This is to respond to postings on this list regarding the identified
ballpark site. I was the Planning Department representative on the staff
task force that reviewed the recommendations of the C-17 Committee's report
to the City Council, and evaluated downtown sites according to the
principles they identified. Some of the concerns identified in the list
postings are justified, and have been noted by City staff as well. I in
fact came into the project with the view that another site might be
preferable. Several dozens of hours later serious impediments to other
sites under consideration had become more clear and additional positive
attributes of the Rapid Park site had emerged. In short, it is fair to say
that it is the view of the Planning Department that the best potential
downtown site for a Twins ballpark is the one identified in the staff report
to the City Council. It has significant strengths, as well as some
weaknesses that would require mitigation. Without going into a lot of
details, below is the Planning Department analysis of the Rapid Park site
utilizing the recommendations of the C-17 Committee as the analytical
criteria. This was attached as an appendix to the staff report to the City
Council. It clearly identifies both strengths and weaknesses of the site.
It's a long post, but I think it provides the information desired.
Tom
A Rapid Park Ballpark
Evaluated Against the Recommendations of the C-17 Committee
Minneapolis City Planning Department
I. Community Involvement
The involvement of the community in site selection and ballpark design is of
high importance. But the recommendations in this section can be heeded
regardless of the site that is selected for the ballpark.
II. Site Selection
Recommendation 1: Cost efficiencies should be a top priority. Development
expenditures--such as the cost of site acquisition and preparation, and the
supply of appropriate infrastructure--are to be minimized.
The Rapid Park site would be expected to have low direct development costs
relative to other sites under consideration. Its small size and unimproved
character mean significantly less costs in acquisition, demolition and
relocation of affected businesses. The existing nearby parking ramps
represent an enormous savings over a site that lacks this infrastructure.
Some anticipated construction-related challenges will, however, have cost
implications. 1) The Bassett Creek tunnel, a brick lined box culvert
running under the property, would have to be protected. 2) Part of the
ballpark would be situated over the rail line, which would complicate the
construction of a ballpark and add to its cost. 3) Although the Rapid Park
site is currently undeveloped, planning is underway to locate a multimodal
transit station on the property. This would link planned and future
commuter rail lines with planned and future LRT lines. Construction of a
ballpark on this site may be complicated by the need to integrate both of
these major infrastructure projects on the same site. Alternatively, an
adjustment to the proposed location of the transit station may be required.
In either case there may be significant cost implications.
Development costs related to development of the area around the ballpark
facility might be higher than average for this site because of the need to
create a connection with the downtown warehouse district over I-394.
Recommendation 2: Neighborhood disruption must be kept at a minimum.
Of all the downtown sites under consideration, the Rapid Park site alone
does not require street closures that would disrupt the existing street
grid. It similarly does not require the removal of existing buildings and
the relocation of their occupants. Residential developments located several
blocks to the north and east are likely to experience some noise, light and
traffic impacts.
Recommendation 3: Be visionary.
Clearly, proposed sites along Hennepin Avenue or the Riverfront offer the
highest imagability. However, the Rapid Park site has features that can
serve to build a strong charm factor for a new ballpark. Appropriate
orientation of the field would offer fans a beautiful view of the downtown
skyline. If a public plaza is constructed linking the ballpark to the
warehouse district, this would be a tremendous opportunity for creating a
distinctive public space. It may be possible to allow views into the field
from the 5th Street bridge, or convert the street to a pedestrian-only plaza
during game events.
Recommendation 4: The project must be compatible with the Minneapolis
Development Plan.
A number of approved plans provide guidance to development in the area of
the Rapid Park site. Most important among these are The Minneapolis Plan,
Downtown 2010 and the Warehouse District Action plan, and the approved 2001
City Goals. The following policies from these plans bear on the location of
a Minneapolis ballpark. They express preference for a downtown location
within or close to the designated entertainment district. The demolition of
historic structures is to be avoided, as is disruption of the street grid.
Creating an appropriate transitions between the ballpark and any nearby
residential areas is also seen as a high priority.
The Rapid Park site conforms with this constellation of policies, being
close to the downtown entertainment district without disrupting the existing
street grid or requiring the removal of any historic properties. It is
buffered from downtown residential areas by intervening land uses.
The Minneapolis Plan
9.4 Minneapolis will promote preservation as a tool for economic
development and community revitalization
9.13 Minneapolis will restore and maintain the traditional street grid.
9.15 Minneapolis will protect residential areas from the negative impact
of non-residential uses by providing appropriate transitions.
Downtown 2010
Downtown's physical setting
16. Preserve, restore and reuse historic buildings and sites in
Downtown.
17. Support the retention of historic properties in publicly assisted
redevelopment projects in downtown.
Entertainment
1. Designate the area along Hennepin Avenue between 5th and 10th
Streets and the Warehouse District as downtown's Entertainment District.
2. Maintain downtown as the location for the region's professional
sports teams, and ensure that future sports facilities are located where
they can complement the existing retail and entertainment districts, take
advantage of existing parking and transit facilities and maximize direct
economic benefits to downtown.
Downtown Living
7. Protect residential areas from encroachment of incompatible land
uses, and ensure that the physical environment of downtown residential areas
is compatible with housing by minimizing traffic impacts, maintaining
security, and providing and maintaining amenities.
Minneapolis Warehouse Preservation Action Plan
Physical Environment Goal: Preserve the distinctive character of the Plan
Area, through rehabilitation of buildings, conservation of historic
streetscape features, and compatible design for new construction.
2001 City Goals
7. Market downtown as a place to live, work, play and do business
III. Building design
The recommendations in this section can and should be heeded regardless of
the site that is selected for the ballpark.
IV. Development and Urban Planning
A. Spin-off Development
Recommendation 1: Build the ballpark in or near an area where mixed-use
entertainment and living already exist.
The Rapid Park site is near the warehouse district of downtown Minneapolis,
an area of restaurants, nightclubs, art galleries and other cultural and
entertainment venues-as well as offices and residences. These are within
easy walking distance from a Rapid Park ballpark, and clearly available to
those who are interested in augmenting their downtown Minneapolis experience
before or after the game. Although the close proximity of the three TAD
ramps makes it quite easy for a number of fans to attend the game without
setting foot in the rest of downtown, these ramps have a combined capacity
of less than 8,000 parking spaces, with less than 5,000 anticipated to be
available for any given game event. Many fans will be required to seek
parking closer to the downtown core, or take public transportation to the
ballgame. These fans would be expected to walk through nearby areas of
downtown on their way to the ballgame. Nonetheless, the level to which
baseball fans feel encouraged to participate in other downtown activities
may depend on how development in the area around the ballpark enhances the
perceived connectedness between the ballpark and the warehouse district.
Recommendation 2: Walking or easy public transit should be available at the
ballpark site to give easy access to nearby venues before and after the
game.
The Rapid Park site is an easy five to ten minute walk from the CBD for
those downtown workers who wish to go directly from their office to the
game. It offers outstanding public transportation connections via existing
bus routes, and planned LRT and commuter rail lines. Proposed future LRT
and commuter rail lines would further improve the site's accessibility.
Recommendation 3: Generate a realistic, mixed use development and urban
design plan for the area around the ballpark.
An urban design plan for the Rapid Park site would place high priority on
improving the actual and perceived connection with the downtown warehouse
district. It might include the provision of a pedestrian plaza and/or
related development bridging the I-394 freeway. It might also contemplate
some redevelopment on the ground level of one or more of the adjacent public
parking ramps.
The Rapid Park site and its immediate vicinity are extremely important in
the development of the Hiawatha LRT line and the Northstar Commuter Rail
line. There is interest in extending the LRT line to the north and west
through the area. One or more southbound commuter rail line will similarly
originate in the area. A multimodal transit station is currently being
explored on the Rapid Park site itself. Further analysis is required to
evaluate the impact of a Rapid Park ballpark on future rail transit. It
would clearly introduce a major constraint on the NW extension of LRT, and
would exert a major impact on the design and possibly the location of the
transit station.
B. Parking and Transportation
Recommendation 1: Do not build a large surface lot anywhere around the
ballpark, except perhaps a small lot for players and staff. This allow easy
access by foot and will yield more neighborhood friendly uses around the
park itself.
The space constraints in the vicinity of the Rapid Park site make it
unlikely that any new nearby surface parking would be proposed. Moreover,
the surface parking lot to the north of the Rapid Park site would be under
development pressure for a variety of alternative uses.
Recommendation 2: Prioritize places that have significant street and
structure parking already in existence within a ten to fifteen minute walk
from the ballpark. This would cut down on the need for new parking garages
in the vicinity of the facility. We also believe that parking options
dispersed throughout a half-mile radius around the ballpark are more
desirable than concentrating parking just a few blocks away.
The nearby TAD ramps have a capacity for xx cars. Thousands of additional
parking spaces are located in the downtown core within a half mile distance
of the Rapid Park site. Excellent transit connections makes it possible to
develop the site without construction of any new parking garages.
Because time and distance are of value in distributing fan exit times, the
immediacy of the parking will pose a problem for some ballpark fans. Those
fans that park immediately across the street from the ballpark in the TAD
ramps, and that wish to leave the vicinity immediately after the game, would
be expected to experience significant congestion. This same condition,
however, might have countervailing benefits for the City by encouraging fans
to distribute their own arrival and exit times. Fans might find it more
convenient and pleasant to arrive at the game early and eat downtown. Or to
go out after the game in order to avoid the exit rush. It might also cause
them to utilize one of the good public transit options.
Recommendation 3: To the extent that parking garages are used, work to find
solutions with those garages that would increase revenue for the team and/or
investors.
Because the TAD ramps are publicly owned, the Rapid Park site would provide
increased parking revenues that could be utilized for the ballpark or
related public investments. If the ballpark were located at a site more
distant from the warehouse district, parking is more likely to be available
in privately owned parking facilities and more difficult to capture for
ballpark related development.
Recommendation 4: Widen sidewalks around the ballpark to facilitate
pedestrian traffic.
The Rapid Park ballpark site would be one of the smallest in Major League
Baseball. While this is fully in line with the recommendations of the C-17
Committee, it would be a design challenge to widen sidewalks around the
ballpark. The sidewalks along 5th and 7th Streets that would link the
ballpark to downtown are similarly deserving of increased width, but are
constrained between traffic lanes and existing development.
In a broader sense, other mechanisms can be utilized to facilitate
pedestrian traffic. If a plaza is constructed across I-394 from the
ballpark, this would provide an area for pedestrians to sort themselves out
before going into the ballpark. The conversion of 5th Street to a
pedestrian street during game events should also be studied.
Recommendation 5: Promote alternative means of getting to the ballpark.
LRT, commuter rail, shuttle buses, charter buses--even bicycles--will
provide a way to come to the ballpark that will greatly reduce the need for
parking.
With the LRT terminus close at hand, commuter rail immediately adjacent, and
even the Cedar Lake commuter bicycle trail paralleling the rail lines, there
is no downtown site that is better connected by public transit of all kinds.
Coming to the games without your automobile will be relatively easy to sell
at this site.
C. Public Spaces
Recommendation 1: Provide gracious entries directly from the sidewalk into
the ballpark. Fans should enter by doors and gates, not stairways and
ramps.
This recommendation would need to be considered in the design of the
ballpark itself. However, the fact that ground level is already situated
well below the street level should lend itself to street level entrances.
Recommendation 2: Design and build a public plaza adjacent to the ballpark
that will allow for pre- and post-game gathering, as well as daily use.
Staff concurs with the importance of locating a public space of this kind
outside the facility, both to give fans a gathering space and to increase
the sense of connectedness with the downtown. The owner of the Rapid Park
site has recommended a plaza that would bridge I-394 between the 5th and 7th
Street parking garages. This is the area closest to the ballpark suitable
for the purpose. The plaza in this area would be bordered by two parking
ramps and the rear of the Target Center, and constrained by I-394's 6th
Street exit ramp. Its value for improving the perceived proximity to
downtown is unclear. A plaza bridging I-394 adjacent to 5th Street is a bit
more distant, but might do a better job of improving the sense of connection
to downtown, and might have more utility when the ballpark is not in use.
The use of 5th Street as a pedestrianway during game events could also
contribute a gathering space for fans and a connecting link to the downtown.
Recommendation 3: Make the ballpark somewhat "transparent", allowing for a
permanent view into the ballpark proper and outside of the City's vistas and
landmarks.
The elevation of the 5th Street bridge relative to the level of the playing
field makes an open relationship between 5th Street and the playing field a
possibility that warrants full exploration.
The required orientation of a baseball diamond means that a ballpark to the
northwest of downtown has excellent views of the downtown skyline. The
Rapid Park site would offer a beautiful view of the downtown, with the
public parking ramps and Target Center building providing a low foreground
to the downtown skyline behind.
Recommendation 4: Incorporate artful landscaping, open spaces, and public
art in and around the facility.
These elements would need to be considered as part of any public plaza
developed. They might also be important linking features along 5th Street,
and other streets in the vicinity of the ballpark.
V. Financing Plan
The financing recommendations of the C-17 Committee are not location
dependent.
Conclusion
The Rapid Park site conforms well with the recommendations of the C-17
Committee, and with approved City plans. It is available and relatively
undeveloped. Extensive parking infrastructure is close at hand, and
outstanding public transit. The site is close to the warehouse district of
downtown Minneapolis, and closer to the central business district than the
Metrodome. A ballpark on this site would conform well with the policies of
The Minneapolis Plan, Downtown 2010, the Warehouse Preservation Action Plan,
and 2001 City Goals.
The most significant design challenges of the site are 1) to strengthen the
connection and perceived proximity to the commercial and entertainment
businesses of the downtown warehouse district, and 2) to retain the capacity
for future development of LRT and Commuter Rail lines, and the construction
of an outstanding multimodal transit facility. If these challenges can be
addressed, it appears that development of a ballpark at the Rapid Park site
can be accomplished in full conformance with the recommendations of the C-17
report and City policy.
Thomas Leighton
City Planner
City of Minneapolis
phone: (612) 673-3853
fax: (612) 673-2728
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
