The Commons - Downtown East Park

[sota767]

After attending the second meeting for the design of the new Commons park I was disgusted to see there's still a road cutting it in half. Everyone seemed resigned that this was just how it was going to be. I refuse to accept an iconic new location for the city should have some ugly car sewer slicing it in half, so I created a petition for Hennepin County to close Portland Avenue. Give us back our .6 acres of land and let this be one stunning park for people, not cars. Please sign if you have a moment. Thanks everyone! https://www.change.org/p/hennepin-count ... he-commons

[acs]

I wish I could sign 1000 times. Thank you for creating this.

[MNdible]

I refuse to accept an iconic new location for the city should have some ugly car sewer slicing it in half...

I'll sign your petition because I agree that this segment of road can be eliminated without ruining circulation in the area. But calling what's proposed for this block of Portland a "car sewer" renders that already annoyingly overused term utterly meaningless.

[Lancestar2]

Here is a question.

If parking on 5th Ave S. from 3rd and 4th Street was removed and the bike lane was removed (shifted into the park) would there be enough space for a "Kmart style" wrap around for two lanes? Beyond that is there any other realistic proposed fix that wouldn't requiring closing Portland Ave?

[Archiapolis]

^The irony in that is that logic is that the Commons is being designed with the intention to close Portland for large events, but keep it open on non-gamedays when it's least needed.

Maybe we should have built three smaller stadiums next to eachother to allow for 9th and 10th Aves to be reopened at the stadium site, because, you know, traffic.

Bravo.

[mattaudio]

I keep hearing comparisons to Central Park to justify some sort of grade separation or tunnel for vehicular traffic. This is something I looked into a few months ago, when I wrote...

The Commons:
Roughly 5 acres. I'm advocating for vacation of one, possibly two, streets for vehicles. This is a distance of less than 700 linear feet, up to a 3 block diversion for motorists.

Central Park:
843 acres, over 150x the size. The distance between 59th and 110th Streets (the length of the park) is over 2.5 miles. Over this distance, there are four primary east-west "transverses" - 65th, 79th, 86th, and 97th. Over 30 of the east-west blocks don't even connect to a street that connects across the park. There are distances of nearly a mile between transverses.

The comparison to Central Park actually makes the point that our two 330' long streets on our 5 acre park in Minneapolis are actually not important, when accounting for scale.

[Wedgeguy]

Central park was also platted long before the height of the automobiles and the traffic patterns were set up to take that in mind. Someone want to retrofit the flow thru the city I'll give you free range ? Just remember the cost to redo these streets. Not sure why Mears and Rice parks in ST Paul work as one block and we need three linear block to house things that can be worked onto different block. In Como Park you have to cross a county road which splits it into two distinct areas. Lake on one side and Zoo/Golf course on the other.

[mattaudio]

Central park was also platted long before the height of the automobiles.

That may explain why the park is so treasured and successful.

[Wedgeguy]

IF I have to explain that then there is no hope for you ever to understand the meaning of life! Do you know why Central park and Boston Commons were created? Many part of it were there for livestock. Manhattan developed from the south end to the north where Harlem is. Central Park was not platted down in the middle of an urban area, but had urban area develop around it. The Lake in the center of the park is actually part of a reservoir system for their water system. This was planned over 100 years as the city needs changed. Why is it treasured? Because there is little of any green space on the island of Manhattan. Because of the trees, which this park will be short changed, The Lake, we have a river that is less than a half mile away with a ton of linear green space. I've seen 30 years for development foleys to understand what can happen when you try and fix something that is not broke. You end up with more nightmares in areas where there were no nightmares before. We are getting a park on a Schlitz beer can budget and you want a Champagne outcome.

[EOst]

For what it's worth, Central Park's lack of cross streets also makes crosstown transit in the UES/UWS an absolute bear. #notjustcars

But that's irrelevant, because any comparison of the Commons to Central Park is ludicrous anyway (that's really more the Grand Rounds). This park would be much closer, both in size and use, to something like Union Square, which is not only surrounded by four very busy streets (two of them one-ways! albeit narrow) but also, in fact, cut in half by a three-lane street.

[mullen]

good points wedgeguy. and yes the comparison here is union sq not central park... which is magnificent, but so is our grand rounds.

[mattaudio]

Union Square, which is not only surrounded by four very busy streets (two of them one-ways! albeit narrow) but also, in fact, cut in half by a three-lane street.

The equivalent for Union Square would be if 15th and 16th Streets sliced across the park into thirds. That would destroy it.

[Lancestar2]

IF I have to explain that then there is no hope for you ever to understand the meaning of life!

...perhaps a touch to dramatic and condescending, don't you think?


In regards to the suggestion of a tunnel, does anybody have any projections on the cost? Perhaps a sunken road with about 8-10 ft retaining walls and a bridge over the road in the center at the deepest point to lower the cost. Then again perhaps the Vikings need to bullied to cough up the dough for a tunnel. haha. Is there any realistic path for a tunnel or are we just dreaming?

[Wedgeguy]

Hate to say, but that is seems the only way to shift some peoples perspective and to have them look outside their own narrow tunnel vision. IT is rare I do it, but sometimes I get tired of the endless repeat that I put something out there to make one stop and think. Sorry you took it that way. But there are always two sides of a coin and sometimes you need to flip the coin now and them so other perspectives can be examined.

[EOst]

The equivalent for Union Square would be if 15th and 16th Streets sliced across the park into thirds. That would destroy it.

If Union Square were three 2.3 acre chunks, it would be designed for it. It would be a different park, and it would serve a somewhat different purpose, but to say that it would be "destroyed" is melodramatic.

There are also plenty of great urban parks which are smaller or in worse positions than the Commons; think of Sara D Roosevelt Park for example. The design matters far less than what gets built in the surrounding area.

[Lancestar2]

The equivalent for Union Square would be if 15th and 16th Streets sliced across the park into thirds. That would destroy it.

If Union Square were three 2.3 acre chunks, it would be designed for it. It would be a different park, and it would serve a somewhat different purpose, but to say that it would be "destroyed" is melodramatic.

There are also plenty of great urban parks which are smaller or in worse positions than the Commons; think of Sara D Roosevelt Park for example. The design matters far less than what gets built in the surrounding area.

Good point, I guess considering 400 units and some what 100 more units will be built around the park. Hardly seems like a major need for such an extensive park. Heck it's not even called a park, it's The Commons. Not to mention the riverfront is a short 4 blocks away.

[Archiapolis]

The equivalent for Union Square would be if 15th and 16th Streets sliced across the park into thirds. That would destroy it.

If Union Square were three 2.3 acre chunks, it would be designed for it. It would be a different park, and it would serve a somewhat different purpose, but to say that it would be "destroyed" is melodramatic.

There are also plenty of great urban parks which are smaller or in worse positions than the Commons; think of Sara D Roosevelt Park for example. The design matters far less than what gets built in the surrounding area.

Sorry, are we still talking about The Commons?

I'll preface the following by saying that it is great that people go the meetings and engage here and other places but I'm a little surprised that there *appears* to be so much capitulation on these forums. It seems like there is very little taste for "fighting for something better." There are idealists everywhere (this forum being no different) and I guess I'd rather fight for an ideal and lose than give in and accept what is offered even if it is bad/worse (as "it" frequently is).

Maybe closing Portland is flat out IMPOSSIBLE. If someone has knowledge (link) to this effect then I'd like to see it. If such information exists then I guess I'll shut up. In the meantime, I'm going to email CM Frey asking for such information and advocating for closing Portland. I've already signed "the petition" that is floating around. I'd be willing to take further action than sitting at my desk and emailing people and signing digital petitions and I've thrown it out many times on various threads that we need to start an "urbanism" advocacy group from the members of these forums and I've been met with crickets chirping.

I'd also like to point out that it has been lamented on these forums, on blogs, and parody twitter accounts that only NIMBYs show up at meetings to the detriment of urbanism. It has also been pointed out that the city needs to change how engagement happens between developers and neighborhood groups. While it IS true that the engagement process should change, it is ALSO true that sometimes you have to show up to things - as inconvenient as that may be.

Go ahead and call me ill-informed, stupid, naive, idealist or any other adjective (I've been called worse) but know that I'm not the only one. Since I'm nobody noteworthy and just a guy on a forum, I'm going to get in touch with CM Bender and CM Frey and see what they think of an "urban advocacy citizens group" - maybe it's a bad idea and doomed to fail. Again, perhaps I'm deluded about what can be achieved but I'm not going to keep accepting what is on offer without scrutiny because we seem to be offered the cheapest/easiest/worst solutions too frequently.

[PhilmerPhil]

I'm going to get in touch with CM Bender and CM Frey and see what they think of an "urban advocacy citizens group"

Hold that thought: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Forward- ... 82?fref=ts

[FISHMANPET]

I think there's some practical concerns with an UrbanMSP based advocacy group, since (if we aren't already) we will at some point be a part of the legal entity of streets.mn, which because of it's non-profit status can't really advocate or lobby or endorse.

But groups exists (like the one Phil posted) and I think that was formed by posters here anyway.

For what it's worth, I basically agree with you (Archiapolis) I think we've done a pretty good job of impromptu organizing and advocacy for high profile things like the Doran Dinkytown apartments and 2320 Colfax, but a more proactive long term strategy is needed if we hope to really move the societal needle in any direction in this city.

[MNdible]

So, in a hypothetical world where we're able close down Portland Avenue through the park, I'm assuming that we would also eliminate the bike bath from crossing through the middle of it, right?