Gearing policies solely to hypothesized future down town residents and the tourist who come to the restaurants etc. will continue to drive Ann Arbor residents away from shopping down town. Surveys already show that Ann Arbor residents are staying away from down town. Many retail establishments formerly patronized by city residents have gone under as the DDA has attempted to increase traffic for the restaurants etc while neglecting the needs of the city residents. It was only recently that they even had a parking survey done.

The Library Administration has sent out a request for proposals for a “needs assessment” of the long-term future of the Downtown Library. This assessment should be done within six months. The Board will be eager to see the recommendations of this assessment.

With crime falling, as Karen Sidney has demonstrated, I see no pressing need for expanding the police station or building a new court facility. With the economy depressed and the City’s budget not in the best shape, now is not the time for succumbing to an “edifice complex.”

Councilman Suarez:

I read with interest and pleasure the Ann Arbor News article regarding your position on the location of the new police and courts building. Count me as one of your constituents who feel strongly that the library sight is NOT an appropriate location for this facility. Please hold your ground on this issue.

Colleen Crawley

As a member of the Community Security and Public Space Task Force, I have been concerned by press reports of the discussions, and particularly by what appears to be an overly narrow focus on portions of the issues that we considered. In retrospect, we did a poor job of presenting our conclusions in our final report and, perhaps more importantly, the underlying reasons for them. I will certainly accept my share of the responsibility for the report but want to take this opportunity to to give you my sense of our reasoning on three issues.

Much has been said about the undesireability of separating the Police and Courts from the other City functions, and there are clearly some valid
reasons for keeping them together. For almost the entire duration of the Task Force, the discussion of potential sites constantly focused on housing the Police and Courts as a part of a total City Hall project that also included a significant public space, or Town Square. The latter was clearly part of our charge as reflected in the task force name. It was only at the very end, when we reluctantly concluded that there was no apparent way to finance such a total project without going to the voters for a millage, did we seriously consider moving just the Police and Courts to the Library Lot. However, the intention clearly was that it would be the first step of a phased project to bring all of the municipal facilities to that site. There are valid reasons and long-term economic justification for replacing City Hall, but we did not have the time or resources to thoroughly investigate all of the economics, nor was it clear that such efforts were a part of our charge. The possibility of taxing utility property was never put forward by staff. I know the impossibility of your committing a future council to do anything specific, but the adoption of a master plan for the site that includes all of the components would certainly help to create the climate for its ultimate implementation. Speaking strictly for myself, I could not support relocation of just the Police and Courts to the Library Lot without
the clear understanding that it is a first step, and that the remainder of the project would be realized as quickly as possible. The site is far too
valuable and symbolically important for that function alone. The second issue is the repeated allegation that these facilities would
create a “dead zone.” That phrase has acquired all of the cliche qualities of “stay the course” or “cut and run.” It is true that police and courts by themselves do little to create urban vitality, and again this is a reason to oppose relocation of only these two components. However, the alternatives proposed, such as high-rise housing, also do little for urban vitality. Residents would primarily come and go by car to and from an underground garage, with a trickle of a few coming and going on foot. There are no really good market alternatives. Retail activity cannot fill the space currently available and in the pipeline. No one seems to think that Downtown needs more bars and restaurants. If the Library Lot is to support any meaningful urban activities, they will in all probablity have to be programmmed. Successful urban spaces in other cities are designed and programmed for music, film, food, skating, people watching, etc. The AATA Terminal and the retail at William Street Station will generate some activity, and the City Hall can and should provide public meeting and exhibition space. The Task Force considered performance space but concluded that such a use was not in our scope of work. Concerted efforts will be required, but a creatively designed and managed Town Square is probably our best option to enhance the quality of life downtown.

Finally, the far larger quantity of parking that can be built under the Library Lot offers the potential for significantly increased public parking
in a desireable location. Any decision to build on the Library Lot should include assurances that City government will not incrementally consume more and more of the parking, leaving the public and the Library with no more, or even less, than they have now.

In sum, I believe that it was the sense of the task Force that the Library Lot was the far better choice, but only as a part of a complete package.

Thank you for your consideration of these observations.

Sincerely,

Carl Luckenbach, FAIA
Luckenbach|Ziegelman Architects, PLLC
255 E. Liberty Street
Suite 277
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

I understand that tonight you will be discussing the future location of City Hall and police/courts facilities. I have reviewed the three options, and think that all of the options are deeply flawed, mostly because of the financial baggage each was given. It appears that using the existing Larcom Building site was given only a cursory study, whereas the Library Lot option was given the added bait of ‘free’ money from the DDA, thereby slanting the discussion to one obvious (pre-ordained?) favorite. The rough financials only harm the discussion because they don’t address the real costs of each option. What will happen to the Larcom building if a new city hall is built? what does the city lose by not reusing the building and/or site? what will the new city hall or addition look like, i.e. will it be masonry and stone, or cheap materials? will it use sustainable design, and maximize windows for all employees? All of these things affect the finances and it is foolish to make a decision without knowing them.

But let’s say we do need to make a decision, let’s take the financials out and look only at the physical characteristics of each site. Doing this, I came to the following conclusions.

I think that the Larcom Building Option 1 is the best, with several provisions. First, the addition should be built up to the street, or close to it, to maximize the usable floor space. The first floor should be more welcoming, open, and visible than the current building. Second, the ‘addition’ should in fact be a replacement for the Larcom building. Couldn’t it be built in stages, gradually dismantling the Larcom building as construction progressed? similar to the Courthouse Building on Main Street, which was built around the original building first, and then the original was torn down as the new was finished. This could result in a lovely amenity for the workers - a courtyard space within City Hall.

Of the three, putting the new facility on the Library Lot is definitely the WORST, for the following reasons:

(1) Size & access: The library lot appears much smaller than the current city hall site, and certainly has worse access. The current location has access to three streets, the new location has access to two and much more limited access at that. This could provide considerable traffic and auto circulation issues.

(2) Sense of place: The current city hall lot is the historic center of our city and should not be abandoned. It has great visibility on the main street (Huron Ave), not tucked away like it would be on Fifth Ave.

(3) Loss of true library lot potential: The biggest reason I hate the idea of moving city hall to the library lot is because the library lot is the single best opportunity for a downtown park. I mean a real park DOWNTOWN, not in the Old Westside where they have plenty of parks. Even if you installed a street running along the north side of the library for patrons to park for 15 minutes and pick up reserved materials, there is a lot of land left. There could be an outdoor auditorium for small plays, and a plaza which would make a better place to protest than the tiny Federal Plaza. It would link Liberty Plaza to the Library, and energize both. A park here would provide great synergy with the library – think of all the activities that could be done outside! concerts, kids activities, small group readings in summer, etc. That would be a much better use than a desolate parking lot.

Please don’t build over this surface lot without a study on its use as a civic plaza. It is an amenity Ann Arbor could really use, now and long into the future.

Sincerely,

Kristen A.G. Schleick

We, the undersigned, are adamantly opposed to the development of the “Library Lot” for Municipal and Federal office facilities. The Library - with parking - is a centerpiece of downtown Ann Arbor modern development. With the tremendous increase in downtown living space, its importance to the citizens of our city will only grow. Better synchronous planning for downtown development and citizen interest is in order.

In addition, we support the letter sent to you today from Joan W. Blos.

Sincerely,
Peter Blos Jr., M.D.
111 South Fourth Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Bobbie and Myron Levine
356 Hilldale Rd
Ann Arbor, MI48105

Please add my name to the list of persons strongly opposed to the plan that would surround the Ann Arbor District Library on Fifth Avenue with buildings dedicated to Municipal and Federal use.

I understand that some persons believe that this is an appropriate use for this location and that parking, sufficient to meet the needs of
persons served by these buildings is a high priority. But the cost is
dear, too dear many of us believe. We are dismayed to learn that
Liberty Plaza, the only functioning park in the central downtown area,
is at risk; we deeply regret that serving library patrons will no
longer be regarded as the top priority for the eponymous Library Lot. I
have heard it rumored that even Kempf House is not safe from this
predatory plan. Any one of these actions would be unfortunate. Together they constitute a serious threat to downtown Ann Arbor. and the very things for which it stands.

I have been a downtown resident and a member of the Citizens’ Advisory Council (CAC) since 1987. Twenty years ago Main Street was five blocks and fifty years from State Street. Now Main Street has undergone an impressive revival. It needs to be supported, not undermined, by planning that promotes governmental use and turns its back on the community.

Our downtown library identifies the center of our city in important
ways even as the prominence of New York City’s 42nd Street Library
identifies New York. Significantly the twin lions that guard the
entrance to the New York library are named Patience and Fortitude. It
is to be hoped that the City Council will stand as fast as lions and
that the threat of encroachment by Municipal and Federal offices and
their parking needs will be roundly defeated. Ann Arbor will thank you,
its citizens will thank you, and I thank you.

Sincerely,
Joan W. Blos

Re: CITY HALL DOWNTOWN LOCATION
Hearing date: 27 November 2006

To Mayor Hieftje and Members of City Council:

I believe that City Hall, Courts, and Police Headquarters should occupy a prominent location on a primary thoroughfare of downtown Ann Arbor. These functions should NOT be located mid-block in a secondary commercial area at the fringe of downtown. Our local government buildings deserve visual access, along with practical and functional access, all of which are already evident in their current location on Huron Street. Don’t make us all slaves of the automobile and the money to hide cars underground in new structures. Times change. We should NOT sacrifice sound urban planning for short-term cost savings to achieve this narrow benefit for a downtown destination that serves our entire city.

I live very near City Hall in its current location, and I accept that
our city government functions need to expand, both in services and in scale, wherever they are located. I envision improvements to the
current site that are mindful of the multitude of functions of city
government, and respectful of their context near other city services and the adjacent historic district. City Hall is a good neighbor to our
downtown residential neighborhood. We value the proximity and ask that City Council retain this relationship.

City Hall has served the city well at its current location on Huron
Street. I urge you to consider the long-term benefits to our citizens
as you make the decision to renew and expand City facilities in the
current location.

QUINN EVANS | ARCHITECTS

Ilene R. Tyler, FAIA, FAPT

Having lived in Ann Arbor for at least 50 years, I cannot imagine not having an Open Space with parking beside the District Library. I’m not too pro a suggested skating rink, etc. in this area. I am very much against building a new City Hall and District Court on this site.

I urge you to consider creative and optional ideas. Some ideas: 1- Consider building just a vertical/taller Court building on the lot next to the Library, this would save ground level space, leaving open space and some parking at this site. Without some parking next to the Library, it will not be as viable or useable, especially for elderly people who may no longer be able to walk any distance.

2- Enlarge City Hall and the Police facility on the current City Hall site, even if it means purchasing more space there. I wonder if the City Hall could have floors added to its height? It could go up, instead of out on land surface? There must also be some minium (15min.parking) at this site.

3- Or consider purchase of and use of the Ann Arbor News site and build the District Court building there. There really is no reason that the Court must be in same building as the police.

4- Some community space and parking must be saved for the lot next to the Library.
I wonder about the cost and “looks” of a narrow rectangle parking structure perhaps at one end of the current parking lot. One could be built next to a new 4-floor Court building. This would allow more Open Space in this area. Actually an attractive Court building in this area would add a different atmosphere in this area of town. If this Court building were 4 or 5 stories, perhaps City Hall wouldn’t need so much new space, saving costs and space to build out.

Please take your time considering many ideas before you make a decision. Whatever you decide will have a lasting impact on the downtown area. We, citizens do trust you to make wise decisions, We did elect you and have faith in your representing us.

Good Luck and Wisdom to you,

June Rusten