Star Tribune's backhanded endorsement in Ward 10
Color me surprised. The Star Tribune endorses Ralph Remington over Scott "13 Stories" Persons in Ward 10. The Star Tribune hasn't met a development (or I should really say, a developer) it doesn't like, so I've been steeling myself for what I considered to be the inevitable endorsement of Scott Persons, who has the same predilection.
Of course, they have to get some backhanded digs in on Ralph Remington.
Voters in Uptown and Lyn-Lake can't lose. Either DFL candidate -- Scott Persons or Ralph Remington -- would make an impressive replacement for the retiring Dan Niziolek. Persons is better prepared to step in immediately. His experience as a neighborhood association president and his command of issues -- from redevelopment to public safety -- make him a solid choice. He understands the details of city government better than Remington and would be a persuasive voice at the Capitol.
But Remington long-term potential may be greater, not only as a ward representative but as a citywide leader. His energy and wide-ranging life experiences are important assets. We share his priorities for safer streets, better transit and more of the artsy, eclectic atmosphere that makes Ward 10 so appealing. It's worrisome that Remington still tends toward the old "neighbors vs. developers" game. But he insists that he favors for midtown Minneapolis the kind of responsible, transit-oriented redevelopment that would otherwise migrate to the suburbs. He deserves a chance to prove it.
posted by Luke Francl @ 10:04 AM |
| 
6 Comments:
Me too. I'm far from anti-development. In fact, I am a huge proponent of infill development.
What I am not in favor of is ugly ass corporate style office parks, which is what this building was like in its original design. For example, the fascade of the building along Freemont was a blank wall, to accomidate more parking. Across the street is also a blank wall, thereby creating a lifeless tunnel.
I am also in favor of keeping the character of the neighborhood in mind.
A good example -- from the same developer -- is the Lumen project at Emerson and Lagoon. It's four stories, retail on the first floor, taking the place of an ugly one story building. Nice.
There are a number of plots in the Uptown area that cry out for development. But I want it done RIGHT. This city has made too many development mistakes because it trusted developers and politicians to "do the right thing". Just look at the way Downtown was demolished in the 60s, or the strip-mall style of development that blights much of Lake Street.
IMHO, what Uptown really needs is a solution to its parking problem. Developers have to take parking into consideration too much when planning new buildings.
I think the solution has a couple of prongs:
1. Reduce required number of spots in Uptown area by variance.
2. Create a municipial parking ramp that developers can "buy" spaces in. The Buzza building site, the YMCA's parking ramp, the Lagoon parcel, the Arby's lot, the Rainbow lot, and Calhoun Square's ramp are all good candidates.
3. Encourage development of more space-efficient parking structures. Computer-controlled automatic parking gragages are a reality and allow several times more cars to fit in the same space. Perfect for underground parking.
4. Increase transportation infrastructure. The Greenway streetcar line must be built to reduce traffic load on Uptown.
5. Increase cost of parking in Uptown. It's a high-demand area. If you want to park, you should have to pay. Make people want to walk, bike, or take the bus.
Luke, those are good ideas. I do have one question (not rhetorical) if we increase the cost to park in Uptown, doesn't that cause people to park on non-metered streets? We already have enough people avoiding the parking lots and meters by parking in front of out building in Girard.
Tom, indeed.
Lord knows it's hard enough to find parking on my street on Friday night.
I think the solution to that is to increase the number of metered streets, limit parking hours on non-metered streets, and institute a permit system for residents (permits would be free). Boston neighborhoods have parking permits and I think that would work out well.
The message should be: don't drive to Uptown! If you do, you will have to pay for it!
Parking isn't free.
Tom, on your blog you write: "Uptown is in danger of becoming UpDale."
I salute you, that is a great turn of phrase.
However, as a geek I wouldn't mind having an urban Best Buy in Uptown. I mean, there's no place in Uptown to get the kind of stuff they sell, so people who live there have to go to the 'burbs. In fact, according to the Best Buy store locator, there's no Best Buy in Minneapolis at all. Let's keep that sales tax revenue in the city!
But I share your concern that indie stores will be pushed out of business. I'm not sure what the best solution to THAT problem is.
Ryan, I disagree that Minneapolis hasn't had this type of development. Almost everything going up downtown has been like that. In fact, your example of an urbanist Safeway is matched almost exactly by the new mixed-use Lunds in Near Northeast, just across the river from downtown. Downtown has over 30,000 residents now.
I would like Uptown to be like that as well. There are a number of underused or unused parcels in Uptown that cry out for re-development. I just don't like stuff that's out of scale with the neighborhood. It will ruin it.
What's wrong with 4-6 stories in Uptown? (4 is the zoning limit, for what it's worth.) That's the historical size and it fits in well.
Regarding traffic, I think people are worried more about traffic gridlock. For example, Lake and Lagoon were changed to be one way streets in Uptown a number of years ago because the traffic gridlock on them was causing air quality problems. I think we're in agreement on the solution to this: charge the crap out of people who want to drive to Uptown.
Luke,
I can understand wanting to have a Best Buy in Uptown. You know they used to have one where Cheapo is now. For what it's worth, I really liked having that Best Buy there. And you do make a good point about keeping the tax revenue in the city.
Post a Comment
<< Home