Not sure if this is really directed at me, but because you re-used the word 'rubes', I'll venture it was.
First, to be clear, I wasn't trying to rip you or anybody else -- just to make a rhetorical point that we've seen something like this before and it turned out pretty well in the end. I am all for making specific recommendations about how to improve this park, but frankly I haven't heard very many.
It's clear that many think that it's a full-stop tragedy that Portland isn't being cut off right now, but it's also clear that Ryan wanted that to happen and it's the public officials at Hennepin County are the ones standing in the way and the City hasn't stood up and made it a priority.
Some folks think that the apartment building is bad, but others disagree. I'd tend to say that having the eyes and active use directly on the park is probably a net positive.
So, what are the other specific things that are problematic, and who has the authority to fix them (since the development of the park is no longer in Ryan's hands)?
I can’t say it any clearer than that.
There is only one way to defend this approach (which I’ve already refuted) but here goes again…
The renderings represent a beautiful vision of what *could* be and where it goes from there isn’t the developers problem. They are just showing what *could* be and if the final doesn’t match the rendering then they can’t be blamed.
Show all of the beautiful renderings that you want for hypothetical “visions of what could be.” As soon as you have a material interest in property that is directly adjacent, your beautiful yet very hypothetical “vision” d@mn well better be accurate/feasible/possible.
With one phone call Ryan could have ascertained the feasibility of closing Portland but information contrary to their “vision” would have been a major hit to the concept of “The Yard” and could have put the rest of their development in jeopardy.
Perhaps I’m unfairly disparaging the developer and should instead be disparaging the city. I don’t remember the timeline and what renderings were shown at what meetings and what questions were asked but I’m absolutely disgusted that the project (as master planned - park, Wells Fargo, apartment) was approved without an answer on the treatment of Portland, a framework for funding the park and a design for said park.
The approval absolutely should have been contingent on getting the outcome that was originally advertised and not this process.
If you think a process where a developer/the city can literally show anything, get approval, then when reality falls far short, avoid accountability is okay then I guess we have different ideas about city-building. If in fact you are suggesting that there is nothing wrong with this process, I would say that it is a very dangerous precedent.
1-20. Not closing Portland / one small park and another smaller park rather than a continuous, unbroken space
21. A small apartment terminating the park instead of public space
However, as you pointed out, “the park is no longer in Ryan’s hands”, nor are they paying for it so they couldn’t care less. These two major problems (in my view) are already decided and therefore not on the table for change/alteration. It’s now a design problem to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
As I said, good luck to the design teams to do something decent here but it sure as hell won’t be what was originally advertised/approved.