Urbanism Part Of Traverse City’s Dna

Nov. 4, 2016

This week we learn if Traverse City residents will require a public vote on every new building proposal over 60 feet. Regardless of the outcome, Proposal 3 has shown that our community desperately needs to have an adult discussion about the larger issues of growth and development.

After reading Grant Parsons’ harsh attack on New Urbanism in the October 17th issue of this publication, I am compelled to help set the record straight. While I hold Mr. Parsons in high regard, I also have great respect for the ideas and people he has so unfairly criticized.

Mr. Parsons: “Instead of collaborating with residents, city hall spackled over all questions with a “one answer fits all” New Urbanist policy, tacked a veneer of “affordable housing” over luxury condos, and declared it a done deal.”

New Urbanism is not a “policy.” It is a planning and development approach that encourages walkability, connectivity, mixed use and diversity, mixed housing, quality architecture and urban design, traditional neighborhood structure, increased density, green transportation, sustainability and quality of life. Housing downtown, however, is a policy— on the local, state and national levels.

Downtown development opponents have consistently questioned the Pine Street developers’ plans for affordable housing without clearly recognizing that the Michigan State Housing Development Authority doesn’t consider applications for low-income housing tax credits until a project has its local approvals. This includes receiving a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) from the city.

We know that they were likely to receive the credits from the state, especially considering its proximity to urban amenities and public transportation. This was never a guise— a major partner had a successful history of developing affordable housing, and this was part of their plan from the beginning.

I also find it disingenuous stating that city hall didn’t “collaborate with residents” when planning, even though they were working within current zoning and more broadly, the framework of the Grand Vision— a regional approach to development which channels most new growth toward already built-up areas, and which is based on the preferences and comments of nearly 15,000 area residents.

Mr. Parsons: “City hall did not decide the tall buildings project based on city zoning. It adopted New Urbanist ‘dense downtowns’ policy. It decided taxpayers should pay millions, and cranked up a PR campaign.”

This is a baseless accusation, as there is no evidence that a “dense downtowns” policy was used in place of city zoning. In fact, the uses and scale proposed on Pine Street were consistent with the City’s Master Plan and zoning through the SLUP process.

Planners have encouraged density in urban core areas because it offers an alternative to the sprawling, single-use, low-density patterns that have been shown to inflict negative economic, health, and environmental impacts on communities.

Buildings from 68-85 feet are currently envisioned and allowed in the small C-4c district just to the south of our historic downtown along State Street. Developers can build up to 100 feet in these areas with a SLUP and this has been part of our zoning code since 1999.

I have written about Tax Increment Financing (TIF) in the past, so in the interest of brevity: Both Downtown Development Authority (DDA) TIF and Brownfield TIF invest captured funds for a fixed number of years and in a defined district, which in turn benefits the community with vastly-higher taxable property values. But for these incentives, little or no redevelopment takes place.

Lastly, there is no proof that the city “cranked up a PR campaign” to promote density. The city and the DDA did contribute $5,000 each towards a $30,000 study of Grand Traverse County tax values. No one can argue that the results, which showed that higher-density properties generate disproportionately higher property taxes, were in any way manipulated or altered to give these findings. Indeed, this was leadership responding to critics by actually doing the math. Unfortunately for Mr. Parsons, the math doesn’t support his claims.

Mr. Parsons: “No doubt, some city hall functionary read a book – or attended a taxpayer-funded junket – and listened to some pinhead from a large metropolitan area pitch a doctoral thesis version of snake oil.”

I suspect that had Parsons actually read a New Urbanism book or attended a conference, he wouldn’t be making this assertion. New Urbanism’s emphasis on smart growth has been broadly recognized and utilized by urban planners, architects, developers, community leaders and historic preservationists all over the country.

Finally, there is nothing “new” about New Urbanism. Although it arose as a movement in the 1980s, it is based on centuries-old principles of how our best cities and towns have been built: walkable blocks and streets, housing and shopping in close proximity, and accessible public spaces. This has gradually influenced many aspects of real estate development, urban planning, and municipal land-use strategies — including those in Traverse City.

Over the years, Traverse City Planner Russ Soyring and planning commissioners, along with many city residents, have advocated for including some of New Urbanism’s best practices in the City Master Plan and zoning ordinances. These are not the ideas of fools or charlatans. These concepts form the DNA of Traverse City’s birth and growth. Rediscovering these concepts, and then building upon them, has contributed to the evolution of Traverse City, and to the very character that some opponents claim they are trying to protect.

Christie Minervini owns Gallery Fifty at The Village at Grand Traverse Commons, and is active in causes of education and homelessness in the Grand Traverse region.