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