David Brauer writes: I think this may have missed my point - someone said height was the issue; I said local traffic/congestion/environmental effects should have been. The idea that a 10-story building would have as much density as the 13 (and be approved) only reinforces my view that, traffic/environmental, not height, should have been the main consideration. IMHO.
Robert Goldman writes: 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. Harvey Zuckman wrote a while back: I do object to the Lagoon project for many reasons, first and foremost is not about the project itself, but about the intense demand for development in the Uptown area with no consideration to how all these developments will burden the infrastructure. Jeanne Massey responds: The Minneapolis Plan (http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/planning/planpubs/mplsplan/plan.html) specifies Uptown as a designated Activity Center in the city, with corresponding guidelines for development. The plan involves several "Implementation Steps" in the Urban Form - Activity Centers section of the plan including: "Develop a master plan for each designated Activity Center that a) establishes boundaries for these areas; b) addresses the identity, role and design features of the Center; c) gives guidance to the mix of land uses, scale and size of development in these areas and d) identifies transportation and circulation needs for each area." According to Barb Sporlein, Director of Planning, each development proposal is reviewed within the zoning code and the Plan's framework, which are premised on the goal of ensuring "development occurs in a pedestrian- and transit-oriented way, and at a scale, density and design that has minimal negative impact for the nearby residential areas, and enhances the quality of life". The Minneapolis Plan may be a good blue print for the Uptown area, but the master plan is not in place to more adequately guide development and will not be available until late 2006 or more likely 2007, according to Barb. The master plan for the Uptown area is necessary to provide a (multi-modal) transportation plan for the area and to ensure that adequate infrastructure development and a planned vision for pedestrian mobility is in place as projects come to the table for consideration. Given the intensity of interest in redeveloping the Uptown area, I would like to see the City to advance this implementation step so that more solid guidelines are in place as development proposals arise. I support increased density generally (and am not opposed to height per se) and I'm glad to see that the LynLake and Uptown area have been moving in this direction over the past five years. But they seem to have done so on a project by project basis, rather than based on a planned and consensus vision for what these areas should look like. With a specific master plan in place, future developments may not become project-by-project controversies as the current Lagoon project is. The city and public will also better understand the capacity of development in the area and be able to better anticipate and provide for the transportation and other development needs. Jeanne Massey Kingfield 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
