A ton of interesting discussion on these two topics. Despite the large outlay of city money, the article says $39 million, and the missing amenities, we have one thing that can never be taken away. The salvation of the Schubert. I know many folks think this was a sham, but, when ArtSpace finishes this project residents of Minneapolis will be grateful for the foresight, hard work. dedication and political will that got this project completed.
On the issue of Zoning. Tim's example was probably a bit on the extreme side. The zoning code in Minneapolis is really a well written document. As recently as three years ago our code was a mish mash of of layered rules that was so hard to decipher, the only way to find out if a use was permitted on your land by the code was to call a city employee who had encyclopedic knowledge and a long history working for the city. The new code passed in 1999, largely due to the hard work of City Staffer Blake Graham. It was a significant upgrade of the 1963 ordinance. Now, a laymen can understand the code, learn the zoning that underlies their property and determine the acceptable uses for that property. A good zoning code like we now have in Minneapolis is flexible enough to allow for creativity in development and structured enough to restrict uses that would have have severe negative effects on surrounding property. Paul Lambie asked why we shouldn't be allowed to build duplexes or triplexes on a standard 40 foot lot. He's right that the code requires more land for a multifamily building than most 40' wides can provide. My duplex, for example could not be rebuilt should it burn down. On the other hand, my neighbor's duplex is on a 29' wide lot that is only 60' deep. The tenants there are crushed into a space that is too small for them. If it weren't for the park across the street and the fact that neither of them own a car I could see the potential for real negative hassles. And, since my neighbor lives in Honolulu, I would have a big phone bill until I got it worked out. According to Title 20 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, some of its purposes include: (2) To promote and protect the public health, safety, aesthetics, economic viability and general welfare of the city. (3) To encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the city. (4) To protect the character and stability of residential, commercial and industrial areas within the city, and to promote the orderly and beneficial development of those areas. (5) To provide adequate light, air, privacy and convenience of access to property, and to secure property from fire, flood and other dangers. (6) To protect and conserve the value of land, buildings and other improvements throughout the city. (7) To prevent the overcrowding of land and the undue concentration of population. (8) To provide for the safe and efficient circulation of all modes of transportation, including transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic, with particular regard to the avoidance of congestion in the streets and highways. One thing I've wondered regarding Minneapolis' 500,000 residents in 1950 and only 380,000 in 2000, is where did those 120,000 people live? I suppose some lived on that block on the south side between Stevens and 2nd, or the block between Washington and 3rd on the north side. But, freeways can't account for all the lost housing. Any ideas? -- In cooperation, Erik Riese Seward: a great place to live, work, learn, and play! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
