Chris Johnson wrote:
> This is a question of urban planning. Do we really want to increase the
> already excessive land area of the metro? It is extremely expensive
> to run services (bus, sewers, etc.) out into the exurbs. Our metro area
> is going to be in for a major change over the next 15 years. We cannot
> simply stick our heads in the sand and pretend there's nothing to do.
No one including me suggested we stick our heads in the sand and pretend
there's nothing to do. I am in complete agreement that we do not want
to increase excessive land use, but it is a fact such increased land use
has happened, is happening as we write and will continue to happen.
This is where we disagree. Yes, we will use more land, but my
impression is that you think it's inevitable that we'll use land
at the same rate we have been for decades. In order for that not
to happen, we must increase density. Uptown, with its existing
and future transit amenities, is a natural place to do so.
That's why not only is an issue of urban planning, but an issue of macro
land use policy. I have no argument with any part of the above
paragraph. I don't understand why Mr. Greene appears to think that I do.
Because you argued that given the existing geographical size of the
5, 7, 9 or 11 county area, each of those million people can have
between 1.3 and 1.8 acres. Behind that statement is the assumption
that the people will be evenly distributed around the 11 county area.
The actual geographical reach of our urban infrastructure is currently
much, much smaller.
> No, they don't all need to live in Uptown and your statement to that
> effect is clearly specious. I would prefer that they live in the
> core cities and first-ring suburbs, however.
I clearly said "many of those million people, " not all of them -- Mr.
Greene is twisting my words to make my argument sound specious. I think
that's known as a straw man, is it not?
I misread the quote and I'll accept that mistake. I was not setting
up a strawman.
The point is, unless more of those one million people than the current
vacancies (remember, rental vacancies are high right now) in Uptown need
to live there, arguing for 13 story buildings in Uptwon on the premise
that we have to put those one million people someplace -- which is what
Mr. Greene previously argued -- is false.
The "unless" is key. If we agree that most of the people should land
in the existing core cities and inner suburbs, I find it quite likely
that a good number of them will want to live in the midst of Uptown
given its vitality and access to unique venues and features. Of course
if extra units are not built, we will not get those extra residents.
There is some risk that has to be taken.
I am still in agreement with Mr. Greene that ideally it would be nice if
most of those people lived in the core cities and first-ring suburbs.
But I also believe people should be free to live where they desire, and
that urban environments are not the best place for every kind of person
and personality.
Clearly. However, I believe we absolutely should encourage people to
live near the cities. Right now the incentives run exactly the other
way.
I'd actually be far more in favor of scattered small towns separated by
small areas of rural land, with all of the larger such towns connected
to the big core cities and urban areas by various types of transit (i.e.
multi-modal). Such a model preserves a lot more rural quality and small
town quality, while supporting much higher densities than our current
suburban and exurban style of growth. Such a land use style for a
rectangle roughly bordered by the outer edges of St. Cloud on the
northwest corner and Rochester on the southeast corner would probably
work quite well, given the large and growing population of that area.
I'm not entirely understanding what you're saying. Don't we already
kind of have that? Of course the urban areas are swallowing up the
small towns currently, or the small towns grow into big towns and
merge with the urban areas (Hopkins, Lakeville, etc.).
>> I can think of large swaths of land in Minneapolis where the density
>> is quite a bit lower than Uptown. Maybe some of the development
>> should go there instead into an area already overburdened with
>> automobile traffic. That's right; how many people here can remember
>> why they split Lake and Lagoon into opposing one-way streets? Because
>> Lake and Hennepin was the single most polluted intersection in the
>> city (or was it 5-county metro?).
> Why do we, as a region, insist on a single solution for our
> transportation needs?
Is this another straw man? I don't see anything in my paragraph above
that suggests I am in favor of a single solution for our transportation
needs.
You're arguing that congestion will become unbearable. That will only
happen if we don't change our transportation habits. Congestion will
never decrease, but it can be mitigated.
near vacuum is a recipe for disaster. Maybe we will get lucky and not
kill the golden goose that is Uptown right now. There's no guarantee
either way. But we did pretty much shoot ourselves in the foot on Main
Street. Does anybody go down there anymore? It used to be packed
almost every summer evening in the 1980s (Sundays were admittedly a bit
slower).
At this point, this is all speculation. We have just as many examples
of successful projects. The truth is all development has risks. The
good planners mitigate it.
Yes, it is subjective. Am I not entitled to my opinion? Many residents
seem to agree with me. Many of those who argue such a height is not a
visual eyesore don't live there, although Mr. Greene does.
Yes, you have your opinion. But it seems odd to make development
decisions based on it when there is clearly a split opinion about
it.
> The corridors are already defined and have been since at least 2000.
> We don't need any more planning for the first phase of our transit
> system. We need MONEY to build it!
Where are these corridors defined? I haven't read any such thing. What
good is a plan if nobody knows about it?
The Met Council has it all:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TPP/2004/summary.htm
Transit for Livable Communities has a much more fun map:
http://www.tlcminnesota.org/Resources/TransitMapAug04web.pdf
David Greene
The Wedge
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
