The question of the financial wisdom of the Park Board's building on the river, has been discussed by John Erwin and then critiqued by Michael Hohman. My quick reading says it's not as great as Erwin's analysis, but there are benefits of ownership not recognized by Hohman, that could tip the balance. My comments to the Park Board and their representative, when I first heard about the plan was that it didn't make any sense unless they connected to and used the river with such amenities as a boat tie-up or marina, or swimming or fishing docks. A great view for offices is hardly active use of the river. (I feel the same way about the Guthrie....that plan also needs a dock to arrive by boat or some other active use of the river.) I would like to draw attention to a study done by Minnesota Planning (at my instigation), entitled "Connecting With Minnesota's Urban Rivers: Helping Cities make sustainable Choices for the Future". They may be out of hard copies but you can download it at http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/eqb/pdf/2002/UrbanRivers.pdf . (It's 20 pages with about 20 more pages of appendixes.)
One of the best reccomendations is the line in the design guidelines: "Seek out and give priority to river-related and river-enhancing development opportunities. If there is no connection to the river, there is no need for a riverfront location." Have any Park Commissioners read this report? Staff? (Other than Rachel Ramadhyani, thanked in the acknowledgments.) Phyllis Kahn State Rep. 59B _______________________________________ 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
