Twin Myths: Tall Buildings and a Bypass

Spectator

By Stephen Tuttle | Feb. 5, 2022

Do you know what downtown Traverse City needs? More tall buildings and lots of them.  

We can't stop there. We need smaller houses on smaller lots to avoid a dystopian future of actual elbow room. Those yards where kids could throw a ball or climb a tree with maybe enough room for a vegetable garden? A terrible waste of potentially valuable urban land on which multiple dwellings could be constructed; four or five houses per acre seems about right, and if we really planned it just right we could get six or even more little houses per acre.

Green space is wasted space and old trees are just in the way of the development we need. More impervious surfaces, more roofs, and more run-off is preferable when we worship the almighty God of Density.  

What we don't need are places to park or even cars because everybody will be taking the bus or riding a bike or walking in our tall, dense, soulless downtown. And we obviously don't need families because we prefer a downtown where there is no place for kids to be kids. Our modern downtown will be a new kind of upscale ghetto of expensive condos, short-term rentals, and high-income individuals. 

Increased pressure on the infrastructure? We'll cross that newly reconstructed bridge when we come to it.   

It is not at all clear the people constantly chanting the density mantra have found a real answer. There is no reason to believe taller buildings will include any more affordable housing than currently exists because the market, not the fantasies of wannabe social engineers, will determine price points on new housing. Unless, of course, taxpayers would like to subsidize the land acquisition, construction, and rents so a relative handful of people can live in a neighborhood those paying the taxes can't afford themselves.   

Neither is it clear the density merchants represent the views of the rest of the city or the region. It seems more likely there is a small group constantly reinforcing each others' ideas providing a false sense of support. We know, for example, Traverse City residents do not want tall buildings downtown because they have clearly so stated twice at the ballot box. Yet the idea persists, pushed by those who keep supporting each other in an ideological bubble the majority would prefer to burst.  

The developers can't be blamed for wanting to create something that pencils out better for their bottom line. They are not altruists or charitable organizations and they will never build affordable housing downtown, regardless of height, unless we're all willing to pay for it. The re-imagining of Traverse City's downtown into something it has never been and has no desire to become is the responsibility of the new urbanists whose vision is not shared by most of us.

Meanwhile, Grand Traverse County has received another report on the Great Bypass, an attempt to find a way around east-west traffic congestion. After a six-figure study, the consultants have decided some version of the infamous Hartman-Hammond route is preferable. Sigh. We've seen this movie before. 

This option, which includes a 2,200-foot-long “causeway” up to 75 feet high across the Boardman River and its riparian wetlands, has an $81.4 million price tag as of now. We're told this configuration would be more sensitive to the ecosystem it would pass over; environmentalists will vociferously beg to differ. And it would be years if not decades before such a bypass could be constructed so the actual price tag would increase significantly.

To be fair, this study isn't folly by the county but a federal requirement if they ever want to actually try to construct a bypass and qualify for some federal permits and dollars. 

The real problem is not the cost or even the environmental concerns though those could well be sufficient to prevent the project from ever being started in the Hartman/Hammond configuration. The real problem is, despite the consultants' projection of significant reduction of traffic congestion on South Airport Road by 2045, it's just as likely the opposite will happen.

Back in the 1980s and '90s there was a road construction boom in the US, especially in the rapid growth states like Arizona, California, and Texas. The idea in every instance was to reduce traffic congestion and commute times. There were dozens of subsequent studies that discovered, much to the surprise of most, traffic congestion actually became worse when new roads were built.     

It is due to a phenomenon called Induced Traffic Demand (ITD). New roads encourage more people to drive and encourage development that increases traffic. If a bypass in any configuration is ever built, both it and South Airport Road will likely end up congested.

That's a shame because plenty of us will be happy to bypass the high density downtown now being promoted.