urbanMSP

http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/recreatio ... pageid=110

Restoration plans include development of a structured whitewater rapids channel with a trail and park on the east bank of the Mississippi River across from the Corps of Engineers’ Lower St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam. The facility would use the vertical drop created by the dam and include a new manmade river channel up to 1,800 feet long with a vertical drop of 25 feet. The channel would flow adjacent to the river main stem in a park setting. The facility would include a recreational whitewater course for kayaking, canoeing, and rafting as well as improved public access to the river and formal shore fishing opportunities.

This is such an awesome idea.

I agree, I think that this has the potential to be a huge draw for Minneapolis and Minnesota. This has been in the works for awhile and it's unfortunate that TPaw's administration did not support it, which essentially stopped momentum on the project.

Maybe more appropriate for the fantasy or Vikings thread, I think it would be pretty cool if a climbing gym and/or a mountain bike trail or other outdoor elements were incorporated into the design of the new stadium to get more use out of the facility. Combine that with the proposed whitewater park and Minneapolis would be quite the urban center for the outdoor enthusiast.

Huge draw? Your definition and mine must be different. I'm not saying it wouldn't be unique and interesting, but I hardly think it would draw a ton of people. I can think of maybe 3 people in my life that would ever even consider going on something like this and I know a lot of people that are outdoor enthusiasts.
I put this in the same category as running commuter rail to Hastings. Just because 3 people might use it does not make it a good idea. I just don't see where this would be successful without being 100% subsidized, then at that point do I want to see my tax dollars going to a guy taking the day off to go on a raft ride?

I love kayaking and think that would be cool, but I can't picture it being something I would do frequently. A river-side pool (like I saw in at least one of the concepts for the upper river plan) would be amazing and attract people of all ages/types. There should be some way to better interact with the river, other than walking next to it.

Huge draw? Your definition and mine must be different. I'm not saying it wouldn't be unique and interesting, but I hardly think it would draw a ton of people. I can think of maybe 3 people in my life that would ever even consider going on something like this and I know a lot of people that are outdoor enthusiasts.
I put this in the same category as running commuter rail to Hastings. Just because 3 people might use it does not make it a good idea. I just don't see where this would be successful without being 100% subsidized, then at that point do I want to see my tax dollars going to a guy taking the day off to go on a raft ride?

Really? For one thing, I'd see this being a huge draw. I hate the outdoors but would totally go at least once a year. It's such a novelty, go pregame at St. Anthony Main and go kayaking, I mean...yeah. No mosquitoes!

Plus, how much could it cost to run once it's built? Decent upfront cost, a large portion of which is federal monopoly money, then I mean...water? Some lifeguards?

Huge draw? Your definition and mine must be different. I'm not saying it wouldn't be unique and interesting, but I hardly think it would draw a ton of people. I can think of maybe 3 people in my life that would ever even consider going on something like this and I know a lot of people that are outdoor enthusiasts.
I put this in the same category as running commuter rail to Hastings. Just because 3 people might use it does not make it a good idea. I just don't see where this would be successful without being 100% subsidized, then at that point do I want to see my tax dollars going to a guy taking the day off to go on a raft ride?

Way to think critically there... I hope all your opinions aren't assumptions based on the people you know.

Are you okay with your tax dollars helping to fund a billionaire's business that's only open 10 times a year?

Huge draw? Your definition and mine must be different. I'm not saying it wouldn't be unique and interesting, but I hardly think it would draw a ton of people. I can think of maybe 3 people in my life that would ever even consider going on something like this and I know a lot of people that are outdoor enthusiasts.
I put this in the same category as running commuter rail to Hastings. Just because 3 people might use it does not make it a good idea. I just don't see where this would be successful without being 100% subsidized, then at that point do I want to see my tax dollars going to a guy taking the day off to go on a raft ride?

When it comes to rail you have to start somewhere. It is almost guaranteed that the first couple of train lines will not have enough ridership. That's why you create a network of train lines. Lets take the Northstar line for example. Right now they can go downtown. Expect ridership on the Northstar to increase when they can switch trains and get to the UofM.

I for one believe that increasing the size of freeways to handle traffic for suburbia is a waste of money. I also believe that wars in the middle east to keep fuel affordable to suburbanites is a waste of money as well.

Continuous wars in the middle east for oil and increased prices. Or building a cheaper alternative. Which is trains.

When it comes to this whitewater park, however. You need to have many things to do downtown for people to go there. This will be one of the many choices. How many people would eat at a restaurant in Minneapolis after whitewater rafting. I would gather that people get hungry after doing physical activity.

You have to see the the economy is interconnected in many ways. While this in itself "might" lose money it may bring enough people downtown spending money at other places to be worth it.

I'd agree that this is not going to be a huge draw, but a unique attraction is much better than the park board simply turning more land into parks. People don't go to parks because they are big, they do there because there is something specific they want to do. During this summer months, this new riverfront feature could attract a few hundred visitors during the summer - visitors who would be coming downtown from the suburbs. If river access is done right, this could be an attraction for U of M students as well since it's less than a 1/2 mile away.

Am I the only one that thinks kayaking/whitewater rafting (where you get pretty wet) in the Mississippi sounds disgusting? I know it's cleaner in Minneapolis than St. Louis or New Orleans, but still...

Am I the only one that thinks kayaking/whitewater rafting (where you get pretty wet) in the Mississippi sounds disgusting? I know it's cleaner in Minneapolis than St. Louis or New Orleans, but still...

below the Falls, yeah!

Am I the only one that thinks kayaking/whitewater rafting (where you get pretty wet) in the Mississippi sounds disgusting? I know it's cleaner in Minneapolis than St. Louis or New Orleans, but still...

below the Falls, yeah!

http://www.startribune.com/local/171542141.html

Clean!

http://www.startribune.com/local/171542141.html

Clean!

"Ever" might not be the absolute best word choice.

Does anyone know where to get up to date information on the whitewater park?
The park has to have a surfing fearure, it would be stupid not to include a riversurfing feature. People travel from around the world to go to stand up paddle and river surfing events in colorado.