March 29, 2024

A Tale Of Ten Stories

July 8, 2016

The battle over tall buildings in Traverse City has expanded from Front Street to Eighth Street. The idea hasn’t been any more popular there.

We arrived at this seeming obsession with the need for 10-story structures in two ways: First, a two-decade old master plan calls for buildings up to 95 feet in certain areas with a special use permit. Second, some have decided our concern over affordable housing can be solved by putting it in the most desirable locations in the city, with plenty of subsidies and tax deferrals and magic-money funds.

Unfortunately, there are those who would now characterize the debate as a kind of class war: haves vs. have-nots, pro-growth vs. anti-growth, young vs. old.

There isn’t any evidence it’s any of those things. No one is circulating petitions attempting to stop growth or progress. There are plenty of older and younger people on both sides of the issue. Rich and poor alike also populate both sides of the issue.

What we have here is an anti-10-storybuilding-hard-against-the-sidewalk-ina- downtown-full-of-four-and-five-storybuildings movement. They’re on record supporting a 60-foot structure on the same spot so it’s hard to legitimately argue they’re anti-growth. One need only look around to see there is commercial and residential construction and growth in some abundance. Traverse City is one of only three cities in the state realizing a real population growth. If there is an anti-growth movement, it is taking a terrible beating.

Eighth Street is full of two-story structures with mature residential neighborhoods just a block away. Master plan aside, residents aren't likely to welcome a 10-story building looming over their backyards.

Master plans are not laws but useful and necessary guidelines. They can be revisited to reflect the population they intend to serve. It's foolishness to treat ours as if it was carved on stone tablets with divine bolts of lightning and brought down from Mount Urbanism by the ghost of Robert Moses. It can't be a sacrilege to revisit a 20-year-old document.

The argument is that downtown is the best place for affordable housing because we can go taller, create more density, provide workforce housing and create a critical mass of something.

But downtown is home to some of the most expensive chunks of property in the city and certainly among the most desirable. There isn't any mystery about why. Old-fashioned market forces come into play. There is plenty of demand and not much supply.

That means affordable housing downtown will be significantly subsidized housing and there will be tax breaks and deferrals aplenty for the developer. It’s the only way to subvert the supply-and-demand realities. Some people call that essential economic development, and some call it outrageous corporate welfare.

It means we’ll be subsidizing housing so people can live in a location we cannot afford ourselves. That's a tough sell when you add in the 100-foot height.

Additionally, there is no way to require those living downtown to actually work downtown. Theoretically, any new residential structure, no matter how many stories and no matter how affordable, could be occupied entirely by people who do not work downtown.

The irony here is that Traverse City is so small there isn’t any location within our 8.9 square miles that isn’t convenient to downtown. (The exception would be the little boundary peninsula that encircles the airport.) That someone has to live downtown instead of a mile or two away is foolishness.

There are other areas of the city that could use a redevelopment boost, including housing, not to mention areas immediately outside the city limits. Downtown need not be the only option. (Perhaps downtown merchants would like to subsidize a reliable park-and-ride system with BATA so workers don't have to live or park downtown.)

Shorter buildings might not pencil out with quite as much profit margin, and they won't provide as many residential units. That's why it would make more sense to look elsewhere for affordable housing and let the market work downtown.

Yes, that would likely mean more high-end condos, some owned by people who won't live there year-round. It would also mean there’s no need for most of the financial breaks for the developer, including tax increment financing and payments in lieu of taxes. That could be a nice bump for the city's tax rolls.

This isn’t a debate about depriving people of affordable housing or trying to close off opportunities for people who want to relocate here. Nobody is even suggesting any of that. The debate is simply about size — 100 feet tall or 60 feet tall.

Some people just don’t believe bigger is better, especially when it comes to buildings in Traverse City.

Trending

Mysterious Michigan Reads

We can’t think of a better way to spend spring break than with a great book. Northern Express asked local bookseller... Read More >>

Heirloom Recipes With Heritage, History, and Nostalgia

Before we begin to stash our coats and put winter behind us, let us remember what years past have taught us…fake sp... Read More >>

A Floral Family Affair

In the quaint downtown of Elk Rapids sits Golden Hill Farms, a shop where the artistry of floristry meets the rustic charm... Read More >>

A Look at Originalism

O Tempora O Mores! Oh the times, oh the culture. This Latin phrase relates to both the 18th century and our current times.... Read More >>