Home

From our Discussion Board

The Chuck Moss Adams Square Challenge

C. Moss
Posted: Feb. 22 2003,15:12

Hey Buzzies, would-be BCC candidates, and other interested parties: Ol’ Professor Chuck has a little written problem for ya:

FACTS: A hypothetical strip shopping center...let’s call it ”Adams Square”… is old and outmoded. Half bordered by a stable residential district, half by smaller office and government property, the center was anchored for years by a major grocery chain and a large mom & pop hardware store. Competition from newer nearby shopping districts closed the grocery store. The consequent fall-off in traffic and big-box competition now claims the hardware store.

Remaining tenants are a small chain drug store and various little businesses, plus a modest attatched office building. The property is large, with ample lot parking, but sits on a road where widening prospects are nil. The major grocery space has been empty for some time, and there are few good prospects for the hardware store space. The property is east end of an long, ill-defined commercial/office district, not in the “downtown” or PSD. Left empty, the property is a source of blight and decay.

ASSIGNMENT: You have a working majority on the Birmingham City Commission. What do you do?

Clueless Student
Posted: Feb. 22 2003,16:46

Professor:
Um...ah...er...the dog ate my homework. Yeah, that's it...the dog ate my homework! No, it was...um ..it was LANZETTA'S dog that ate my homework! Yeah, that's the ticket! It ain't my fault! It's the fault of that BCC for sending the message that business is a bad thing that drove Maskill's out. Never mind what the family said in the paper about small independents, we know the truth! Never mind that Farmer Jack's is probably going the way of K-mart and in big trouble areawide. Never mind that the bigger, newer, trendier Kroger took their customers, we know the truth! It was our BCC that LET it happen! It was Lanzetta.... and his damn dog!

I say we charge down to City Hall and hurl insults at them! When they come up with something we''ll mock them and call them stupid. Yeah, that will do it!

Anyone have any better suggestions? God, I hope so.

C.Moss
Posted: Feb. 23 2003,14:19

Clueless gets an "F."

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Feb. 23 2003,15:13

Chuck:

Interesting problem and one which Bham has probably never had to face before. Adam's Square is a remnant of an earlier time and was designed originally as a kind of precursor to the malls which now surround us. In its' day it was probably considered to be the model of the new suburban retailing style but now is a type of center that has lost its identity and purpose to some extent. It probably isn't big enough to provide for the current "big box" approach to grocery retailing and is sufficiently off the beaten path to not be attractive to major chain stores of any kind. With the limited traffic on Adams it is questionable wether or not it can avoid becoming our first abandoned shopping center like we have seen in other cities. Still it is a sizeable piece of property close to a major artery so it could be a chance to do something significant. Maybe it shouldn't be retail at all or should have a ballance of neighborhood type retail and residential and even some medical/dental office space.

Anyway, it's a great opportunity for some creative planning.

jap
Posted: Feb. 23 2003,16:50

Interesting question Chuck?

The entire builiding is owned by 2 different people, I believe the cut off is at Maskill's (anyone now for sure)? The Farmer Jack's space has a clause that another food market could not take it's place.

However, Maskills could house a food market?

My suggestion is to move Papa Joe's over there to eliviate the congestion at it's current location, or Trader Joe's,(which has 2 locations currently; Royal Oak and Farmington), or a Whole Foods type market?

The Farmer Jacks space could then house a Linens and Things, Barnes and Noble, Pet Supplies, Great Indoors, Expo Furniture, etc.

Just some ideas!

Socks
Posted: Feb. 23 2003,23:00

jap---Don't try to write, don't try to think, and, especially, don't try to use big words. It's all too painful to watch. Just keep shopping and shopping. Maybe next time you apply to be the resident shopper you'll get the appointment.

jap
Posted: Feb. 23 2003,23:31

Socks,

Your response to Chucks problem was?

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Feb. 24 2003,00:57

Julie's post brings up an interesting possibility. It appears the existing retail space is too small to support any kind of major retailer and apparently a small food retailer can't compete with the newer Kroger store. Maybe the northern portion of the center could be demolished (after relocating the RiteAid) and then Bowers Street could be extended eastward and then north to the Post Office creating a new parcel which could be developed for townhouse type residential. This would be compatable with the adjacent residential to the east and possibly provide sufficient volume of customers for the remaining neighborhood service retail. Also, it might provide some lower cost residential close to town for younger families, singles, and those of us not quite ready for the American house but tired of the drudgery of single family home ownership.

Potentially, maybe the entire site could be reconfigured to restore the street grid and have a combination of townhouses and neighborhood service retail pushed forward along Adams.

The Watcher
Posted: Feb. 24 2003,10:41

BINGO Roger!!!!!

Thats the ticket. Death to all strip malls. Especially in a "walkable" community. Strip malls are a direct assault of the quality of life in a city.

The more strip malls and subdivisions in a municipality, the more it is built for cars only, the weaker it is. Isnt that why we live in Bham instead of Troy, Novi or Clinton Township.

Adams Square is a dog! Put it out of our misery.

The idea of developing the parcel with a mix of mostly residential units with minimal retail and possibly minor office is right on the mark. The intersection of Adams and Bowers would finally be humane. It also would anchor Bowers and re-emphasis the 2016 plan ideas to develop Bowers into a proper street.

That is IF, we ever get a credible Commission again who will do what the city residents want
- implement the real 2016 plan.

Sorry JAP, the worst thing that could happen would be to put Papa Joes in the strip mall.

That would inject new life into the strip mall and it would be years until we could rid our town of the Adams Square eyesore. Lets move forward and not backwards toward 1960's junk.

Tear down Adams Square - built a walkable community!

Long live the people and not the cars!

C. Moss
Posted: Feb. 24 2003,11:25

Promising start, JAP. Keep going.

“Socks,” you get the James Ellsman Award for the week. Big “F.”

Watcher: your critique and insights have radical implications—follow them to their conclusions and get more specific. You’re on to something big, but be advised, Portland-style “walkability” is getting fresh critical scrutiny. Please dispense with the editorial comments. Remember-- according to the exercise, YOU have the majority now.

Roger: I hereby deputize you as TA.

The Watcher watcher
Posted: Feb. 24 2003,13:12

One thing Portland has that we don't is a viable public transportation system and a consequently higher density of residential. With neither present here, it is necessary to provide parking for all the people that will have to come to this site to support any kind of retail presence. It would be nice to think that the residential component along with the nearby neighborhood could support the retail, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. Also, the presence of the site on a major north/south route to Troy and beyond can't be ignored nor can the needs of the homeowners in the neighborhoods to the east.

The Watcher
Posted: Feb. 24 2003,14:44

To make the point a little clearer. The idea of retail on that site is limited in today's market. Especially since we now have a montrous strip mall from hell blocks away on Coolidge. The peak of the Adams Square strip mall's life is long gone.

The site should be considered as a primarily residential site. Whatever other uses - retail or office should be very minor. Condo's that provide high medium density of units with more affordable prices - $250-450K would be ideal and would bring a nice mix of housing into the near downtown area.

On another point, I would also suggest the idea that Adams should be treated like Lincoln. Two lanes of parking and two lanes of traffic. Why should it be a small cut through freeway for Troy workers. Thats what mile roads and real freeways are for. Make Adams a more pedestrian friendly street and that entire area would be better for its inhabitants.

Whats all this talk about Portland? I am refering to basic walkable, urban principles.

BUILD for PEDESTRIANs. Its pretty basic.

Sidewalks, mixes of uses, mixes of housing types, proper street widths and uses. Transit and Growth boundaries are regional discussions. Lets get these 2 square miles correct before we base everything on larger concepts.

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Feb. 24 2003,17:01

Watcher:
The idea of Adams as a "Lincolesque" street is terrific! No doubt we would get some resistance from our traffic engineers but, since this excersize assumes a majority on the BCC, that could be overcome. I would suspect the residents of the neighborhoods east of Adams Square would support it wholeheartedly. Great idea! That's probably what Adams looked like before the shopping center.
What do you think the fallout would be from that decision? Where would the traffic go? ( it isn't going to disappear) What would be the impact...negative and positive...on other adjacent businesses? On residential property values? Potential redevelpment as a result of the change? I think you are on to something bigger than just this single site. The impact could be immense.

ONE
Posted: Feb. 24 2003,17:19

Watcher - 450K and a view of the Post Office or Fire Station, what a bargain!!! Aren't there an abundance of condos in that price range by that "monstrous" new strip mall you mentioned? I vote for the Dante Lanzetta Memorial Flea Market, the Carney Car Wash and Gordo's Grocery (a down-scale market specializing in unhealthy foods)!! Seriously though, if it can be re-configured, this is a great site and should remain commercial in character. Does anyone happen to know the approximate size of the site and whether there is more than one owner as JAP indicated? Too bad Beaumont couldn't have moved its rehab facility there instead of the old Builders Square facility on Coolidge.

jap
Posted: Feb. 24 2003,17:31

The Farmer Jack's site is almost 20,000 square feet.
I do not know the entire sites size. Yes there are 2 owners, I just am not sure of where the cut off is.

The Watcher
Posted: Feb. 24 2003,17:58

One

Views in walkable urban areas are not usually negatives, simply because the proximity to downtown and other assets are what you pay for. The views from the Willits building or even the houses that face parking lot 7 at Shain park are nothing to be proud of - but the location is awesome.

For this same reason, the condos on the Adams Square site would be different than those at the montrous strip mall on Coolidge. These condos would be "almost" in downtown Birmingham. A very valuable asset. A completely different market than the Troy project.

Besides, the Adams residential development would hopefully be designed more carefully than the Troy projects.

michael
Posted: Feb. 25 2003,02:52

Back to Chucks question, the site is privately owned. The city could look into the current zoning of the site and if it is not zoned for residential, change the zoning to encourage it. The idea of creating a new mixed use residential community in place of the giant parking lot and strip mall is a great one.

In addition, Bowers streetscape could be developed to make the short walk to downtown a great one.

C. Moss
Posted: Feb. 25 2003,11:45

ONE: you're on academic probation. Quit beefin' about politicians and work on the exercise...or go sit in the corner with Peter Gough.

EVERYBODY: The more I think about Watcher's ideas and Michael's points about zoning issues, the more I’m convinced that a key issue is density. The current Adams Square is a low-density use. Should the Adams Square property remain low or be redeveloped into a higher density, with appropriate ordinance changes? Keep in mind the limitations of the Adams/Bowers road network and that adjoining neighborhoods will reflexively prefer no change in density. This doesn’t mean no change is possible, only that those wanting higher density will have the burden of proving their case.

What do you think? Low Density or High Density?
Why, and how?

NAL
Posted: Feb. 25 2003,12:12

Chuck, I like the idea of increased density on that site and would really love to see the width of Adams reduced to assure traffic moves at the posted speeds. Right now people jockey for position and I know there has to be some negative safety issues there. I understand that there is a possibility during the rebuilding of Adams Road, north of Maple, to reconstruct the lanes to be one north, one south and one left turn lane. Obviously, this would help to slow traffic south of Maple and would help it become "Lincolnized". There is no reason that I can see that Adams Road must be accommodating to the cut through traffic

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Feb. 25 2003,14:06

NAL:
Chuck could probably fill us in but I think there has been controversy for years about Adams Road versus Big Beaver widening. By effectively narrowing Adams through Bham the traffic from Troy and Somerset might naturally flow westward to Woodward and not through the largely residential Adams corridor. Bham has steadfastly refused any attempts to widen Adams, as it should, despite the pressur from the county Road Commission, I think. Chuck?
The recent move by the BCC which was so widely criticized to install the sidewalk on North Adams may not have been so foolish after all. It really is a way of marking our territory and telling the county traffic planners that Adams through our town is not a highwat to Woodward, but a local street for use by local people for access to our neighborhoods. It's actually classic "traffic calming" strategy....put pedestrians first and throttle down the cars. Hey, wait a minute, you don't suppose Lanzetta is a step or two ahead of the rest of us on this one, do you? Hmmm?. Perhaps the closing of Farmer jack and maskills and the sidewalk issue are not coincidental.

NAL
Posted: Feb. 25 2003,14:17

Geeez...wouldn't that be something.

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Feb. 25 2003,14:38

NAL:
Chuck could probably fill us in but I think there has been controversy for years about Adams Road versus Big Beaver widening. By effectively narrowing Adams through Bham, the traffic from Troy and Somerset might naturally flow westward to Woodward and not through the largely residential Adams corridor. Bham has steadfastly refused any attempts to widen Adams, as it should, despite the pressure from the county Road Commission, I think. Chuck?

The recent move by the BCC which was so widely criticized to install the sidewalk on North Adams may not have been so foolish after all. It really is a way of marking our territory and telling the traffic planners that Adams through our town is not a highway to Woodward, but a local street for use by local people for access to our neighborhoods. It's actually classic "traffic calming" strategy...throttle down the cars before they get into the place where you don't want them.

Hey, wait a minute, you don't suppose Lanzetta and the others are a step or two ahead of the rest of us on this one, do you? Hmmm?. Perhaps the opportunities created by the closing of Farmer Jack and Maskills and the North Adams sidewalk "issue" are not mere coincidence.

Chuck
Posted: Feb. 26 2003,02:06

Okay: questions:

WIDENING ADAMS: Adams north of Maple for a few blocks is very narrow and hemmed in by trees. Bham Traffic Consultant Mike Labadie insisted these be cut down and Adams widened to 4 lane, national traffic standard. The neighborhoods S.Poppleton and Bham Estates went ape, and the subject was never broached again. “Widening Adams” remains a political third rail on this side of town… hopefully forever.

South of Maple, there was never any real pressure to widen. When I sat on Traffic & Safety Board, South Of Maple Adams (Catchy name: “SOMAA?”) was never really discussed. It was always wide enough to handle the traffic. Had anyone wanted to widen it, there would have been opposition because it would have been seen as feeding more volume into North of Maple Adams, a political third rail…etc.

COUNTY PRESSURE TO WIDEN ADAMS: I don’t know about almost 20 years ago. Today, I wouldn't worry about pressure to widen Adams as long as County Commissioners appoint the Oakland County Road Commission board.

BIG BEAVER WIDENING has been a perennial topic of discussion. The advent of Somerset Mall made quick and easy route from downtown Bham to Somerset seem a no-brainer. The subject was verboten during the iron-fisted reign of Bloomfield Township Supervisor Fred Korzon. After Fred retired,the big roadblock remains the bottlenck at the Big Beaver railroad bridge. Estimates in the mid-90s were 1 million bucks to build a new overpass. Now with a widened BigBeaver/16Mile/MetroParkway that stretches to Lake St. Clair, both the Township and Bham are happy that the major east-west thoroughfare stops at Adams.

CALMING OR LINCOLNIZING SOUTH ADAMS it’s different from Lincoln--almost a purely residential street which had been 2 lanes until around the 1970s. Adams is commercial and office, a North/South “mile“ road, a major artery, and has a fire station. Any attempt to narrow or slow S. Adams would take a lot of convincing.

CHANGING N.ADAMS TO THREE LANES: A study in the late 90s to narrow North Adams to 3 lanes concluded that such action would make congestion and cut-throughs worse for the residents…and Traffic & Safety agreed.

The Watcher
Posted: Feb. 26 2003,10:48

Chuck

For further discussion on making Adams a nice street.

The arguments to keep the highway nature of Adams can be
easily debated and altered for the better.

Consider:
FIRE STATION ?- truck access is a non issue. Lincoln, Eton and Bates are fire routes and work fine. Adams would be no different.

NORTH/SOUTH MILE RD ?- This is no more a high traffic "mile road" than Cranbrook road or Southfield as it enters Bham. Adams is only 2 lanes for miles going north -all the way into Auburn Hills. As it enters Bham it grows to 4 lanes. Why? It should remain 2 lanes of traffic. Why are we accommodating for more traffic when the communities to the north are not?

A COMMERCIAL STREET? - not true. for 2-3 blocks it has primary commercial use - but north of Bowers it slices through a 100% residential neighborhood except for the Maple intersection.

When you disect this opportunity - it looks like a strong option.

What a better place the Adams corridor would be. A properly scaled Adams at Bowers would really set the stage for a the redevelopment of Adams square into a great multi-family residential project with minimal retail facing the Adams/Bowers intersection.

Lets Get It Done!!

C. Moss
Posted: Feb. 26 2003,12:30

Good thoughts, Watcher. Any Adams Square redevelopment will have to address the traffic issues.

So, to original question: Adams Square. You are the BCC. What do you do?

ONE
Posted: Feb. 26 2003,19:24

Chuck - Thanks for not putting me on "double secret probation"!! I think the answer to your question is simple, the BCC should do NOTHING! It is my understanding that the property is privately owned, and thus the owners should be able to determine what use they desire to make of the property within the context of applicable zoning and building codes. Perhaps the BCC could refer the matter to the Planning Commision so that it could contact the owners and determine if they have any interest in working with the city to re-develop this "almost" downtown parcel. Are you suggesting that the BCC should somehow intercede or interfere with the plans of the private property owner(s)? Unless the owners approach the city to request a re-zoning, variance or special exception of some sort, the BCC should stay out of it. If the city attempts to re-zone the parcel without the consent of the owner, it will probably end up facing an inverse condemnation suit. To the extent that the prevailing sentiment (which I don't share) is to promote "walkability" and develop the parcel for residential use, perhaps the city should consider expending some of the parks bond money to buy all or a portion of the parcel and create a new public park. I am definitely on board however with a 3 lane Adams roadway from Maple to Woodward with a center turn lane.

P.S. - Have you switched political parties since the last election? I always thought you had supported private property rights in the past.

Terry Gates
Posted: Feb. 26 2003,20:21

It is private property, let the owners develop it. That being said, here are some things that could be there:
1. Old Navy Outlet
2. Upscale Paintball facility
3. Upscale Laser tag facility

By upscale, I refer to the facility provided jackets to register "hits" be nicely tailored suits etc. Fixed targets inside could include DJIA stock ticker, full size targets of corporate swindlers, Hussein / Bush / pick your own economic nemesis, several abandoned Explorers & piles of Firestone tires to hide in and behind, and finally large freshly mined chunks of our Bham failing sewer system for cover.

Who needs an abandoned warehouse in Pontiac and a bunch of would be Michigan Militia? Build it and they will come.....

C. Moss
Posted: Feb. 26 2003,22:44

TERRY and ONE: Okay. So you say, "BCC do nothing. Let the free market take its course." Fair enough. That's the first "answer" to the problem I've gotten.

Any other responses?

michael
Posted: Feb. 26 2003,23:12

Quote (Guest @ Feb. 26 2003,22:44)
TERRY and ONE: Okay. So you say, "BCC do nothing. Let the free market take its course." Fair enough. That's the first "answer" to the problem I've gotten.

Any other responses?

Chuck,

What are you complaining about? You said we hold the majority and you got an answer after only 4 days of debate. Thats record time for the bcc. Be happy it wasn't 4 years.

ONE
Posted: Feb. 27 2003,10:46

Terry - Although I like the Old Navy idea, based on the proximity of their retail store at 15 & Coolidge and the demographics of the community I can't see the outlet thing happening (plus I'm sure that Rona/DustyEtang would abhor the concept of discount retailing in Birmingham). I'm on board with your other suggestions though as long as the "fixed targets" include likenesses of the current BCC fearsome foursome.

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Feb. 27 2003,12:14

Number One:
I largely agree with your statement that the BCC should allow the free market to run its' course. However, we have a Community Development Department that should at least contact the owners of the property and offer to help them take the direction that they think is best for them. It may very well be that the owners are satisfied with the center as is and would simply like to find a new tenant to occupy the empty space. It could be, too that they haven't considered a new use for the property but maybe they will after testing the market for the space. At any rate our CDD should make themselves available to let the owners know what options might be possible. My guess is that this has already happened.

I am interested in your statement that you don't share the sentiment for residential use on the site. Since I originally suggested a mix of relatively high density residential (townhouse style) and some retail most of the posters here....with the exception of Terry....have focused primarily on the residential component. I had in mind a project of a more balanced mix. I'd like to know what you are thinking and why

T.W.
Posted: Feb. 27 2003,15:28

ONE (one what?)

Why is it ok for the BCC to mess with private property in the neighborhoods and in downtown and not in this area? Double standard? Typical.

When the city has a black spot, like Adams Square,
our "leaders" should be pro-active. Inform the vancant, ugly, land parcel owner that we expect more in our city. Encourage proper development for our future. Assist the owner where possible. We cant force anyone, but we can sure encourage, In many cases, the owners arent even aware of better options and may embrace the concepts. It may very well be a better solution for them financially. And surely ofr the city.

Hey One, what dont you like about a "walkable" community? Do you ever use our city? WALK downtown, through the neighborhoods. Get out of your car and check it out. Its a nice place. Those of us who WALK through Bham want more places to do so. Adams street sucks for walking.

One final note. As was stated previously, there is NO good reason for any more than two lanes on Adams. Three lanes is not good enough to make a real pedestian friendly street.
Two lanes of parking and two for travel is a proven success throughout Bham. Do it there.

ONE
Posted: Feb. 27 2003,15:50

T.W. - ONE = Observer Not Eccentric. I never implied that I supported the BCC involving itself with any private property unless requested by the owners or to deal with code or zoning violations. What double standard (and how would you know what is "typical" for me)? I have been walking this community for over 44 years (probably a lot longer than you have). I went through the Birmingham schools as have my children. Whether its 2 lanes or 3, people will still use Adams as a cut through from Woodward & 15 Mile. If there are only 2 lanes the backups will simply be longer or force more people to consider using Eton as a cut through.

Roger - I guess its just that old habits die hard. I have been going to Adams Square to shop and dine for decades and will simply miss having retail there. My concern is that many sites which were formerly retail or service have now been torn down and replaced with upscale condos that don't seem to be selling very fast. I am worried that retail in Birmingham is dying and may become non-existent one day. I don't have a particular objection to a mixed use development but would prefer a new city park. With all the city property being developed, there are not a lot of opportunities to acquire land for new parks with the bond dollars. This may be a great opportunity to acquire a parcel of significant size for this purpose.

T.W.
Posted: Feb. 27 2003,17:43

One

"Typical" was in reference to the BCC.

We are park heavy in Bham. There is a large school park a couple blocks south of Adams Square. This town needs more revenue or our taxes will be increased. Parks cost money and make nothing.

More residents will allow our existing retail to be stronger and will provide considerable revenue to hte city. Keeping our taxes in control.

What we really need is more residents and more housing options. Condos do not have to be as high end as in downtown where the land is more $$. Condo develop on Adams Square could be more affordable. It would provide an alternative segment in the market. The development could still have some retail, allowing for ammenities to the adjacent residents.

michael
Posted: Feb. 27 2003,18:26

A mix of higher density residential condos similar to the Eton Street townhouses along with neighborhood and specialty retail along Adams would be great.

The residential could be affordable (for Birmingham) in the $160k to $300k per unit. The retail could be similar to some of the existing stores on Adams like the flower shops, Clamore shop, bread / bagel store, travel agents, convenience store, Primos and the Whistle stop all right on Adams with sidewalks.

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Feb. 28 2003,06:05

There have been some really good and thoughtful comments made as part of this thread....all very positive and absent the usual snarliness that seems to be a characteristic of our little group. There seems to be acknowledgement that, despite the sentimental attachment some of us may have for Adams Square, it has probably outlived its' viability as a building type in light of the surrrounding new construction and the age and size of its' retail spaces. We all seem to agree that some form of redevelopment opprtunity exists which would ideally include some form of residential as well as retail, which is absolutely necessary for building a solid, sustainable tax base for the city. There is clearly an awareness that regional planning issues, namely Adams Road, do affect Birmingham directly and cannot be ignored in any discussion of land use in our town.

Now the question posed by Professor Moss still remains. If we can generally agree on what we'd like to see happen on that site and given that the exercise assumes a BCC majority, how would one proceed to help it to happen? What steps should the BCC take, if any? Remeber, in this game you are in charge...now what?

C. Moss
Posted: Feb. 28 2003,12:15

I'm heading out of town to a conference in D.C. until until Tuesday. Class is left in the capable hands of Roger Gienapp.

Remember the assignment: Adams Square. You are the BCC.
1) What do you think should be done?
2) How would you go about doing it?

For those free-marketeers who already handed in their papers, advising Bham to do nothing: you can still earn some extra credit. Suppose, one year later, the site is still vacant. As the BCC, NOW, what if anything do you do?

Something else to think about: Is there any way Adams Square could link up with the popular but so-far isolated destinations of Borders, Papa Joes, and Bakers Square?

Jared Rundell, Resident
Posted: Feb. 28 2003,18:47

Whoops, sorry I’m late for class.

Looks like a substitute teacher today, time to roll spitballs!

Adams Square huh:

Well, first I’ll thank goodness we here in Bham have a great track record for preserving our historic architectural gems, this is an important thing to do.

Unfortunately, we just don’t know when to let go of history. Here it is, the 21st century and judging by most of what’s gone up here lately, we just can’t stop re interpreting the past with silly parodies of 18th and 19th architectural styles courtesy of Home Depot the modern day “craftsmen”. (yeah I know, you’ve heard my rant before).

This being the case (and it is) let's really satisfy this yearning for the historic pedigree and fancy ornate detailing of centuries past. We can flex our relative financial might and raid some of the beautiful but dilapidated 1920’s houses down in Detroit. Let’s bring ‘em up here on flatbeds, one section at a time if need be. Position them in Adams Square fix ‘em up a bit, add some grass and BOOM Instant Historic District! We can even put up gaslights, require owners to park only pre 1930s cars on the street (sorry, that new Jag has to stay in the carriage house), allow only “certain” people to buy there, let those fire codes slip (since the firemen are across the street), add a soda fountain, resurrect the historic Maskill’s and maintain our period correct sewers!

Just like the good ole days… right?

It’ll be our own little functional Greenfield Village!

*** I'm only half kidding here folks***

michael
Posted: Feb. 28 2003,19:02

The zoning for the Adams Square site is B-2 general business according to the zoning map. Bowers was shown built up with liner buildings along the street in the 2016 plan and referred to as the Bowers gateway. The west side of Adams was shown infilled with buildings and streetscaped. The
Adams square site was left out but clearly the site makes sense as a higher density residential site with commercial and retail along Adams.

I believe B-2 allows multi family housing ( I don not have this months zoning, so I am not sure if that is still true) Anyone else happen to know the current status for B-2?

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Feb. 28 2003,19:58

Jared:

I couldn't agree more with your assessment of our unforunate penchant for psuedo-historical architecture....or psuedo-French, for that matter, but to each his own, I suppose. Besides, as an architect I have come to the conclusion that architecture alone does not make for pleasant comunities or pleasant spaces and even bad architecture can't screw up good ones...try as it might to do so. Nonetheless, style and design are not what this discussion is about. The challenge put before us was to determine what specific actions should/could be taken given the apparent decline in the viability of Adams Square, assuming the political power exists to do so. In other words, how would those of us who have accused our BCC of being ineffective deal with this opportunity? Finding out the perameters of the existing zoning, ownership interest in a redesign, etc. is all necessary background, but more to the point is how should it be handled strategicly? There seems to be some general sense of where to go, but how are you going to get us there?

Jared Rundell, Resident
Posted: Mar. 02 2003,14:40

I see your point Roger, but it is to a large degree about design.

First, city leaders should commit to having something done that is meaningful on that site. And then design a process to provide a builder/developer MOTIVATION for meeting a high standard of design and planning – whether it’s residential, commercial recreational or a mix.

I’m a firm believer in private property rights but let’s face it; if completely left to (most) builders / developers (as their primary motivation is profit), we’ll just end up with another maximum sq. footage, minimum cost short term profit project. Proper design by a qualified architect becomes an unnecessary expense that is thrown out the window. Much cheaper to recycle some plans from that Troy project and add some larger bay windows and a turret or two to meet a more “upscale” standard. There needs to be some added motivation to enhance the community- this is demonstrated in the neighborhoods when comparing builder spec houses built for maximum short term profit to houses built for people who own them and look to a longer term value and a desire to enhance the neighborhood.

Providing an incentive for builders to meet a high standard of design/development is what I see as the most important aspect of the 2016 plan (voluntary overlay ordinance) and providing a meaningful identity to our downtown as it moves toward the year 2016. Unfortunately our city leaders do not understand this: they had the opportunity to set design standards - preferably with the aid of a city architect as other cities have – but they never did and we end up with trendy garish buildings like the Palladium. Instead of "incentivizing" and focusing on enhancing positive possibilities, the overwhelming focus now is on the negatives, don’ts and deterrence by punishment after the fact. This only produces animosity; which in turn produces mistrust, a lack of cooperation, and a host of missed opportunities - thus our current chasm between city government and retailers/developers. End result, some boarded up stores at Adams Square for quite a while!

Whatever does go there should not be another missed opportunity for drawing people to the PSD (like Borders location). It should respect the sanctity of the adjacent neighborhoods and be something that the city can be proud of as well as making a profit for the land owner.

Enlist the support of a city architect, set some design standards and give developers a chance to meet them and, as they love to say at corporate meetings, you have a win win. Developers become welcome contributors to city's image, city rightly sets a midwest design standard for development, has reason to be proud of new development and sees increased property values.

Idealistic? Yes. Has it been done before? Yes - all over. It all starts with a commitment to a cooperative spirit between government and the private sector!

Birming-Hamster
Posted: Mar. 02 2003,15:29

Excellent points Mr. Rundell, but we're being graded on specific suggestions remember?

Here's mine:

1. How about poor Mr. Le Page's banquet hall with offices on the top floors. Maybe he'll get a break at this location.

2. Would this site support an Ikea store?? I keep hearing rumors that they're coming to Michigan.

3. Somerset Collection Outlet Store strip mall (if ya cant beat 'em, join 'em)
Understanding that rona or dusty would be caught dead buying last years Burberry's plaid there!

Of course all would be designed by a top local architect!

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Mar. 03 2003,10:06

Jared:

So far you are the only person I've seen who seems to have a clear understanding of what the 2016 Plan was all about at its' heart. It IS about design...not about building heights or "upscale" condos or any of the other red herrings that people have thrown into the stew. The Plan established minimum design standards which are non-negotiable that must be met as a condition of using the VOLUNTARY Overlay Ordinance and thus getting the benefits it offers, namely, not having to provide on-site parking for an FAR ablove 1. This was and is the heart of the Plan. Since the use of the Overlay is voluntary any design standards can be applied and a developer must comply or he forfiets his option to do so. Duany felt that our town was sufficiently sophisticated in matters of design to allow us to refine the standards to reflect our values and local sense of style, citing Cranbrook as an example of our heritage of design exellence. Unfortunately for us, he gave us way to much credit.

Now back to the problem at hand. How can the BCC "commit to having something done that is meaningful on that site"? What steps could or should they take to make that happen? We all seem to be able to see what the end product should be but no one so far has said how that could be facilitated.

Prof. Moss gave us an opportunity here to be Commisioner-for-a-day.....let's see some spirit. Then again, maybe it's not as easy as it looks from the outside.....hmmm.

Clinton Baller
Editor, Birmingham Buzz
Posted: Mar. 03 2003,15:41

What I would do if part of a majority on the Commission:

* Gather support for and publicly embrace the 2016 Plan -- not just the superficial stuff, but the real meat of the plan.
* Press for passage of an overlay ordinance more like the one originally suggested by Duany.
* Press for appointment of a Town Architect.
* Get the Planning Board off the backs of planning staff.
* Direct staff to approach the owners of Adams Square (and of the two gas stations and adjoining property, and of the property at Woodward and Bowers, and of any other potential development sites) about their plans and facilitate to the extent possible on an ongoing basis development in accordance with the plan.
* Insist on monthly updates from staff on such efforts.

diogenes
Posted: Mar. 03 2003,16:25

If it is as Jared and Roger says, “all about design” than it should not make any difference what goes into the space: office, retail, residential, or mixed use. The market ought to determine the use based the financial returns to the property owners/developers. Our proto-BCC's would be to hold the design bar high enough to produce the kind of buildings that would make our city a better place to live.

In my opinion we as the proto-BCC should do nothing initially. Opening or loosening the zoning to allow mixed residential without standards would seem to be an invitation to the folks at Maple and Coolidge to swing their condo crews in and builder up with more mediocrity. Being fair to the property owners, though, they should be allowed to use the existing zoning to do any kind of qualifying proposal.

During the “do nothing” period, the proto-BCC should establish an authority, let’s call it the Triangle Redevelopment Authority, TRA. Again in my opinion it would be unfair to others to just included Adams Square, so let’s say the authority covers Adams-Woodward-Maple triangle.

The TRA would establish a set of standards that would be voluntary. If you did not like the TRA guide lines, then you could use the existing zoning regs. You architect/planner types could fill in the standards to come up with good designs, that is out of my expertise. However, the process would need a non-quantifiable review process by someone or group to pass on the appropriateness and quality of the development. I am a little doubtful about “city architect” perhaps a board of 7 residents with varying areas of expertise. Sort of like the planning board. (don’t you love it. Say planning board and the Buzzards howl. Just like Pavloff’s dogs). Let’s sunset the authority in 10 years.

Incentives would be 5-year tax abatement of 13 mills and the city would pay for the infrastructure improvements for qualifying projects. Details to be worked out. Easier said than done but what the heck.

Funding. Suppose the triangle area has a valuation of $50 million and the costs of the infrastructure improvements are $7 million. I suspect only about 50% will be redeveloped within 10 years, so the abatements would cost $1.625 million. Let’s call the whole thing $9 million. We could redirect the Dreamcruise payments form the PSD which uses them as a subsidy for the west side merchants to this program which might generate $1.5 over the 10 year life. The balance would be funded through a 20 year general obligation bond approved by the voters. Yep, you’d have to sell this plan to the Ozzies. The bond would be repaid out of the excess property tax generated in the redeveloped district. It would work like this if the total city property assessment increased by 5% and the TRA increased by 6%, the 1% differential would go to retire the bond. If the TRA increased at a lesser rate than the city, the new developments would be included in a special assessment district to make up the short fall. This would hopefully force you to build well and build economically for the market.

Ok that’s done. Get the lawyers started. Next project.

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Mar. 04 2003,11:50

Great ideas, Diogenes! What you are describing sounds suspiciously like a DDA...Downtown Development Authority. Such an animal is prescibed by State law but does allow for various types of funding mechanisms and tax structures to facilitate redevelopment of "depressed areas". A section of the 2016 Plan report that was written by McKenna and Associates describes in detail how a DDA works, how tax increment financing is applied, and what the criteria are for qualification of an area for DDA status. Conceptually, the idea is solid and could be a means to take a less than ideal situation and turn it into an opportunity to revitalize an entire district.

The major idea in this case should be to look beyond the immediate vacancies at Adams Square and focus on how the seemingly dispersed and diverse components of the entire district can be tied together. Chuck Moss referred to that in a previous post but no one has taken up the idea. One thing that the current zoning does to discourage the idea of knitting the district together is to require each individual property to provide on site parking in a prescribed quantity for each building. A DDA could be the means by which a centralized shared parking facility or lot could provide for the parking and thus allow for more intense development to occur on land now used for largely empty parking spaces. The numerous driveways and curb cuts could be eliminated making for an environment more suitable for people to walk.....a "walkable community" kind of thing. Many of the property owners guard their parking jealously so it would be a tough sell, but the effort would be worth it in my opinion.

ONE
Posted: Mar. 04 2003,12:12

Roger & diogenes - When I suggested similar tax abatements or incentives be considered in the CBD in an effort to shore up first floor retail, Curious Onlooker suggested that I should remember Economics 101!!! On my drive in this morning I noticed yet another business on Old Woodward (North of Maple) which had closed. If I had my druthers, I would rather see the BCC focus their efforts on revitalizing the Old Woodward & Maple corridors of the CBD, and when these storefronts have been filled, then turn their attention to developing Adams Square.

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Mar. 04 2003,12:47

One:

To clarify things, let me say that it was Digenes that suggested tax abatements, not I. In fact, I abhor the concept of tax abatements and consider them merely "welfare for the rich" at the expense of the rest of us. What a DDA uses instead is TIFA or tax increment financing which creates incentives to improve proerties rather than incentives to abandon ship for the community willing to give the most attractive tax abatement deal.

Notwithstanding my own opinion on the subject of selling the future for the present, the topic here is Adams Square and the adjacent area. Chuck Moss asked the Forum to suggest ideas and/or strategies to assist....or not....the redevelopment of the property.

diogenes
Posted: Mar. 04 2003,13:09

Roger, please not a DDA. First, my plan ends in 10 years. Most DDA’s keep living long past their needs. Second, we could never qualify for tax incentive financing. Lastly, and most importantly, we need to use voter approved general obligation bonds so that there is a clear mandate from the whole community to do this type of planning and project. If you can’t pass the bonds, then you shouldn’t do the program. I don’t think the abatement I have suggested is the typical give away since it contains a penalty clause and over its life does not cast the taxpayer anything. You are tight TIFA is probably better but we can’t qualify.

As to central parking, I am not so sure it is needed or advisable. I would rather use large, attractive, sidewalks and carefully designed individual parking lots. As a walker, curb cuts do not really bother me. But you could be right.

One, I don’t recall your exact post so if I miss-state your case please forgive me. Most CBD abatement suggestions have been for direct general fund subsidy to existing uses and have not carried a performance penalty. To me this has just props up uneconomic uses at the taxpayers expense. I tried to suggest a program that would subsidize whatever uses the market chose, retail, office, residential, or mixed. Secondly, the bonds would be repaid by higher tax revenues form the district and the interest covered by the Dreamcruise payments. Thus not costing the taxpayer in the long run. If the projected increase in tax revenue did not happen, the users of the abatements would have to pony up and repay the bonds or the short fall. Hopefully this might avoid the slash and burn developments that has plagued many DDA’s

Roger Gienapp
Posted: Mar. 04 2003,15:06

Dio:

As I understand DDA's a sunset can be placed on them to ensure that they do not become a permanent fixture. Also, I think we could demonstrate that the district does qualify for DDA status based on declining property values, vacancies, etc. Again, I'm not certain of all the criteria but I do recall hearing McKenna say that if the will is there a way can be found. TIFA is really the same kind of thing you are talking about, isn't it? Higher future tax revenue will pay for the initial "seed money" provided through bonds...I think we're talking about the same thing, just in a different form or by a different name. I need to research DDA's a little more before I say any more.

As for centralized parking, I think doing so might provide for a better chance to increase the density in the area a bit more and may lead to essentially moving Adams Square to the Triangle itself and free up that land for more appropriate development. Parking lots, no matter how well designed they are, are just empty space and are inherently an inefficient use of land. I'm not suggesting a parking deck...God, the last thing we need is to get the PAC involved, but more on the order of several municipal metered lots around which denser businesses and retail could be organized. Proper connections could be provided via walkways, etc. to make the area more of walking area as opposed to a "drive up and run" kind of a place. If you look at the bank east of Border' it is surrounded by asphalt parking and drive-through lanes and is completely inhospitable to humans. That could change significantly with a shared parking approach.