The Arizona Daily Star’s banner headline on Sunday was “Luxury for students”.  The article by Carli Broseau focused on a run-down (no pun intended) of the development that is in full swing or being planned in and around downtown Tucson and The University of Arizona.

For a few years now, UA officials have been predicting a stampede of future college students coming to Tucson. This rosy forecast has caused developers, restaurateurs, bar owners, and local politicians to salivate like Pavlov’s dogs at the mere thought of 1000s of frolicking students flooding downtown and 4th Ave., armed with Daddy’s credit cards. Regardless of political party, the Mayor and City Council members– eager to see downtown revitalization before their next elections– have vigorously promoted student housing as a panacea for what ails downtown.

Historically, The Tucson Progressive has been highly skeptical of this purported cure-all for Tucson’s sluggish economy– particularly in light of the high rental vacancy rate and the UA’s ever-increasing tuition. I have questioned the wisdom of knocking down historic homes and destroying our city’s character to speculatively build mini-dorms for future students. Republican and Democratic city officials alike told me not to worry; if we build it, they will come.

Brosseau’s article about speculative maxi-dorm development has moved me from skeptical to being scared. She details the astonishing amount of maxi-dorm development being planned or constructed in and around downtown; 2092 student housing “beds” — in three large developments– are under construction, with another three projects (consisting of 342 beds) poised to start soon. Just a year ago, the Arizona Daily Star reported that the new influx of students may result in an additional 1200 students living downtown. The District on 5th alone– that collection of ugly, giant boxes on 6th St, just off of 4th Ave– offers 756 “beds”. (Seriously, couldn’t they have hired an architect with some sensitivity to the historic character of the neighborhoods nearby?)

You’ll note the use of the term “beds” and not rooms or apartments. I foolishly thought that when UA officials and politicians talked about privately funded student housing development downtown they meant apartments– that could be rented by students or others wanting to live where the action is. But no. The District and other maxi-dorm developments are dormitories– not apartments. From the Star…

Student housing is different from traditional apartment living.

Students rent by the bed, not the unit, [I wonder what the square footage is?] and complexes have far more common space for amenities than would pencil out financially for an apartment complex.

The rooms typically are furnished, and each bed generally is paired with its own bathroom and shared space. Amenities like pools, fitness centers and study spaces are expected – the most valued extra, a 2009 University of Arizona market study found, is tanning beds.

After that study concluded that 2,000 to 5,000 more beds were needed, local developers and national powerhouses have rushed to put together deals. They’re motivated by typically higher profits than traditional apartment complexes, long-term population growth and student enrollment projections and the modern streetcar, now under construction, that will link the UA to downtown. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, if the students decide not to rent the bedroom/bath units in these complexes or if students don’t come here in the predicted droves, these buildings could have lots of empty bedrooms. No adult in their right mind would rent a bedroom downtown for the price of an apartment or small house elsewhere in the city ($350-1027/month). In fact, about 20 inches into Brosseau’s story, she quotes a 2009 UA market study that says close to half of the UA’s students don’t rent units in large complexes like the maxi-dorms. Imagine that.

To make the situation even more disturbing, Brosseau says that the UA is now “backing away from earlier enrollment projections of a 12.5 percent increase over the next five years.” Uh, oh.

Is downtown going to be dotted with hulking, empty dormitories… or worse… more dirt lots waiting for development?

Post script: I don’t mean to dis Broseau’s well-crafted and informative article, but wasn’t there any real news to print on the front page with a four-column, full-color photo and 80 point headline?

Each August Tucson– like college towns nationwide– sees a flurry of activity as students move back to town and scramble to find lodging.

In recent years, local mini-dorm developers have gone wild– buying up cheap houses (thanks to record foreclosures and a glut of houses for sale), unceremoniously leveling the said houses, and constructing mini-dorms– the scurge of Tucson’s University-area neighborhoods.

This year– with a 15.9 percent rental vacancy rate– Tucson is a renters’ market. For rent signs abound. Good for students and other renters. Not so good for landlords and mini-dorm developers.

Back in April, I pondered the fate of the mini-dorm market– given dramatic hikes in tuition at The University of Arizona. Tucson’s recent designation as the “sickest housing market in the US”, its recent designation as the most impoverished city in the Sunbelt, and its glut of unrented rentals make my question even more poignant: Will mini-dorms become empty monuments to greed?

How much you wanna bet that mini-dorm developers Michael Goodman and Richard Studwell try to sell these architectural behemoths to the city when they can’t rent them?

Adobe casita in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

When we first went house-hunting in Tucson in the early 1980s, our realtor thought we were crazy because we wanted a house with architectural style and wooden floors. Having lived in Columbus’ city core in an old Victorian-era brick double, we didn’t realize what a tall order this was in Tucson, our new home.

We spent several weeks driving around older neighborhoods in July in our AC-free Toyota Corolla with Judy (our chain-smoking realtor) and our baby daughter searching for style, affordability, and a house worth the sweat equity we were going to have to invest. We finally settled on a California Bungalow handyman special in the Pie Allen Neighborhood, priced at $34,000– the cost of some new vehicles today.

If Judy thought we were crazy while we were house-hunting, she probably really thought we were nuts when we bought that place, but we saw style and potential in that little house with the inviting front porch, the volcanic rock columns, the cozy fireplace flanked by wooden built-ins, and the large back yard– ready for a swing set and sandbox. Little did we know we were downtown pioneers before downtown was hip.

Thirty years later, many other urban pioneers have joined the struggle to breathe life into Tucson’s older neighborhoods and help downtown become livable and even fashionable.

At yesterday’s City Council Meeting, historic preservationists in Tucson won a major battle against the mini-dorm industry. The Council approved the Neighborhood Preservation Zone (NPZ) overlay for the Jefferson Park Neighborhood. The NPZ will restrict mini-dorm development by limiting the scale of new construction, making it more difficult to build a second story and limiting the size of a building to no more than 35 percent of the lot size. This is the second NPZ the Council has approved– the first being the Feldman Neighborhood NPZ in 2009, which developers are fighting.

This week, Tucson is hosting historic preservation conference, which will include a heritage discussion on Wednesday, June 22 at Hotel Congress.

Also, this week, a new guide to historic homes in Tucson was published.

Next week, at the June 28 City Council Meeting, the Council will consider a proposal to amend the sign code protect and preserve historic landmark signage older than 1975. Although I am a bit concerned about inclusion of “transitional” signage between 1961-1974 in this amendment, I think it is a worthwhile effort to protect the funky neon signs that mark Tucson’s past as a motor hotel haven.

With this volume of preservation activity, will Tucson save its unique architecture and sense of place? I hope so.  I don’t want developers to make Tucson into a place where there is no there there. I still remember the July thunderstorm clouds gathering over the old courthouse’s mosaic dome and the reflection of the Tucson Inn sign in the swimming pool that night in 1981 when we first visited Tucson.

Wooden doors in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Crumbling adobe home in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

El Rapido sign in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Fireplace with nichos in an old adobe home. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

The old Corner Market in downtown awaits TLC. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Inviting entrance to restored downtown adobe home. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

1036 E. Waverly St.-- an old house destroyed by Michael Goodman to build a mini-dorm. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

1920s Territorial style adobe in midtown demolished to build a 2010 house of ticky-tacky. (Photo credit: Pamela Powers)

Tucson has a long history of dozing history and later lamenting it. Two prime examples are the Convento, built in 1770 on the west side of the Santa Cruz River and covered by a landfill in the 1950s,  and, of course, the large swaths of Barrio Viejo, which were razed during an urban renewal frenzy to make way for the Tucson Convention Center.

The latest chapter in the let’s-knock-down-old-buildings-and-make-a-fast-buck book is the demolition of historic neighborhoods near the University of Arizona to build mini-dorms and high-rise student housing.

The destruction of Tucson’s historic architecture came to mind recently as I listened to To the Best of Our Knowledge, a thoughtful Sunday afternoon program on National Public Radio (NPR). This past Sunday they explored the idea of “place” and our deeply rooted connection to home and homeland.

Primarily the commentators lamented the homogenization of America, an America that has lost is “peculiarity,” its sense of history, its sense of place.  Cities and towns that were once distinctive due to the architecture, the ethnic populace, and the local food and culture have been turned into wastelands of fast food restaurants that serve the same food nationwide and strip malls filled with imported brick-a-brack.

This is what mini-dorms developers are doing to the Feldman and Jefferson Park Neighborhoods and trying to do to other older neighborhoods in Tucson’s core– grind up historic homes and spit out cookie cutter mini-dorms. The destruction is glaringly evident in the video below. Entire streets in the Feldman Neighborhood have been converted to mini-dorm ghettos of stucco and particle board.

Tucson City Council vote

Mini-dorm in the Feldman Neighborhood. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

1933 Territorial style burnt adobe in midtown. (Photo credit: Pamela Powers)

The latest battle in Jefferson Park’s war against the mini-dorm developers is the hearing and vote at the Tucson City Council meeting on June 21, 2011. The Jefferson Park activists have been working with the city to develop a Neighborhood Preservation Zone (NPZ) overlay to protect the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. Currently, mini-dorm developers are taking advantage of low housing prices, a slow residential sales market, and foreclosures to cheaply buy single-family homes on R-1 lots and replace them with mini-dorms that house 4-6 residents (plus girlfriends and boyfriends) in structures specifically designed for college students. The size, scale, and designs of the mini-dorms are not compatible with the historic nature of the bungalows and adobes in any of Tucson’s older neighborhoods.

Mini-dorm developers are destroying Tucson’s sense of place. It’s time for Tucson politicians to stop cutting deals with developers who want to destroy our history to make a fast buck.

The Tucson City Council should approve Jefferson Park’s NPZ and work with mini-dorm developers to find locations– outside of historic neighborhoods– for multi-unit student housing. (Here’s a hint: there are several vacant car dealership lots on Speedway and abandoned businesses on Stone and First.) Leave our historic neighborhoods intact– or live to regret it. Do we really want old town Tucson to look like Oro Valley on steroids?

Pop Quiz: Which of the above structures has a sense of place and history? The one on the top or the one on the bottom?

Cluttered with so many signs that you can hardly see the street, Speedway Blvd. was dubbed the ugliest street in American by Life Magazine in 1970.

Being known as “ugly” is not a good designation for a town that lives on tourism. In the 1980s, Tucsonans passed landmark sign code legislation that has gradually whittled away billboards and reduced the number and scale of signs.

Tucson Sign Code works to beautify our city, and that is why it is under attack by the sign industry and local businesses. The question is: Will the Tucson City Council have the backbone to protect it? Judging by recent “business friendly” rulings by the City Council that have weakened the Sign Code, don’t hold your breath. (In December 2010, they voted unanimously to allow more signs and larger signs along Tucson’s scenic corridors. In March 2011, they voted to allow the Jewish Community Center to erect a billboard on the side of their building, which is in Tucson’s scenic corridor.)

The latest Sign Code battle is being fought on two fronts. Business interests are pressuring the City Council to eliminate the Sign Code Appeals and Advisory Board (SCAAB), the citizens’ review board that hears appeals when businesses want a variance to the sign code, and to pass a historic sign amendment to the Sign Code, which goes far beyond saying the funky neon signs along Miracle Mile.

Businesses are attacking the SCAAB because the SCAAB doesn’t roll over and do everything they want. From Sign Code activist Mark Mayer…

A proposal is now pending before Mayor and Council to eliminate the SCAAB and assign its functions to the Board of Adjustment.  This proposal, which is stealthily labeled “Improvement in Sign Code Administration”, is part of the City Manager’s Strategic Work Plan that you will be asked to vote on July 6.   The proposal is the apparent result of the repeated sign industry failures to stack SCAAB with its members and allies and it is now setting its sights on the Board of Adjustment as an alternative forum (with “recommended” appointments to undoubtedly follow).  Any claims that this move is due to budgetary issues ring hollow, as there are no proposals to eliminate the larger, more expensive, and sign industry-dominated Citizen Sign Code Committee (CSCC) and assign its functions to the Planning Commission.  The SCAAB proposal needs to be rejected, at least until such time sign regulations are appropriately incorporated into the Land Use Code and the CSCC issues noted above are fully addressed.

The proposed historic sign change sounds good on the surface, but it goes too far. Again, from Mayer…

An ordinance to ostensibly protect historic signs is now before the City Council in Study Session on June 14 [that's today!] and in public hearing on June 28. The draft ordinance has mushroomed well beyond what was originally conceived and would now open the door to the largest and tallest of signs being relocated or resurrected on properties where they never existed before and without any notification to surrounding property owners, without any public hearing, and without a legislative decision being made by Mayor and Council. Instead, the decision would be made by a single administrative official, which, if not without statutory authority, is certainly bad public policy. It is no wonder that the sign industry and its proxy, the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, are heartily supporting this ordinance. The Mayor and Council need to narrow the scope of the ordinance down to its original focus, which was to determine the relatively limited number of older signs that are widely embraced by the community for their historic value and focus on their preservation. [Emphasis added. ]

As I said at the beginning of this article, Being known as “ugly” is not a good designation for a town that lives on tourism. If the Mayor and Council truly want to be business friendly, they should keep the SCAAB and ask that the focus of the historic sign amendment be narrowed to its original intent.

Tell the City Council what you think. Here’s a link to their contact information, or better yet, come to the meetings and speak in favor of keeping Tucson off the worst-dressed list.

1036 E. Waverly St.-- an old house being destroyed by Michael Goodman. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Approximately 50-60 Tucsonans — representing several neighborhoods, including Jefferson Park, Feldman, Palo Verde, El Rio, and others– gathered Friday evening to morn the destruction of yet another old house (above).

Mini-dorm developer Michael Goodman and two squad cars of Tucson Police watched as neighbors sang, read poetry, and gave speeches decrying the destruction of older neighborhoods which are being scared with mini-dorms. Goodman tried to disrupt the gathering before it started by parking his big truck in front of the house where the protest was to be held. Luckily, one of the protesters got there before he did and parked in front. This allowed neighbors to set up large signs reading “Tucson has cancer” and “Pure Greed” in front of the demolition site

Police cars blocked East Waverly Street at both ends– even though the event was entirely peaceful. This most likely stopped some people from attending the event. Police also told the neighbors that they had to end the event by 7 p.m.– allowing only a half hour for the vigil. (I’ll give you one guess who called the cops.) The police presence was totally unnecessary. Why don’t the police break up the infamous mini-dorm parties?

The entire vigil is captured on the video below. At about 4 minutes you can see Tucson Police officers questioning neighborhood activist Bob Schlanger. They tried to intimidate him by asking for his identification, birthdate, etc. His reply was that he didn’t need an ID to walk down the street in his own neighborhood. (I guess he doesn’t realize he lives in Arizona.)

At about 9.5 minutes, in the video Schlanger gives a speech about activism against mini-dorm construction and the destruction of older neighborhoods in Tucson. In his speech, Schlanger announced that the city approved the building plans for 1036 E. Waverly. The single-family home above will be replaced with a seven-bedroom mini-dorm. This is a rooming house– not a single family home.

One question I have is: If this neighborhood and other neighborhoods in Tucson are plumbed for single-family homes, what happens to that infrastructure when the single-family homes are replaced large apartment buildings and rooming houses?

Don’t forget to voice your opinion about mini-dorms with the poll attached to this article.

Mini-dorm in the Feldman Neighborhood. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

The destruction of historic neighborhoods to create mini-dorm villages near the University of Arizona has been a hot topic on this blog, on Facebook, and on the JOLT (KJLL, 1330 AM) this week.

The JOLT’s John C. Scott conducted multiple interviews with Jefferson Park neighbors, developers, and Councilman Steve Kozachik on this topic.

I was heartened to hear Kozachik tell the JOLT audience that he believes the current mini-dorm construction is not in keeping with the intent of the single-family zoning laws, that he feels the scale and design of the buildings in the Feldman and Jefferson Park Neighborhoods do not blend well with the existing homes in these older neighborhoods, and that he supports future mini-dorm development along major arterials– rather than in neighborhoods. Kozachik also announced on Thursday on The JOLT that he planned to organize a meeting amongst the stakeholders.

Jefferson Park leaders reminded the JOLT audience that mini-dorms can be built on any single family lot. One is currently being constructed near Blacklidge and Country Club.

For those of you not familiar with these neighborhoods and how they are changing, I shot video footage yesterday which shows an entire block of the Feldman Neighborhood that has been destroyed and rebuilt. Don’t forget the candlelight vigil tonight (Friday, January 7) at 1036 E. Waverly at 6:30 p.m.

1036 E. Waverly St.-- an old house being destroyed by Michael Goodman. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

A full hour of yesterday’s John C. Scott Show on the JOLT (KJLL 1330AM) was devoted to promoting the value of mini-dorms. Ick. (Hopefully, they had to pay for this lengthy advertorial on mini-dorms. If not, the JOLT missed an opportunity to make some serious change.)

Michael Goodman, Richard Studwell, and another developer chatted on the radio about the selfless community service they provide by knocking down old houses in historic neighborhoods and replacing them with mini-dorms for UA students.

Their schtick is that since the state of Arizona is too poor to build student housing, big-hearted developers– like them– must come to the rescue and build mini-dorms. Not enough student housing has been a long-term problem at the UA. Since the state makes money on students living in dorms, I don’t understand why the UA rarely builds them– unless, of course, the developers lobby the state not to build dorms. (After all, dorms would cut into their action.)

The latest flash point of mini-dorm construction is in the Jefferson Park Neighborhood (between Campbell and Park, south of Grant). On the radio yesterday, the developers’ contention was that the Jefferson Park is a ramshackled neighborhood of decaying 1950s ranch houses that have no architectural value. They said that many of the houses are so far gone that they can’t be renovated and should be torn down and replaced with mini-dorms.

They also tried to paint the neighborhood activists who oppose the rape of their neighborhood and demolition of family homes as small group of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) kooks who don’t like living near noisy college students.

Territorial style house directly across the street from the demolished house which will soon be a mini-dorm. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

To fact-check their statements on the radio, I drove around Jefferson Park on my way home yesterday.

Yes, there are some rundown rentals– as there are in all midtown and downtown neighborhoods in Tucson, thanks to local slumlords. (BTW, City Council Members, isn’t there something you can do about slumlords who allow their unkempt properties to blight our older neighborhoods?)

The majority of the Jefferson Park houses were well-kept older homes with mature vegetation. There was a mix of 1930s Territorial style homes and 1950s brick bungalows. I didn’t see any traditional ranch houses, as there are on the east side. The houses on East Waverly Street that surround 1036 (above), which is being demolished by Goodman, are all very nice. It’s sad that this residential street filled with well-appointed older homes will be plagued with the blemish of a mini-dorm.

Another Territorial style house on East Waverly, near the new mini-dorm site. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Many long-time Tucsonans lament the loss of Barrio Viejo historic homes that were demolished when the Tucson Convention Center was built. I believe that in 10 years when the mini-dorms are crumbling we will lament the loss of historic homes in the city’s core.

Don’t forget the candlelight vigil in front of 1036 E. Waverly on Friday, January 7 at 6:30 p.m. Also, don’t forget to take the mini-dorm poll.

What makes Tucson unique compared to other southwestern cities?

The weather? Nope, Phoenix, Palm Springs, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Sedona, Albuquerque — all have basically the same weather.

The mountains? Nope, these other southwestern cities have mountain vistas.

The desert vegetation? Nope.

Blue skies and little rain? Nope.

The music and art scene? Well, yes, Tucson has an awesome music and art scene that these other cities don’t have.

What about our historic architecture? Bingo. I dare you to find a California Bungalow, a Queen Anne, or a Territorial in any of these cities– especially in Maricopa County.

Two local developers– Michael Goodman and Richard Studwell– want Tucson’s historic neighborhoods to look more like generic Maricopa County. They have been working hard to destroy Tucson’s historic architecture and transform historic neighborhoods near the University of Arizona into poorly-built, mini-dorm ghettos.

The Feldman Neighborhood, which is on the National Registry of Historic Places, has been fighting these two — particularly Goodman– over every demolition. Basically, he could not care less whether he tears down an architecturally significant home to build a mini-dorm monument to ticky tacky. Goodman has leveled entire blocks of old house and old vegetation to build mini-dorms.  It’s all about making a fast buck.

I have four questions for these short-sighted developers, the Arizona Legislature, the University of Arizona, and the Mayor and Council who have allowed developers to destroy our architectural history:

1. What will these areas look like in 10 years? Mini-dorms are not built to last– unlike the 70- 100-year-old houses they are replacing. What will the city do with neighborhoods of crumbling ticky-tacky?
2. How many mini-dorms does the UA need to house students? Seriously, I would think at some point the market will be saturated with this type of housing. Then what do we do with these architectural monstrosities?
3. If the UA enrollment has increased so much, why has the state not built more dormitories? The state gets the tuition money + living expenses for students who live in the dorms. I doubt that the UA enrollment has increased as much as the developers say. This data from the UA website show enrollment at 37, 217; the UA enrollment has hovered around 30,000 for decades.
4. Why must historic homes be destroyed to build high-density housing? Tucson has plenty of vacant lots and crumbling commercial properties everywhere, particularly on main arterials.

Candlelight Vigil
Recently, Goodman has moved into the Jefferson Park Neighborhood, which is less organized than Feldman. The latest victim is the bungalow at 1036 E. Waverly St., which at the time of this writing has been partially destroyed.

But the Jefferson Park neighbors are beginning to fight back. This Friday evening, January 7, at 6:30 p.m. in front of 1036 E. Waverly, they are holding a candlelight vigil. Everyone is welcome. Please bring candles or flashlights, signs, bagpipes or other musical instruments.

Let’s preserve historic Tucson before it disappears.

P.S. This is not an issue of neighbors vs students. This is an issue of wise development vs destroying history to make a fast buck.