Dyna, I disagree with your idea of a "network of small towns" . . . and not
just your conclusions, either. I disagree with the assumptions that have led
you to this idea.
> On a more serious note the trip got me thinking... I like most of us
> have always loved the country and would live there if I could. Of
> course, country living isn't real practical so most of us would prefer
> a small town and few really want to live in bigger cities like
> Minneapolis given the choice.
I can't speak for other listmembers, but I know that bears no reality
whatsoever to my personal preferences. I'm here to live in a city, not
because I have to. A city is a very particular being. It offers the
following advantages that country living does not:
* Easy, multi-modal transportation
* Public spaces
* Exposure to diverse cultures and worldviews
* Cultural institutions (libraries, museums, theatres, etc.)
* 24-hour access to commercial establishments (i.e. shops, restaurants,
etc.)
> Thusly I propose that the key for Minneapolis vitality as a city is to
> become a network of small towns. Our neighborhood boundaries would in
> many cases make sense as town boundaries, and neighborhood groups would
> be given increased autonomy to run their own towns.
I don't know if you're arguing here for actually splitting the city up into
entirely autonomous towns. I agree with giving neighborhoods increased
autonomy for planning, but they must be well tuned-in to the city as a
whole. Our city does not function as a loose collection of independent
neighborhoods. As a matter of fact, a large number of Minneapolis residents
do not live their lives solely within the city, either, but there are
obvious political roadblocks to annexing the Twin Cities metropolitan
region.
> In keeping with the
> small town look and feel, development outside the downtown core would
> be limited in height to below the tree canopy and building footprint
> would be limited to the size of a traditional small town store or
> factory. Sacred structures like church spires and grain elevators would
> of course be exempted.
First of all, if we truly had a series of independent small towns, shouldn't
they be allowed to choose how they'd like to grow? Maybe some small towns
would like to begin sprouting 12-story buildings. They are autonomous,
aren't they?
Second of all, this doesn't fit the natural pattern of development that I
believe is occurring in Minneapolis, which is a steady push outwards of
dense urban development. What do you consider the downtown core? Is it just
Downtown West? Downtown West and East? or does it include some or all of the
following: Cedar-Riverside, Elliot Park, Loring Park, Nicollet Island / East
Bank, St. Anthony East & West, Marcy Holmes, North Loop? Might it eventually
include some of these following: Beltrami, Como, Steven's Square, Ventura
Village, Whittier, Lowry Hill East, East Isles, Lowry Hill, Harrison,
Sumner-Glenwood, Near-North, and your own Hawthorne-town?
Our city is now the minimum size it needs to be to function properly, not
the maximum. And, absolutely, it bears no relation to country living. It's
not supposed to. It has its own style, its own pace, and its own advantages.
>From the East-Isles subneighborhood of the Minneapolis neighborhood of
TwinCities,
--Jeff Rosenberg
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
