Pros: The project would do a lot to further justify transit in the Greenway.
It would also really help other local business, which I would expect would
create some new jobs. At $75 million it would help build the taxbase or
ease pressure on existing properties. An overall increase in housing supply
would also ease upward price pressures on existing properties. Contrary to
some dissenters opionions, limiting the amount of housing put in the area
(ie not approving more intense development) does more to increase prices
than allowing the construction of additional market rate units.
Cons: It changes the character of a neighborhood, which by the way is
changing (and has changed for the past 100 years) whether you approve the
project or not.
Rant:
I Look at areas in east coast cities and they are a lot more connected and
complete feeling. That is what bothers me when people talk about the
character, we have so many gaps from parking lots and completely random
assortments (architecturally speaking) of commercial and residential
buildings that I am not sure what people are really trying to protect most
of the time. This is being built on a parking lot after all. What are the
opponents trying to preserve? The unique character of surface lots? It
would be a very different argument if they were proposing knocking down
architecturally significant structures or eliminating existing housing but
that is not the case in this proposal.
Its a shame that we don't have politicians and residents with a vision to
reinvent Minneapolis as a great urban area instead of keeping it a sleepy
streetcar suburb. We live in a city. We don't get to just say "I want the
neighborhood to stay the way it is circa 1992 and that's it." If people are
really so opposed to the idea of tall buildings and people developing land
in locations just blocks from the largest downtown in the four state area
maybe they should either consider that this is not the environment they want
to live in or buy up the property themselves so they can keep it as they
prefer.
I'm not advocating that there should be no limitations on development simply
that along commercial corridors (Lake and Hennepin) we should allow for high
levels of density and instensity of use.
The common retort I hear is that if we (citizens of MPLS) all wanted to live
in places that are dense like NY, Chicago, etc. we would've moved there. My
response is that if they are right about what people really want, then the
development won't be feasible and won't happen and they've got nothing to
worry about.
Nick Frank
Elliot Park
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
