I don't know that this proposed Gasworks Bluff development is wrong or
right, but I am concerned by the process. This proposed land sale seems
to be coming out of the blue, there isn't any planning context for it.
The land is at a critical prow in the river, and if it were developed
with a 20+ story tower it would have views covering the Port Authority
in North Minneapolis all the way to the U of M and potentially to Fort
Snelling, and people on the ground would also see it from all of those
points. Every east side neighborhood nearby will have a view of this
building, every tourist will see it. That thought alone ought to bring
a pause. This is a phenomenal piece of property in terms of its real
estate potential, and it is also a phenomenal public resource as
parkland, even in its current polluted and poorly maintained state. It
is an undisputed and strategic highpoint in the viewshed. The question
we need to be asking ourselves is 'is this project really that important
that it become a dominating or prominent element for the river, is this
how we want to represent ourselves', if the answer is no I think we need
to step back from this, we should maintain this land as parkland, at
least for the time being. We don't have a clear understanding how this
property ought to be used, and we shouldn't proceed with a project that
could be viewed as a mistake by future generations.
Some people view this kind of protectionism as being
'anti-development'. I view it as the exact opposite. The trick here is
to use the river for development, but not kill the goose that laid the
golden egg. It is very easy to sell off prime land for a few million
dollars, but if that quick payback endangers hundreds of millions of
dollars in City, State and Federal investments, and cuts short long term
plans, we have made a poor decision. The goal should be to leverage
many tens of thousands of housing units and businesses from this
investment, funded and built with private dollars, not a few hundred
units that cannibalize public resources. Our other goal should be to
build up the Minneapolis Riverfront into a world class amenity, which it
could become. The advantage of building on land near the Mississippi is
not from the land itself, that land can be polluted or ugly. The
advantage is from the views you get and the proximity to the river as a
recreation space. That value is what makes the Mississippi an engine
for development. The more people want to be near it, the more valuable
it is and the greater the pressure will be to build on it. If we damage
the views and the recreation aspects of the river, we damage the river
as a development tool, and we reduce its value. Inhibiting our engine
for development will cost us money and jobs and over time that will
affect our quality of life.
We need to protect and improve our investment in the river. Doing that
will help build up Minneapolis as a world class destiniation. That kind
of distinction as a great place to live will attract the kind of talent
that can compete in the global economy. Businesses can feel secure that
an investment in Minneapolis will leave them well positioned to compete
because they will have access to a great work force. We are in
worldwide competition. If we end up looking and feeling like a dumpy
midwestern town in decline, we will end up with an economy to match our
lack of vision, as the best and brightest among us leave. Companies
will follow and move to cites around state, or the world for that
matter, that can better support and attract workers with the
intellectual capital they need. Right now we are treading water. If we
improve our public resources, we improve our ability to attract and keep
the work force we need. It is a simple and calculus everyone should
understand. At least in part, our fate is linked to the river.
Peter Vevang
Audubon
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:14:34 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] Gasworks Bluff
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Tony Scallon did indeed raise environmental concerns and it was appropriate to
do so. But that is but one of many factors to consider in the Park plan and
unsupported allegations and the generic bogeyman of "environmental problems"
are not sufficient reasons to shelve the hard work and planning efforts of the
neighbors and concerned citizens.
Has anyone determined the extent of the purported environmental issues? If so,
what is the cost? Are federal or state monies avialable to assist in any
required cleanup (as they often are)? Oftentimes in situations like this, the
recommended and most economical form of environmental remediation is to add one
to two feet of topsoil and not disturb the ground for a hundred years or so -
i.e. a Park!
Shouldn't we at least analyze the issue before selling off Park land to
developers?
Barry Clegg
Nicollet Island
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
