tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6304699593905915672.post8374018740964463781..comments2023-07-03T05:00:43.262-04:00Comments on Traverse City Young Professionals: Affordable Housing in Traverse City: Building Up, Not OutUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6304699593905915672.post-78527138304196122342015-09-17T14:00:45.287-04:002015-09-17T14:00:45.287-04:00I am in favor of building to the density limits of...I am in favor of building to the density limits of the City's zoning ordinance and master plan. So I'm certainly in favor of the "building up" part of this piece. However, there isn't necessarily a correlation between that building "up" and not building "out". A lot of what is being built in downtown TC are luxury condo's. I think that for some buyers these are taking the place of lake homes that they might otherwise have bought in the area. But my guess is that for a lot of buyers that's not the case. Particularly because these condo's aren't all that large. To some degree, my guess is that these condo's are simply a new market segment. <br /><br />That observation (if it's true) to my mind doesn't apply nearly as strongly to the proposed workforce affordable apartments at 305 W Front. Most people don't rent multiple apartments (like they might own multiple homes) so I think that these apartments were they built "up" would to a great degree supplant some housing that otherwise would have to be built "out".<br /><br />In order to really build up not out in the TC region we'd need the City to be building up (which it somewhat has been doing) and the outlying townships to not allow building out (which they largely have not been doing). Peninsula is perhaps somewhat of an exception here in terms of their PDR program of buying development rights, but they are an outlier. Not to mention they just approved an 81(?) unit subdivision almost all the way out in the village of Old Mission. <br /><br />To really build up not out we'd need a more regional approach to zoning which would force higher densities than are otherwise currently permitted in the City and the "urbanized" areas of the surrounding townships. And likewise force much lower densities in the areas of those townships that were outside that urbanized area. An urban growth boundary if you will. Yes, I know they do that in Oregon. https://www.friends.org/<br /><br />But something like a UGB is not likely to happen because there's too much vested interest in keeping things the way they are. Witness the renewed drumbeat among Korn, et al for the Hartman Hammond bypass, which is predicated on the idea that we need to provide easy motoring to, from, and around TC from all of the outlying areas of the townships, basically in order to permit the continued sprawl development of those outlying areas. <br /><br />Hartman Hammond is largely predicated on the idea that South Airport is over-burdened. A different approach to that alleged problem would instead of building another road out beyond the currently urbanized area of TC, would be to build more densely up along South Airport itself. Imagine instead of that mostly empty parking lot at Cherryland Mall a multi-story, mixed-use apartment building, with folks who otherwise would have a long car commute in from outlying areas now having a short car/bus/bike commute. Something along these lines is actually what the Grand Vision (groan) called for doing in response to congestion on South Airport.<br />MGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02888965627741326779noreply@blogger.com