>>>>> "DG" == David Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DG> Andy Driscoll wrote:
>> Cause it ain't about the money, but about a quality of life that was
>> threatened by overbuilding, overdeveloping.
>>
>> Why don't people get this stuff: that it cannot always be about the
>> potential money. The project might gain a few bucks in the short term,
but
>> the loss of Uptown ambience would drive many denizens back to other
lairs.
>> And there goes the neighborhood. This is a great decision.
DG> I find it interesting that in all our discussion on this topic, a total
DG> of one person who actually lives or has a business near the development
DG> objected to it. All of the talk about destroying the character of
DG> Uptown came from parties less familiar with the actual character and
DG> needs of the surrounding neighborhoods.
OK, I felt the spear-carriers were doing a great job so I didn't say
anything. But given the above (which seems to me to be close to an
argument ad hominem), I want to stand up and be counted. I was NOT
for this, and I DO live in the area, and have lived in Uptown for the
entire time I've lived in Minnapolis.
DG> Nathan is right on in his analysis of the need for density in the
DG> area to leverage existing pedestrian, bike and public transportation
DG> infrastructure.
Density may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. What happens if
you get density and it's density of a 13-storey development full of
people who all have cars? What then? No leverage of the alternate
transport, and further stress on the car-based transit system. How is
that to be avoided.
Also, I'm not in favor of having huge buildings loom over my head all
the time. If I liked that, I could live in downtown. For that
matter, if I wanted to live in a dark urban canyon that is shadowed
all day long, I could go back to New York. I *like* being able to see
the sky most of the time.
DG> The site is now a parking lot. I don't see how keeping it that way
DG> helps the neighborhood at all. A 2- or 4-story development does
DG> little to improve the situation.
One way it might help the neighborhood would be letting my neighbors
who don't have garages be able to park, instead of having their blocks
filled with the cars of people coming in to savor the character of the
neighborhood without any intention of using pedestrian or bus transit.
DG> I talked to CM Schiff about the decision last night. Apparently
DG> the city is happy to approve a 10-story project and the developer
DG> has some time (60 days?) to agree to that plan. Hopefully an
DG> agreement can be reached and my neighborhood can start filling
DG> in underused areas.
The other point is that we have a zoning ordinance for a reason. OK,
maybe we don't like parts of it. In that case, let's fix it. But I
don't see why it's a huge win to just chip away at it here and there,
and end up with unplanned, incoherent development. If you want to see
the zoning loosened up to make this kind of development possible, I'd
rather see that be made the focus of the debate, rather than having to
have these spasmodic battles over ad hoc, one-off decisions.
--
Robert P. Goldman
ECCO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
