Column: Top 5 moves for Ann Arbor now that U-M will buy South State property

Paula Gardner | By Paula Gardner |
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on February 25, 2014 at 11:56 AM, updated February 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Ann Arbor City Council made the right decision Monday night when it failed to reach the required eight votes to exercise its right of first refusal and purchase the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street.

That the city and all of the taxing authorities in its jurisdiction will feel the loss of $6 million in tax revenue over 20 years is a given.

edwards-brothers-aerial.jpgThe Edwards Brothers property on South State Street, pictured in this aerial photo, contains a 185,000-square-foot facility on 16.7 acres of land.  

But what wasn't certain is how a purchase of the offices and factory building - the longtime headquarters of the book manufacturer - and the 16.7 acres it occupies north of Interstate 94 and south of the University of Michigan athletic campus would play out for the city.

With Monday's vote, U-M is poised to close on its deal to purchase the property for $12.8 million.

Here are my top 5 considerations for the city as it evaluates the impact:

1. Ann Arbor needs to insert itself into U-M's planning of the site. It's hard to believe that no renderings or plans exist for the property, but so far U-M is saying nothing is final. So let's see how willing U-M is to work with the city on ensuring that the site's development aligns with city goals. Developers often complain that the city's planning process drags out a project. Privately, they'll admit that it also makes projects better. That's possible here, too, if city planners can offer their expertise and insight into how this corridor could be maximized.

2. Yet the corridor isn't exactly maximized now. This is a highly trafficked gateway to the city, yet the area north of this doesn't convey much about Ann Arbor's vibrance. With U-M poised to spend millions on the 16.7 acres, the city has a chance to mobilize and motivate neighboring property owners to reach the heralded "highest and best use."

3. It's time to revisit the South State Street Corridor Plan. Yes, it was just issued in 2013. However, a major portion of the corridor is facing a big change - one that doesn't resemble the city's stated goals. The plan calls for office or residential uses on the property if it's redeveloped, and it shapes the land use map for surrounding properties based on that. Recent conversations about how much housing density the site could support, or putting retail along South State, all raise zoning and master planning implications.

4. This has to be a catalyst for better town-gown communication. We hear mixed signals about how U-M and city officials communicate, and that's just one sign that there is room for improvement. Ann Arbor seems increasingly uncomfortable with U-M property acquisitions, yet welcomes U-M's investment in this city. That tension alone warrants the effort to make each party aware of possible changes - and open the possibility of improving the outcomes of changes for both sides, if handled well. Each side seems to need a spokesperson with some authority, along with clear definition of who needs to be a part of what type of discussion.

5. We need to learn something from Lower Town. I'd urge every city official who voted for the city to buy the Edwards Brothers property to drive (or even walk) the Lower Town property. This remains a piece of property with high development potential. However, it also remains a symbol of the level of risk the city faced if it bought the property. It's not a straight parallel, but we've tried public-private partnerships, and we've tried to drive development on city-owned lots, and success has been rare and recent. The city just sold the so-called "Y Lot" after many years, but still has several other downtown properties that await focus. That will take staff time and community attention. Lower Town still stands as an obvious example of how public-private partnerships can fall apart and how developers can oversell potential, funding, and more. While the city seemed to be talking to developers interested in a "flip" of the Edwards Brothers property, I'm convinced that all of the risk would still have rested with the city, leaving the developer free to walk away at the first sign of a problem.

(Paula Gardner is editor of The Ann Arbor News. Contacted by email or follow her on Twitter.)