Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White 
Ashley Zhang

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

T

he past few weeks have 
been quite a whirlwind in 
Middle East geopolitics. 
On Wednesday, reports from 
U.S.-backed forces in Iraq and 
Syria indicated that the Islamic 
State in the Levant had collapsed. 
On March 13, the Senate voted 
to end U.S. military aid to Saudi 
Arabia in its long, bloody conflict 
against the Houthi rebellion 
in Yemen. Last week, Michael 
Pompeo, U.S. secretary of state, 
visited Israel and met with Prime 
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 
a move said to be an attempt to 
strengthen Netanyahu’s chances 
in the upcoming Israeli elections 
on April 9. For those who often 
find themselves engrossed in 
the current events of the never-
stagnant Middle East, March 
has been filled with notable 
occurrences.
Yet 
arguably 
the 
most 
significant news out of the region 
came Thursday, when President 
Donald Trump tweeted what has 
come to be considered an official 
recognition of Israel’s sovereignty 
over the Golan Heights. A formal 
motion came during Netanyahu’s 
visit to Washington, D.C. for 
meetings with Trump and his 
address to the American Israel 
Public Affairs Committee policy 
conference this week. A small 
plateau on the Israeli-Syrian 
border, this territory has been 
disputed for decades, beginning 
in the aftermath of the 1967 
Six-Day War between Israel, 
Egypt, Syria and Jordan. During 
the war, Israel conquered the 
Golan Heights in an effort to 
stop Syrian attacks on civilians 
in the Galilee region of northern 
Israel, and to assure that access 
to the freshwater of the Sea of 
Galilee and the Jordan River — 
then an overwhelming majority 
of Israel’s water supply — would 
remain unencumbered. These 
issues played a large role in the 
months leading up to the Six-Day 
War, and had caused problems in 
Israeli-Syrian relations for years.
In 
1981, 
Israel 
formally 
annexed 
the 
territory 
and 
applied its law there, much 
to the chagrin of most of the 
international community. There 
have 
been 
many 
attempts, 
including 
United 
Nations 
resolutions, to get Israel to 
leave the territory and return 
it to Syria in a potential future 
peace agreement. The status of 
the region has at times appeared 
so uncertain that much of the 
Druze 
population 
living 
in 
the Golan has attempted to 
maintain loyalty to Syria by 
publicly pledging support to 
President 
Bashar 
al-Assad. 
This comes from the fear that 
should Syria eventually regain 
control of the territory, they 
would be considered traitors. 
Foreign 
dignitaries, 
even 
Israeli 
allies, 
would 
rarely 
publicly acknowledge Israel’s 
authority over the land. All the 
while, Israel — in particular, 
Netanyahu — has consistently 
been adamant that for the 
purposes 
of 
domestic 
and 
regional security, the Golan 
must remain in Israeli hands.
For the last 50 years, Israel 
has transformed the area into 
a hub of culture, commerce 
and agriculture. The wineries 
in the Golan have produced 
some of the finest wines in the 
world. Fertile Golani farms are 
the origin of much of Israel’s 
dairy products. One peak, Mount 
Hermon, is the tallest point in 
Israel and the only place in the 
country where one can go skiing. 
There is a proud yet somber 

history 
there, 
as 
memorials 
from past wars and fields of 
abandoned bunkers and markers 
of undetonated landmines dot the 
landscape between the springing 
cities. In the years since 1967, 
the area has, for all intents and 
purposes, become truly Israeli. 
Its current residents are mostly 
Israeli civilians, and its land is 
under full control of the Jewish 
state. When one visits the Golan 
Heights, there does not appear 
to be any dispute at all about to 
whom it belongs.
Trump’s recognition of Israel’s 
control of the Golan is important 
and justified for a plethora of 
reasons. It is a move that is vital 
to the interests of both the U.S. 
and Israel, and advances regional 
security. Israel’s northeast border 
is an incredibly short distance 
from some of the hottest zones 
of extremism and conflict in the 
region. As a sign at the top of 
Mount Bental — a mountain on 
the Golan just inside the Israeli 

side of the demilitarized zone — 
indicates, the plateau rests just 
60 kilometers from Damascus. 
Geopolitical 
instability 
has 
brought a variety of threats 
to Israel’s doorstep. Stray fire 
from the Syrian civil war has 
sometimes 
entered 
Israeli 
territory, and the Israel Defense 
Forces have had to alleviate many 
potentially dangerous situations.
An 
even 
graver 
threat 
comes from Iranian-sponsored 
forces such as Hezbollah and 
the 
Islamic 
Revolutionary 
Guards Corps. Each has set 
up installations in Syria and 
Lebanon in recent years, training 
and recruiting fighters to join 
their extremist ranks. Sworn 
enemies of the Jewish state, these 
militias are dedicated to carrying 
out Tehran’s dream of Israel’s 
destruction. These groups have 
built a stockpile of thousands of 
long-range missiles, capable of 
striking nearly any place in the 
country. In its efforts to combat 
these attackers, Israel has relied 
heavily on the Golan Heights as 
a buffer zone between itself and 
Syria, home to numerous Iranian 
and Hezbollah military sites. 
Israel also uses the Golan to 
monitor its enemies’ movements 
in hopes of preventing future 
violence.
For the short- and long-
term security of both Israel 
and the region as a whole, it 
is imperative that Israel be 
allowed to maintain control of 
the Golan Heights. As Nikki 
Haley, former U.S. ambassador 
to the UN, recently expressed, 
“The Golan Heights are either 
Israeli 
or 
Syrian. 
America 
should never support giving an 
inch of territory to the barbaric 
war 
criminal 
Assad.” 
With 
Syrian control of the Golan, 
Bashar al-Assad, as well as the 
IRGC and Hezbollah, would 
be dangerously close. Just as it 
happened in 1967, these forces 
would be able to cut off the Sea 
of Galilee and the Jordan River, 
major sources of freshwater. 
This would not only harm Israel, 
but Jordan — also a U.S. ally 

and moderate state. Israel and 
Jordan share water as part of 
developing peace terms between 
the two countries, and cutting 
off the Jordan River could leave 
both states at risk of seeing 
their agreements collapse. Such 
consensus regarding water has 
also helped in relations between 
Israel 
and 
the 
Palestinian 
National 
Authority, 
whose 
people would also feel the heat 
of losing the river’s vital water 
supply.
In addition to the strategic 
benefits of keeping the Golan 
Heights under Israeli control, 
Trump’s 
recognition 
also 
serves to acknowledge what 
has been a fact on the ground 
for 52 years. Though past U.S. 
administrations have shirked 
away 
from 
recognizing 
the 
legitimacy of Israel’s control on 
the plateau, Trump has taken a 
truth-based, realistic approach. 
Given the seemingly permanent 
instability across the Syrian 
border and the history of the 
territory in regional conflicts, it 
would make no sense for Israel to 
cede control.
Critics 
of 
Trump’s 
recognition say that it damages 
prospects for peace between 
Israel and Syria, and that it only 
fuels tensions between the two 
countries. However, in light 
of the collapse of past efforts 
toward a potential reconciliation 
with the Syrian government, 
there is no incentive for Israel 
to give up the Golan in the 
foreseeable future. While the 
Syrian government has come out 
strongly against the recognition, 
it is unclear what the future of 
Syrian leadership will look like, 
and a government reliant on 
military support from Iran and 
Russia will surely not be the 
most trustworthy negotiation 
partner. The current and future 
costs are simply too high to hold 
out hope for a complete shift 
toward diplomacy from militant 
forces keen on a close ally’s 
destruction.
Trump’s 
foreign 
policy 
doctrine of “principled realism” 
has 
drawn 
great 
criticism 
by those who consider the 
approach 
brash, 
ideological 
and 
imbalanced. 
Yet 
the 
president’s decision to formally 
acknowledge 
and 
support 
Israel’s control over the Golan 
Heights is exactly the opposite. 
He has looked both to decades 
of history and the current 
climate as context and has 
balanced concerns of the one 
true democracy in the Middle 
East with actions that he deems 
best for security and prosperity 
of the entire region. Just as the 
president displayed in both his 
recognition of Jerusalem as 
Israel’s capital and his choice 
to move the U.S. embassy from 
Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, he has 
approached the issue of the 
Golan Heights with careful 
moral, strategic and logical 
consideration.
This new clarity for the 
future 
brings 
an 
informed 
change to a situation that has 
essentially remained the same 
since the gunfire ceased on June 
10, 1967. No prior U.S. president 
has dared to step in and set the 
record straight on the reality of 
the Golan’s status. On this issue, 
as is the case in much of his 
foreign policy, Trump ironically 
appears to be the only adult in 
the room.

Noah Ente can be reached at 

noahente@umich.edu.

Trump’s “principled realism” pays dividends in the Golan Heights

NOAH ENTE | COLUMN

REED ROSENBACHER | COLUMN

The tyranny of Ann Arbor’s fast-casual architecture
I

f you haven’t noticed 
these 
buildings 
all 
across 
Ann 
Arbor, 
then you just haven’t been 
paying attention. Each and 
every one of the buildings 
follows almost the exact 
same design formula and 
they are clustered in two 
locations: 
just 
south 
of 
the Diag and just north of 
it. These buildings go by 
their “slick” and corporate 
market 
research 
names: 
Six11, ArborBlu, Landmark, 
Zaragon, Foundry, Varsity 
and YOUnion.
The similarities between 
the buildings is striking, to 
say the least. To start our 
exploration, let’s begin by 
examining the outsides. As 
I see it, all of the exteriors 
share three central design 
elements. First, they all have 
large, 
rectangular 
boxes 
as 
their 
core 
structure. 
These boxes are augmented 
to 
look 
more 
interesting 
and complex by creating a 
layering effect in which other 
boxes jut out of certain parts 
of the buildings. Second, the 
materials on the outsides are 
all the same: orange bricks, a 
heavy emphasis on windows 
and a prefabricated “Hardie” 
paneling that finds itself 
somewhere on the grayscale. 
Third, all of them have 
between 12 and 14 floors. It is 
worth noting that most — but 
not all — of these buildings 
are also designed with retail 
space on the first floor.
The 
interiors 
and 
marketing 
for 
these 
buildings 
are 
also 
very 
similar. All of the buildings 
advertise a large common 
space with pool tables, high 
ceilings and a new take on 
mid-century 
modernism 
in which dark grays are 
accented by bright colored 
furniture, 
usually 
orange 
or blue. The floor plans of 
all the buildings are nearly 
the same with the kitchen 
next to the door, followed 
by the living room and then 
bedrooms off to the sides. 
Many advertise an industrial 
look to the buildings with 
exposed 
concrete 
ceilings 
— an easy way to cut costs 
while also seeming stylish 
and edgy.
The marketing in all of the 
websites is centered around 
selling a “luxury” student 
experience 
in 
which 
all 
aspects of the ideal student 
life can be achieved — a 
nexus of party life, studying, 
commercial 
convenience 
and exercise. Many of these 
buildings market themselves 
by selling a lifestyle, a “fam” 
or a community. Finally, 
most of the websites have 
a tab for parents and the 
concerns they will have for 
their child’s life in luxury 
apartments.
For many people in Ann 
Arbor, 
these 
developer 
modernist 
buildings 
have 
become 
a 
symbol 
of 
gentrification 
and 
the 
ongoing 
housing 
affordability 
crisis. 
In 
many ways, this question of 

gentrification and developer 
modernism was the central 
question of Prop A in this 
past year’s city election. The 
proposition proposed making 
the city’s library parking lot 
into an urban park as a way 
of blocking a new luxury 
housing development. The 
“Collective on 5th” would 
have fit seamlessly into the 
previously mentioned luxury 
apartments except for the 
fact that it would have been 
even more fancy.
The people of Ann Arbor 
voted 
“Yes” 
on 
Prop 
A, 
blocking the construction of 
the Collective on 5th, and 
making a loud statement 
about what people in Ann 
Arbor have come to see 
as 
gentrification. 
While 
there are interesting and 
complicated 
questions 
swirling around Ann Arbor’s 

housing debate, it is clear 
that these luxury apartments 
are designed with exclusivity 
in mind (generally speaking, 
rent is more than $1,000 in 
these buildings).
All 
of 
these 
developer 
modernist buildings in Ann 
Arbor got me thinking about 
the larger trend of these 
buildings popping up all 
across the U.S. in roughly the 
past five years. What exactly 
are these buildings? What do 
we want to call the buildings? 
Do we like how they look? 
What kind of impact do they 
have on the surrounding 
communities? Why are so 
many of them being built? 
And, just generally, what 
should we make of them?
The first term — and 
my preferred term — that 
I heard to describe these 
buildings, 
was 
“developer 
modernism.” In 2017, a series 
of memes swept the internet 
mocking 
and 
criticizing 
these buildings. Many of the 
memes, and their supporting 
critics, 
were 
just 
simply 
calling the buildings boring 
and ugly. Others, however, 
also saw the buildings as a 
sign of gentrification.
Kriston 
Capps, 
an 
architecture 
journalist, 
pointed out a deep state of 
irony in one of these memes. 
One building featured in a 
viral meme as an image of 
gentrification was actually 
affordable and low-income 
housing — it was just built 
in the developer modernist 
architecture 
style. 
Capps 
has been shown over and 
over again to be a supporter 
of these buildings, and calls 
them by his preferred term: 
fast-casual architecture.
His arguments in favor 

of the buildings are fairly 
simple: They are cheap to 
build, not every building 
needs 
to 
“dominate 
the 
view” and they are nice-
enough looking. Capps sees 
it comparable to eating at 
a 
fast-casual 
restaurant. 
The food won’t blow you 
away, but it’s convenient, 
fairly cheap and fairly good. 
What’s to complain about?
Kate Wagner, creator of 
the hit architectural blog 
“McMansion Hell,” adds to 
Capps’ argument by pointing 
out that internet critics and 
meme creators have engaged 
in form of what she calls 
“Aesthetic moralism” — the 
belief that one aesthetic is 
inherently better or more 
righteous 
than 
another. 
Wagner says that the left 
has 
weakened 
itself 
by 
becoming more invested in 
aesthetics and traditionalist 
architecture which comes at 
the cost of actually finding 
ways 
to 
make 
housing 
affordable. 
Unlike 
Capps, 
Wagner does point out that, 
oftentimes, buildings in the 
fast-casual style are luxury 
buildings. Wagner notes that 
the main difference between 
the 
luxury 
and 
more 
affordable buildings are the 
interiors.
From all the research I 
have done, this argument 
seems to be true that the 
developer modernist style 
is one of the cheapest ways 
to 
build 
and 
that 
there 
are a plethora of examples 
of affordable and mixed-
income housing being built 
in 
this 
style. 
Developer 
modernism is cheap for a 
number of reasons.
For starters, the insides 
of the buildings are usually 
cookie cutter, which cuts 
down on design costs. Also, 
the buildings tend to fit very 
well within city codes, which 
cuts 
down 
development 
delays. 
Furthermore, 
“Hardie” panels and bricks 
are two of the cheapest 
materials to build a facade 
out of, hence the mixture of 
the two.
So, what’s to be made of 
all this? On the one hand, it 
is clear that the developer 
modernist 
apartments 
in 
Ann Arbor are not affordable 
and largely seen as images 
of gentrification. On the 
other hand, we see that this 
architectural style is one of 
the cheapest ways to build 
and can be used to effectively 
make low-income housing.
The takeaway is this: For 
people in Ann Arbor, like 
myself, who view developer 
modernism as a sign of a 
gentrification, take a second 
to refrain from aesthetic 
moralism 
when 
you 
see 
developer 
modernism 
in 
other 
cities. 
The 
powers 
of 
developer 
modernism 
can be used on much more 
noble projects than the next 
Zaragon Place.

When one visits the 

Golan Heights, there 

does not appear to be 

any dispute at all about 

to whom it belongs

LENA SISKIND | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT LENASISK @UMICH.EDU

Reed Rosenbacher can be reached 

at rrosenb@umich.edu.

For many people in Ann 

Arbor, these developer 

modernist buildings 

have become a sign of 

gentrification 

