Will Minneapolis ever see 500,000 again? (St. Paul, Bloomington: theater, public school, moving)

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by Slig

Do you tend to agree with these people or what's your take on the matter?

No. I have very strong opinions the other way; I think appropriate high-density is the way to go, for environmental and social justice reasons. I also think that, when we're talking about Uptown in particular, it's absolutely in character with the neighborhood -- Uptown needs more people walking around the streets at all times of the day, working, going to school, and shopping in the area, and generally living their lives. More housing options makes it easier for people of all life stages and economic levels to live there. Uptown used to be really bustling, so all this talk by some people about how it used to be like a little village is just completely bogus. There are many quieter, less dense, nice Minneapolis neighborhoods to choose from -- why do we have to try to force Uptown to become like Linden Hills?

I don't want to see houses bulldozed for high rises (or even just denser newer buildings), but even within Uptown there is room for growth, particularly in some of the empty lots and former industrial spaces along the Greenway. Higher density there, well-designed and at a higher height, would greatly benefit the area. I'm sure it will add to the parking and traffic problems some, but since the area is easily livable without a car and could be increasingly marketed as such, I'm not that concerned. If people want easy parking they can find plenty of other options.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

No. I have very strong opinions the other way; I think appropriate high-density is the way to go, for environmental and social justice reasons. I also think that, when we're talking about Uptown in particular, it's absolutely in character with the neighborhood -- Uptown needs more people walking around the streets at all times of the day, working, going to school, and shopping in the area, and generally living their lives. More housing options makes it easier for people of all life stages and economic levels to live there. Uptown used to be really bustling, so all this talk by some people about how it used to be like a little village is just completely bogus. There are many quieter, less dense, nice Minneapolis neighborhoods to choose from -- why do we have to try to force Uptown to become like Linden Hills?

I don't want to see houses bulldozed for high rises (or even just denser newer buildings), but even within Uptown there is room for growth, particularly in some of the empty lots and former industrial spaces along the Greenway. Higher density there, well-designed and at a higher height, would greatly benefit the area. I'm sure it will add to the parking and traffic problems some, but since the area is easily livable without a car and could be increasingly marketed as such, I'm not that concerned. If people want easy parking they can find plenty of other options.

I totally agree with you. One site that I could see turning into high rise condos or apartments or some kind of mixed use highrise buildings is the empty lot next to the greenway off of Fremont Ave right behind the parking lot for the Lagoon theater and Williams Peanut bar. It is just an empty field right now but there is enough space to put a healthy complex and maybe even a little park area there.

In general I think people should have more freedom on what they can do with their property. There are blocks in the Phillips neighborhood where 3 or 4 houses in a row are basically hopeless and need to be bulldozed. If there is an investor who wants to buy up half a city block like this to throw up a highrise complex I have absolutely no problem with this. Uptown is a little different in the sense that there are expensive homes and the area is more desirable and has higher land values but there should still be plenty of opportunities to throw up a highrise and despite the complaints of local residents, the amount of say they should have in the decision should be limited beings that it isn't their property. If a resident has an issue with what somebody wants to do with their property they should buy the person out and do whatever they want with it. That's the way I feel anyways.

My observation in my 2+ years of being a homeowner is there seem to be too many residents in a given neighborhood who think they can play "Sim City" with their neighborhood and that shouldn't be the way it works.

[Kid Cann]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

No. I have very strong opinions the other way; I think appropriate high-density is the way to go, for environmental and social justice reasons. I also think that, when we're talking about Uptown in particular, it's absolutely in character with the neighborhood -- Uptown needs more people walking around the streets at all times of the day, working, going to school, and shopping in the area, and generally living their lives. More housing options makes it easier for people of all life stages and economic levels to live there. Uptown used to be really bustling, so all this talk by some people about how it used to be like a little village is just completely bogus. There are many quieter, less dense, nice Minneapolis neighborhoods to choose from -- why do we have to try to force Uptown to become like Linden Hills?

I don't want to see houses bulldozed for high rises (or even just denser newer buildings), but even within Uptown there is room for growth, particularly in some of the empty lots and former industrial spaces along the Greenway. Higher density there, well-designed and at a higher height, would greatly benefit the area. I'm sure it will add to the parking and traffic problems some, but since the area is easily livable without a car and could be increasingly marketed as such, I'm not that concerned. If people want easy parking they can find plenty of other options.

Nice name drop on the Social Justice.

[northstar22]

I don't see what density has to do with social justice. I also don't see why we can't just bulldoze old buildings downtown and put up new high-rises. I like Uptown as it is.

[MN55]

environmental and social justice reasons

Uptown_Urbanist, I agree with you exactly and like your entire post except the first sentence. If "social justice" is your best argument, your argument is nothing but BS. Just leave that phrase out next time.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by flyingwriter

I hope Mpls. never reaches that level of population again. It's fine the way it is, around 380 - 400k. I like the suburbs and the spread out feel of the city. I like the dense downtown and the LACK of high-rises elsewhere in the city. I'd prefer not becoming another Atlanta with multiple skylines. The Japanese/Chinese model of building upward would send me running for the hills - ugh. Guess that makes me a NIMBY - oh well, I don't have a problem with that title.

I'd prefer to see that population increase occur in the suburbs/exurbs.

Your wish has been granted hundreds-fold over the past 5 decades! Personally, I'd like to see more balance: slower development in the outer burbs and more in the cities and first rings.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by City eYes

I am all for density, but I am so use to project housing in Chicago and don't want to see that happen here. It has to be done right.

Density is not correlated with income. For every low income high rise project in Chicago, there's a middle or upper income highrise. An even better example is Miami. The vast ghetto in that city is virtually all one and 2 story cinderblock apartments, but lining Biscayne Bay are very tall upper income condo buildings.

[City eYes]

^^^ Yeah Miami has the Bay to attract people, so MSP just has to be smart about planning that density. I know what you mean, I just get nervous because if its not don right it could be disaster.

[uptown_urbanist]

Yeah, I know social justice is a loaded term. I was worked up. I do think, however, that higher density, more diversity in housing types, and highly walkable neighborhoods with good public transit access to mean that more people of all backgrounds and at all price points will have the opportunity to become and remain part of the community, rather than everyone living in areas segregated by income level. That's what I meant when I said social justice: just the opportunity to provide decent housing options and nice neighborhoods for everyone. That's assuming increased density in places like Uptown also will correlate to more housing options (running the whole range from affordable housing up to high-end condos or mansions by the lake), which I think it will. I think it's in the city's interest to have diversity in housing types and prices in the same area; I also think it's in residents' interests. Uptown actually does have a pretty good range of prices right now, but there's still room for improvement. And it makes more sense to put more people in areas that can handle it (since Uptown does have good bus service and bike access and walkabilty) rather than have it sprawl across the land.

Thinking back, I probably also threw in the social justice comment because if you get involved in Uptown-area politics you discover that some people see it as a liberal versus conservative issue, with the "true" liberals being the ones who are anti-development, while any developer or anyone supporting any new building anywhere might as well fess up to being a hardcore conservative Republican who caters only to rich people and big business, and doesn't care about the environment. That really bugs me, because I think that this does not break down along party lines, and people of different political stripes can use their philosophies to make arguments for or against these sorts of development.

Slig, the area you're talking about (behind the Lagoon Theater) is the proposed location for one of the most controversial projects in Uptown over the past decade, and the one that really got the NIMBYs going; the Mozaic project was originally going to be a very nice tower combined with office space at the bottom, and people had a fit. There was lots of talk about not being "able to see the sky." The last drawings I saw had a more squat, bulkier shape, which was far less attractive (and ironically, blocked out more of the sky) than the early version. I think it will still go in sometime, but obviously right now the market isn't exactly moving. There are some other empty spaces or near-empty or underused buildings along that corridor, too, and I hope that one day they'll be filled in. They also will help better connect some of those blocks to the Greenway.

[tpk-nyc]

An interesting article on the topic (Tall is Beautiful | Mother Jones).