The Commons - Downtown East Park

[Archiapolis]

Who are all of these people that are outraged?

Maybe outraged is too strong. I'm disappointed for sure. More to follow.

[Archiapolis]

It seems to me that the developers did exactly what a lot of people here push for the city to do; they presented a radical and appealing vision, in the hope that this vision would be attractive and popular enough to overcome institutional resistance. If the City Council voted tomorrow to endorse dedicated bus lanes on Hennepin and the county declared it a non-starter, would it be fair to blame the city for a bait-and-switch?

I mean, ultimately, you can blame whoever you want. But either way, we're getting a large and attractive park in the middle of a transformational redevelopment of the most soul-sucking part of downtown Minneapolis, one which is already paying dividends (Thresher Square, the Portland Tower, the Guthrie ramp parcel, and so on). We can and should push to make it better, but we should acknowledge too what's already been won.

Well, I have to say that my experience with doing renderings for developer driven projects has never been to present a "radical and appealing vision, in the hope that this vision would be attractive and popular enough to overcome institutional resistance." My experience has been to present an image that looks attractive enough to overcome scrutiny. I'm glad that you have such a benign view of developers but renderings are meant to portray an ideal in order to win approval. E. G. Any rendering you see for a city lot will almost always show large mature trees even if they are growing out of tree grates in a a sea of paving on the north side of a tall building - in short, artifice. If you think that this is some kind of "bold vision" rather than artifice, I think you are giving the developers too much credit, but this is just my experience/opinion.

I think the renderings for this park from the beginning were meant to SELL a project for Wells Fargo. Period.

I don't think it requires the imagination of a seasoned conspiracy theorist to observe that showing a grand and continuous green space would be met much more favorably than a chopped up block and a half of something "park-like."

As for your Hennepin bus lane analogy, it doesn't hold up because the city doesn't own adjacent property that would require said bus lines for a massive proposed investment. If the city created glossy renderings of such a proposal to be published in the local newspapers and presented at media events despite neither owning or controlling the road that they intended to alter with full understanding that such a proposal would massively benefit adjacent property that they DID own and plan to improve then maybe your analogy would work.

I think these kinds of renderings are meant to mislead in order to win overall project approval and nothing more. If the above were NOT the case, then such proposals would be JOINT proposals with all stakeholders (the county in this case) at the press junket. At the very least, such proposals would acknowledge the contingencies and clearly state that a lot of partnerships would need to ageee for such a proposal to work. Instead, developers throw out glossy images and say, "This is what we wanted all along, but the city/county/state/Feds/"the man" didn't want it/couldn't pay for it. Aw shucks. Sorry! Side note- we are still doing our building."

Last point: What you are saying about this space and the adjacent projects is true - the park and the projects being proposed are a net benefit. However, I (for one apparently) am very disappointed that what is under consideration is significantly less than what was initially presented and accountability should be a part of the discussion.

[Archiapolis]

lol I forgot where I was... this is urban where everyone loves to complain and be dramatic. Continue on complaining about how uninspiring, and bland this space shall be? Perhaps somebody should suggest we scrap this project? How about that? Let's start a petition to let the developer keep it as a parking lot until something better comes along! Better?

At risk of furthering argument, can I make some concrete suggestions that aren't "all or none" propositions?

Why is it so unthinkable that WE as a city (people who are interested in the best outcome) demand that the mayor, city council, Met Council (if needed), the county and the developer actually sit down at a table and workshop the best solutions. "We" are supposed to just take" the county" (read traffic engineers) at their word when they say, "No."

Really? As has been lamented on this forum time and again, is there a traffic engineer in the US who has seen a parking lot that is too large or a road that has too many lanes? Again, I could be very misinformed and "the county" has ironclad data showing that a diversion around such a park means piles of dead bodies in the Mill District and I've just not seen it. If "the county" DOES have such studies and has presented them clearly in a public forum, then what county representative has stated on a record that attractive hard scape that could carry an emergency vehicle could NOT work to avert massive loss of life in the Mill District?

I'm not arguing for a staged "die in" in favor of some hypothetical perfect park that doesn't exist. However, I am willing to fight for something that reflects the original proposal/rendering that was put forward to the community to win approval for a developer's project. Part of this fight would mean asking difficult questions and demanding total clarity from elected officials.

Finally, do I need to present my bone fides for being interested in this park? Does anybody on this forum need to first pass a litmus test that would be acceptable to you in order to express an opinion? I think that that notion is laughable because there is supposed to be an element of anonymity to this site AND shouldn't a sound argument be the only useful criterion for consideration? I'll close by saying that I own a home in Minneapolis, I work in Minneapolis, my child goes to an MPLS public school, and two of three of those have been true for 12 years. I've worked within 1 mile of this park for several years, and I have two degrees from the University of Minnesota. I regularly "use" the Mill District restaurants, the Guthrie, the Mill District farmer's market, I've had Gopher football tickets for 10 years (Metrodome), and I've worked on projects (some built, some not) in this area over several years as an architect. I don't live in the Mill District so maybe this disqualifies me from an opinion in your mind. I don't think ANY of that matters so much as whether or not I have a sound position regarding this park.

[Lancestar2]

At risk of furthering argument, can I make some concrete suggestions that aren't "all or none" propositions?

Why is it so unthinkable that WE as a city (people who are interested in the best outcome) demand that the mayor, city council, Met Council (if needed), the county and the developer actually sit down at a table and workshop the best solutions. "We" are supposed to just take" the county" (read traffic engineers) at their word when they say, "No."

Really? As has been lamented on this forum time and again, is there a traffic engineer in the US who has seen a parking lot that is too large or a road that has too many lanes? Again, I could be very misinformed and "the county" has ironclad data showing that a diversion around such a park means piles of dead bodies in the Mill District and I've just not seen it. If "the county" DOES have such studies and has presented them clearly in a public forum, then what county representative has stated on a record that attractive hard scape that could carry an emergency vehicle could NOT work to avert massive loss of life in the Mill District?

I'm not arguing for a staged "die in" in favor of some hypothetical perfect park that doesn't exist. However, I am willing to fight for something that reflects the original proposal/rendering that was put forward to the community to win approval for a developer's project. Part of this fight would mean asking difficult questions and demanding total clarity from elected officials.

Finally, do I need to present my bone fides for being interested in this park? Does anybody on this forum need to first pass a litmus test that would be acceptable to you in order to express an opinion? I think that that notion is laughable because there is supposed to be an element of anonymity to this site AND shouldn't a sound argument be the only useful criterion for consideration? I'll close by saying that I own a home in Minneapolis, I work in Minneapolis, my child goes to an MPLS public school, and two of three of those have been true for 12 years. I've worked within 1 mile of this park for several years, and I have two degrees from the University of Minnesota. I regularly "use" the Mill District restaurants, the Guthrie, the Mill District farmer's market, I've had Gopher football tickets for 10 years (Metrodome), and I've worked on projects (some built, some not) in this area over several years as an architect. I don't live in the Mill District so maybe this disqualifies me from an opinion in your mind. I don't think ANY of that matters so much as whether or not I have a sound position regarding this park.

By all means put forth a well explained reasoning highlighting why you think differently. Simply saying thinks like "cars are ugly and don't belong in a park" really don't have much value. Let alone comments about scraping the entire park because of this.


Why can't people create compromises? Not sure if it was mentioned or not perhaps a limited access road? Open during the morning and afternoon commutes, yet it transforms into a great space for food trucks and a community gathering space during the lunch rush and late afternoons? You know something pretty with no curbs such as THIS and a tasteful design of automatic road barriers such as THIS could really help with traffic control as well, Plus a few electronic signs. Not to mention having a car lane into the park would be a better way to get equipment in and out of the park for the Vikings Game day events which is the motivation behind the park. It would be shame if the park road was built like a typical roadway, instead a stone road with no curb and minimal roadway markings would be idea (perhaps using left over materials from the Nicollet Mall redesign could be a cost saving measure) . Heck there is such a thing as led road markings

I think there is a better solution than a "all or nothing" approach. If people have more specific ideas or suggestions or can dig up some road usage numbers and make a good argument well I'm all ears.

[seanrichardryan]

Does a larger park, un-bisected, make a better park?

[David Greene]

lol I forgot where I was... this is urban where everyone loves to complain and be dramatic. Continue on complaining about how uninspiring, and bland this space shall be? Perhaps somebody should suggest we scrap this project?

Nobody has suggested the project be scrapped as you said above. Your rant is a complete non-sequitur.

[David Greene]

Man there's a listserv?

Yeah. How do we get on it?

[Nick]

well

https://streets.mn/2015/04/14/the-case-f ... nd-avenue/

[mamundsen]

I'd say this is somewhat relevant to the idea of closing Portland...

One block of Fourth Street in Downtown closing for construction

Crews will be filling in a tunnel that connected two Star Tribune buildings
Fourth Street South, from Portland Avenue to Park Avenue on the east side of Downtown, is closing to traffic today, Wednesday, April 15. Over the next couple months, crews will be filling in a tunnel that used to connect two former Star Tribune office buildings. They will also be rerouting utility lines located in that tunnel.

The affected block of Fourth Street is one way eastbound. Traffic will be detoured onto southbound Portland Avenue, to eastbound Sixth Street, to northbound Park Avenue and back onto Fourth Street. The bike lane along Fourth Street is closed until the construction is complete, which is tentatively set for July 8.

This is one of many construction projects that will affect traffic in Downtown this year. To help drivers know about all of the current and upcoming work, the City has mapped these projects. Links to the maps are available at http://www.minneapolismn.gov/publicworks/traffic.

[seanrichardryan]

Strib Editorial Board

http://m.startribune.com/opinion/editor ... n=/opinion

[MinnMonkey]

It seems like they have been pile driving on the north side of the commons all day. Anyone have any idea why? It seems to early to be starting the residential portion of the park.

[HiawathaGuy]

It seems like they have been pile driving on the north side of the commons all day. Anyone have any idea why? It seems to early to be starting the residential portion of the park.

That housing has the same timelines as the two buildings that will abut the new WF towers, so one would think they'd need to start excavating for that building soon - as the planned completion date is next year.

[HuskyGrad]

The windows are being boarded up in the Star Tribune building as well.

[HiawathaGuy]

It seems like they have been pile driving on the north side of the commons all day. Anyone have any idea why? It seems to early to be starting the residential portion of the park.

Piles have indeed been done along the north side of that apartment building's length.

[MinnMonkey]

Looking at that last picture, you can really see how small the Commons is actually going to be (especially if they don't close any roads).

[HiawathaGuy]

Looking at that last picture, you can really see how small the Commons is actually going to be (especially if they don't close any roads).

I think it'll be perfect, and doesn't feel 'small' at all. If you're on the ground, walking around the old Star Tribune building, it's far larger than depicted from a very high up webcam.

[TroyGBiv]

The renderings always create an idealized image of projects. It does seem smaller - especially when you consider that the cleared land on the west edge of the site will be an apartment building. But It will still be a nice big green space with great urban vistas.

[Nick]

What is this, a park for ants?

[grant1simons2]

Its a park for Grant

[Wedgeguy]

The apartments on the commons have underground parking so they will need to get those levels in soon to get the apartment section up and put together with the other 2 across 4th around the same time.