Dorie Rae Gallagher said
"Getting back to Uptown...we have a Downtown...we don't need two."
"I can see some 3-4 stories but that is personal preference. I like to see
sky, open spaces, unique buildings and not rubber stamped housing that's 12
stories creating shadows and mold on the neighbors."
"just am not into high density housing. Never lived in an apartment building
where I needed to walk down a hallway to apartment such and such and become
known by that number."
Nick Responds:
No one will cofuse Uptown for Downtown because of 12 a story building. What
would be unique about more 3 and 4 story buildings? Tall buildings do not
block out the sky especially at 12 stories. In fact a tall slender building
can allow a developer to preserve more open space than a shorter, squatter
building. Wouldn't a 12 story building be the epitomy of unique in Uptown
at this point?
Why shouldn't the developer whom owns the land which is currently a surface
lot, be allowed to build something of moderate hieght, that there is
sufficient demand for? Remember that just because you don't want to live in
an apartment/condo building does not mean that no one else should be allowed
to.
Additionally what makes you believe that it is economically feasible to
build 3 and 4 story buildings as infill in the Uptown area? I think the RFP
on the Walker library site illustrated clearly that buildings must rise
above that height to be feasible. If we accept that fact of the matter
there are only three outcomes:
1. We allow taller buildings like the one proposed
2. We subsidize the financial gap to make short buildings feasible
3. We don't get development, tax base, more housing choices, retail, etc.
This same situation is going to play itself out in the Loring Park
neighborhood where they currently have a moratorium.
My non-NIMBY credentials: I live in Elliot Park a block away from Grant
Park (30 stories or so) and 4 or 5 other proposed towers that will range
from 8 to 32 stories. The neighborhood's plan for these blocks in 2002 was
3 and 4 story properties that would blend in with the older structures. The
neighborhood received an education from the developers that their desired
developments were not feasible and therefore would not happen. Since
obviously subsidies aren't available, the choice is to either build up or
end up with the same old parking lots. I think the neighborhood made the
right choice in this case and embraced more intensive development. 10th and
Portland will be a real destination in a few years.
We NEED more intensity in housing and land use. That is the only way this
city can grow. If we are not growing, we are shrinking or stagnant and I
have yet to see anyone make a convincing argument that we can afford that.
Thank you,
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
