Your Thoughts On the New Public Transportation Projects (Minneapolis, St. Paul: real estate, apartments)
Minneapolis - St. PaulTwin Cities
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One more thing I'd like to point out...Public transportation systems not only try to address current needs and commuting patterns. They have an ability to encourage changing commuting and living patterns by establishing permanent convenient corridors that encourage smart growth. This, in my opinion, is what needs to be done in the Twin Cities. We need to CHANGE...that cannot happen by rewarding the current, wasteful patterns of typical energy-hungry suburban living arrangements (being hopelessly dependant on automobiles, sprawling for miles, low density patterns that require much more infrastructure to support tiny populations, etc). I've lived in the 'burbs (Hopkins, Prior Lake, Burnsville, Minnetonka, Maple Grove) and now Minneapolis (going on 5 years)...I know how suburbanites and urbanites both live. I simply found suburban life to be extremely...wasteful of resources, time and money. It needs to stop. Simple as that...and things ARE changing, thank goodness.
If you like living in the city thats great. Why do you need for force other people to live the way you want them to live? If people want to "waste" their time and money what business is it of yours?
How about you find a way for the current rail to at least break even on operating expenses (not to mention building costs) before you start building lines all over the place.
If you like living in the city thats great. Why do you need for force other people to live the way you want them to live? If people want to "waste" their time and money what business is it of yours?
How about you find a way for the current rail to at least break even on operating expenses (not to mention building costs) before you start building lines all over the place.
At risk of going off-topic, the reason why we as a larger society should care about our region's development patterns is because it is ALL of our business. It's not just personal money that is wasted -- there are many, many costs to society folded into how we manage where we live, and untamed sprawl has huge financial implications for all residents. There's also the environmental implications, along with everything related (oil dependence and so forth). In any case, suburban sprawl is not self-sufficient, and it's reasonable for society as a whole to look at whether or not it's worth our money and resources to fund its continuation.
That said, I don't think we all need to live in highly urbanized areas, but it does make sense to attempt to retrofit what we have already and to direct new development in patterns that come with lower societal costs.
Golfgal, I think you lack understanding of the scale of DC's Metro. The 'loop' you talked about doesn't even come close to circling DC. The biggest example of which would be the 'loop' that connects The Mall with the Pentagon and Arlington over the Potomac...That area, geographically, is about as large as circling from DT MPLS to lake street via hiawatha, and to the chain of lakes via Lake St, and back up to Target Field again...I would hardly call that a loop that goes around the city, and not NEARLY the scale that would encircle 494/694. That 'loop' in DC that the lines spoke from (it's not a loop, but a few lines that simply connect different destinations in close-ish proximity) is simply made of separate lines that are running to different locales throughout CENTRAL DC.
Anyway, it is undeniable that DT MPLS and STP are undisputably the 2 major commercial hubs, by far, in the metro area. Also, they are centrally located to the rest of the metro. Whether you like it or not, The downtowns (especially MPLS) are the SINGLE most important economic engines in the metro, and arguably the state. They are dense, walkable, central, vibrant, and easy to get around WITHOUT a car.
One more thing I'd like to point out...Public transportation systems not only try to address current needs and commuting patterns. They have an ability to encourage changing commuting and living patterns by establishing permanent convenient corridors that encourage smart growth. This, in my opinion, is what needs to be done in the Twin Cities. We need to CHANGE...that cannot happen by rewarding the current, wasteful patterns of typical energy-hungry suburban living arrangements (being hopelessly dependant on automobiles, sprawling for miles, low density patterns that require much more infrastructure to support tiny populations, etc). I've lived in the 'burbs (Hopkins, Prior Lake, Burnsville, Minnetonka, Maple Grove) and now Minneapolis (going on 5 years)...I know how suburbanites and urbanites both live. I simply found suburban life to be extremely...wasteful of resources, time and money. It needs to stop. Simple as that...and things ARE changing, thank goodness.
So.....build a light rail system that circles the metro so people in the suburbs can commute to work....which, contrary to YOUR belief is NOT in downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul. The to "business centers" together don't make up 200,000 of the total metro workforce, the other 2 million+ that work in the metro area work IN THE SUBURBS. If you pick the top 5 or 6 largest companies in the metro area, those few companies alone employ more people then work in downtown Minneapolis or downtown St. Paul, whether you chose to believe it or not.
City living is for a very few, very select population. If more people WANTED to live in the city, Minneapolis would have 3 million people and 380,000 would live in the suburbs, not the other way around.
I fully understand the sale of DC, I fully understand that the DC land area is significantly smaller but that doesn't mean a similar system here could not work the same. The scale of DC compared to the Twin Cities is exactly why hubbing in Minneapolis makes zero sense. Having "regional" hubs through the metro is what needs to be done, keeping in mind this will never happen in any of our lifetimes....It makes no sense to take everyone from the suburbs that wants to ride the light rail, schlep them 20-30 miles into Minneapolis to catch a spoke of a light rail system to take them back 20 or 30 miles to their place of employment in the suburbs, which, if they drove would be 10 or 15 miles.
At risk of going off-topic, the reason why we as a larger society should care about our region's development patterns is because it is ALL of our business. It's not just personal money that is wasted -- there are many, many costs to society folded into how we manage where we live, and untamed sprawl has huge financial implications for all residents. There's also the environmental implications, along with everything related (oil dependence and so forth). In any case, suburban sprawl is not self-sufficient, and it's reasonable for society as a whole to look at whether or not it's worth our money and resources to fund its continuation.
That said, I don't think we all need to live in highly urbanized areas, but it does make sense to attempt to retrofit what we have already and to direct new development in patterns that come with lower societal costs.
So, having a concrete jungle like you see in major cities is more environmentally friendly, I don't think so. If suburban sprawl is not self-sufficient, why has it been the norm for over 100 years? Urban living is not self-sufficient unless you spend millions and billions providing a transit system that is only used by less then 50% of the population...
At risk of going off-topic, the reason why we as a larger society should care about our region's development patterns is because it is ALL of our business. It's not just personal money that is wasted -- there are many, many costs to society folded into how we manage where we live, and untamed sprawl has huge financial implications for all residents. There's also the environmental implications, along with everything related (oil dependence and so forth). In any case, suburban sprawl is not self-sufficient, and it's reasonable for society as a whole to look at whether or not it's worth our money and resources to fund its continuation.
That said, I don't think we all need to live in highly urbanized areas, but it does make sense to attempt to retrofit what we have already and to direct new development in patterns that come with lower societal costs.
Well said, and I absolutely agree. We don't have to all live the way I live. I wouldn't want that. But, it is important to come to terms with the facts about the current, wasteful lifestyle of most outer-ring suburban and exurban populaces. It is extremely irresponsible to society, and I believe we all have a responsibility to each other, not just ourselves. We can't just keep ignoring the limits set by geologic laws, pretending there are no consequences to future generations about how we live today.
DC is a very different work environment then MSP area, MOST of the jobs in DC are in DC or the immediate "suburbs" proper-Arlington, Crystal City/Pentagon, etc.. That is not the case here, Minneapolis has a very, very small percent of the jobs in the metro area which is why a Minneapolis focused transit station makes very little sense. 160,000 people work in downtown Minneapolis,
I'm not an expert on Minneapolis, but I've definitely never heard the DC metro referred to in this way...
"Centralized employment metros like Minneapolis-St. Paul have between 10 and 25 percent of employment within three miles of the city center, and more than 60 percent within 10 miles. Decentralized employment metros like Washington D.C. have 10 to 25 percent of employment within the three-mile ring, and less than 60 percent within 10 miles."
Population/Employment distribution Minneapolis
Inner ring employment: 0.5395
Inner ring population: 0.2686
Outer ring employment: 0.0907
Outer ring population: 0.1242
Washington, DC
Inner ring employment: 0.4704
Inner ring population: 0.2231
Outer ring employment: 0.1469
Outer ring population: 0.0899
So.....build a light rail system that circles the metro so people in the suburbs can commute to work....which, contrary to YOUR belief is NOT in downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul. The to "business centers" together don't make up 200,000 of the total metro workforce, the other 2 million+ that work in the metro area work IN THE SUBURBS. If you pick the top 5 or 6 largest companies in the metro area, those few companies alone employ more people then work in downtown Minneapolis or downtown St. Paul, whether you chose to believe it or not.
City living is for a very few, very select population. If more people WANTED to live in the city, Minneapolis would have 3 million people and 380,000 would live in the suburbs, not the other way around.
I fully understand the sale of DC, I fully understand that the DC land area is significantly smaller but that doesn't mean a similar system here could not work the same. The scale of DC compared to the Twin Cities is exactly why hubbing in Minneapolis makes zero sense. Having "regional" hubs through the metro is what needs to be done, keeping in mind this will never happen in any of our lifetimes....It makes no sense to take everyone from the suburbs that wants to ride the light rail, schlep them 20-30 miles into Minneapolis to catch a spoke of a light rail system to take them back 20 or 30 miles to their place of employment in the suburbs, which, if they drove would be 10 or 15 miles.
This is not about 'minneapolis' against 'the suburbs'... This is about minneapolis against plymouth, plymouth against maple grove, mp against eagan, eagan against little canada, little canada against st paul, st paul against eden prairie, etc....there is an extreme amount of decentralization, and it is hurting our economy, taking time (stuck in traffic) from our kids, our husbands,partners and wives...the spending of vast amounts of money to have to drive to a job in the burbs (even if from another burb) because it left mpls or st paul. This is one of the roots of the problem. We need to address this problem with a transportation system that encourages REcentralization of jobs and entertainment.
While I agree that endless suburban sprawl comes at a cost, some of you might need to come down a notch or two off your high horses. There are plenty of environmental problems that come with high-density living, too, including lack of greenspace, accommodating water and waste run-off, and concentrations of pollutants.
Standing around pointing your fingers say "You suburbanites are wrecking the environment for all of us good city people who are sacrificing for the good of the environment!" is fairly pointless stereotyping. I know people who live in St. Paul who have never stepped foot on any kind of public transportation, drive (separately) to their respective job and school and drive at least 7-10 minutes for any minor errand. Meanwhile I live in the suburbs and frequently walk to Target and grocery stores, take public transportation to work every day and my wife bikes to work in good weather and drives less than 4 minutes in winter.
And, lets be honest...most of you live in the city because you like the culture and the convenience. Not because of its environmental aspects.
Suburbs have a lot of work to do to adapt to a less car-centric culture, and I hope they embrace it. But there's no reason to think that some new, more efficient ways of doing things can't emerge that retain some of the advantages of suburbs.
So, having a concrete jungle like you see in major cities is more environmentally friendly, I don't think so. If suburban sprawl is not self-sufficient, why has it been the norm for over 100 years? Urban living is not self-sufficient unless you spend millions and billions providing a transit system that is only used by less then 50% of the population...
Pick up a copy of Green Metropolis to get a crash course in the subject. Or one of many other works out there. If you think suburban sprawl is environmentally-friendly, you're living in a fantasy world. And I'm not sure what "suburbs" you're talking about starting 100 years ago, but if you mean the places that we sometimes call "streetcar suburbs," those are very "urban" in form, and I think they're wonderful. Compact, walkable, good public transportation. It's exactly this sort of development that I think we need to encourage in the suburbs today.
As far as "concrete jungles," this is Minneapolis you're talking about here. Not a lot of concrete around here. It's not exactly Manhattan you're talking about. (although if you were, Manhattan is far more environmentally-friendly than is Minneapolis!)
ETA: I don't think people who choose to live in very suburban areas are "bad," or to otherwise judge individuals, but if we're looking at the big picture, I do think it's time for society to look at the big picture and to say that what worked in decades past is not right for the United States today. We have different needs and face different challenges, as well as have had time to see what works and what has not worked. That also doesn't mean that everyone should live in high-rises. I don't think we need to go the Singapore route here. But we do have the opportunity to rein in new sprawl and to make what already exists better. (and many of those changes need to happen within city limits, too, for that matter.)
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 12-20-2011 at 02:53 PM..
This is not about 'minneapolis' against 'the suburbs'... This is about minneapolis against plymouth, plymouth against maple grove, mp against eagan, eagan against little canada, little canada against st paul, st paul against eden prairie, etc....there is an extreme amount of decentralization, and it is hurting our economy, taking time (stuck in traffic) from our kids, our husbands,partners and wives...the spending of vast amounts of money to have to drive to a job in the burbs (even if from another burb) because it left mpls or st paul. This is one of the roots of the problem. We need to address this problem with a transportation system that encourages REcentralization of jobs and entertainment.
Yes, it is exactly Minneapolis against the suburbs. You are trying to create ONE spot for everyone and that doesn't work anywhere. There is going to be sprawl. The entire metro area can't possibly live in Minneapolis, all of the businesses can't possibly be located in Minneapolis, there just is not room. MOST of the metro area businesses are within a few miles of the 494/694 loop, INCLUDING Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns. Look where the roads are built, build mass transit along those lines and the area will become less auto-dependent. It's not really a difficult concept to grasp.
If you hub everything in Minneapolis, THAT will take more time away from family life. The only BAD commutes in this area are commuting into downtown Minneapolis, everything else is a breeze. I've said before, MOST people in the suburbs have easy commutes under 20 minutes, unless they work in Minneapolis. I say it is much more family friendly to have centers of work near where people live--which is what we have in the Twin Cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
