaza;Encourage and provide incentives for development propos-als that include publicly accessible open space; and4UVEZ BOE QVSTVF UIF mOBM "MMFO$SFFL(SFFOXBZ5BTLForce recommendations.

Downtown Ann Arbor presents a unique opportunity to cre-ate a multi-modal center. Students, families, and seniors in-creasingly use non-auto forms of transportation and the Cityshould build on this momentum.

Resume of Calthorpe Report continued

16


17/19

PedestrianFor Downtown Ann Arbor residents, non-motorized transportation is a crucial component of mobility. Residents of AnnArbor are much more likely than the national average to walkto work (20% compared to 3%), and this is reflected in the

high-quality pedestrian and bicycle networks.

New local-serving pedestrian and streetscape improvementsshould focus on connecting the core mixed-used districts (Ker-rytown, Main Street, State Street, and South University) andalleviating pedestrian dead zones and barriers (Huron Street).Civic improvements including, sidewalk crossings and streetfurniture as well as private improvements in ground floor retailand building faade design, need to enhance the urban fabricbetween the districts. Streetscape improvements are often citedas the catalyst for reinvestment.

Members of the community expressed concern for the numberof existing surface parking lots that are visually unappealingand detract from the pedestrian experience in Downtown:

Policy:

Use Streetscape enhancements to help improve pedestrianconnections betweencore retail, civic, and adjacent residential neighborhoods:

Phase in a series of gateways to Downtown Ann Arbor;

Policy: Improve transit service within the Downtown connecting existing and regional transit facilities:

e Fifth Avenue civic core within the downtown is domi-nated by surface parking lots and inhuman building scaleF7JTJPOQMBOEFNPOTUSBUFTIPXUIF$JUZNJHIUBEEB

NVDIOFFEFEi5PXO4RVBSFwPSDFOUSBMQMB[B"DPNCJOB-tion of civic uses including an outdoor amphitheatre as welBTNJYFEVTFSFUBJMBOEPGmDFXJUIVQQFSnPPSSFTJEFOUJBwould add much needed housing, pedestrian activity, andTBGFUZUPUIFBSFBF7JTJPOBMTPTIPXTBOJNQSPWFE#MBLF5SBOTJU$FOUFSBOEBSFEFWFMPQFE:.$"TJUFUIBUTIPVMEretain aordability. (bold added)

Redevelop the library parking lot. is lot might be ap-propriate for a design competition and should include acentral town square, underground parking, and residential uses. (bold added)

Study the impacof removing the surface parking stalls for the library lot andabsorption into surrounding DDA structures.

Use streetscape improvements to create pedestrian friendlyspaces.

Install new street furniture on key pedestrian linkages(benches, drinking fountains, bicycle racks.

17

Resume of Calthorpe Report continued


18/19

e City has acted upon the Calthorpe recom-mendation to construct an underground parking garageunder the library parking lot, but not on the open spacepark recommendations. is structure should have had agreen roof, not thirty-six surface parking spaces that onlyserve to dissuade motorists from using the now abundant

underground spaces.

e Library Green Conservancy proposes thatnow is the time to develop Ann Arbors central urban parkand that it should be located on top of the new under-ground structure. Our advocacy is for a public place, acenter for community activities, of mixed and multi, four-season use, basically green and open with the possibility ofan over-the-road upper level plaza and community build-ing (low density) including a connecting way to LibertyPlaza park.

Many public spaces in America are maintained by not-for-prot Conservancies, organized for public benet,run democratically by local residents in consultation andcooperation with governmental units. It was for this pur-pose that Ann Arbor residents created the Library GreenConservancy, open to all Ann Arborites and friends of our

town in support of the Library Green vision.

e wide public agreement about public space,the library green endeavor, and the creative contributionsof so many have both heartened us, and left us frustrated.e experts and professionals seem not to hear.

is Citizens Report is a public dissent from theDDA report and is a product of the Library Green Con-servancy.

View our web site: www.a2centralpark.org.

Conclusion

Citizens Report on Reuse of the Top of the Library Lot

Ann Arbor, January 2013

Library Green ConservancyNow is the time to

develop our central urban park

Now is the time to

develop Ann

Arbors central

urban park

18


19/19

FifthAvenue

Willia

mStr

eet

Citizen's Report on Reuse of the Top of the Library Lot, January 2013

Documents

Transcript of Citizen's Report on Reuse of the Top of the Library Lot, January 2013