Minneapolis Conservation District Ordinance

Parks, Minneapolis Public Schools, Density, Zoning, etc.
VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 764
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Minneapolis Conservation District Ordinance

Postby VAStationDude » January 24th, 2014, 4:32 pm

"Proposal: Neighborhoods would have more say in blocking development"

http://m.startribune.com/?id=241852941

I doubt Cam Gordon likes the headline but that would certainly be the effect of his proposal.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 4472
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: Minneapolis City Planning Commission

Postby Silophant » January 24th, 2014, 5:53 pm

Indeed. That article's now been updated with a quote from Lisa Bender, who's (rightly!) concerned about the ordinance being used to stop specific developments.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 764
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Minneapolis City Planning Commission

Postby VAStationDude » January 24th, 2014, 6:44 pm

The folks in PP and Lowry Hill East so passionate about protecting the historic homes there should go for designation. Of course they're unwilling to put their money where their mouth is. Residential historic preservation in Minneapolis is rich preservationists dictating to poor neighborhoods. (Healy in Central neighborhood, 8th street and Milwaukee avenue) These people want the benefits of historic preservation but don't want themselves held to any kind real standard.

gpete
Union Depot
Posts: 330
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 9:33 am
Location: Seward, Mpls

Re: Minneapolis City Planning Commission

Postby gpete » January 29th, 2014, 2:33 pm

An update on the proposal to create "conservation districts." A public meeting on the proposal was held yesterday.

And note that Meg Tuthill and Diane Hofstede were in attendance.

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/242627871.html

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4241
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Minneapolis City Planning Commission

Postby FISHMANPET » January 29th, 2014, 2:53 pm

Wow, Tuthill doesn't think seniors want to downsize?

BigIdeasGuy
Union Depot
Posts: 381
Joined: March 27th, 2013, 8:22 am

Re: Minneapolis City Planning Commission

Postby BigIdeasGuy » January 29th, 2014, 9:15 pm

An update on the proposal to create "conservation districts." A public meeting on the proposal was held yesterday.

And note that Meg Tuthill and Diane Hofstede were in attendance.

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/242627871.html
Wow that could have passed as an Onion article. The people in that meeting are just there to micromanage every else property so that nothing changes in their area.

Personally my favorite quote was about wanting a simple majority compared to a supermajority, she had clearly never given any thought to what rights the property owner has.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby twincitizen » January 29th, 2014, 9:27 pm

Kathleen Kullberg of Lowry Hill East, which includes huge swaths of Hennepin and Lyndale Avenues, said they originally envisioned making the entire neighborhood a conservation district. But the current language requiring a majority of the properties in a district to embody a certain style would make that difficult, given several new developments near Lake Street.
“This southern end of our neighborhood is now all high-density high-rise[s] along the Midtown Greenway,” Kullberg said. “That is rapidly becoming the notable signature of our neighborhood and not people in their houses.”
Jesus H Christ...

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4241
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby FISHMANPET » January 29th, 2014, 10:09 pm

You know what, we democratically elected a city council that's on board with 500k people in the city, and we democratically elected a mayor that is on board with the plan too.

So if you'r'e not on board with that vision, and you're actively working against that vision, maybe it's just time to move to Blaine.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby MNdible » January 29th, 2014, 10:17 pm

I think at this time, the City Council is something of a Rorschach test -- people are seeing in them what they want to see in them. Until they actually take some hard votes against the will of their constituents, I'm not ready to say how pro-density they really are.

IF YOU DON'T LOVE 'MERICA, MAYBE YOU SHOULD MOVE TO RUSSIA.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby David Greene » January 29th, 2014, 10:22 pm

I agree that Kathleen Kullberg's comment is pretty ridiculous, but it's important we all understand where it's coming from. Back in the '60's and '70's, developers came into the Wedge and put up some truly horrendous-looking walkups. They are eyesores in the middle of a neighborhood with lots of beatiful single-family and multi-family homes.

Personally, I don't think we necessarily need a conservation district but I do think some of the other neighborhoods in the area should host more density. As it is, almost all of the new densiy is in the Wedge south of 28th St. (where it absolutely SHOULD go, but it's almost full now). I'm not at all opposed to density done right but there is value in these homes that we need to consider. There are also a number of redevelopment opportunities in the neighborhood that should happen before we start tearing down good houses. McDonald's, Rainbow, Arby's, Cheapo, Planned Parenthood, ACME Machine and probably one or two others I've forgotten.

I would totally be in favor of bulldozing some of those '60's walkups and building NICE apartments there.

My guess is that development in Uptown is going to slow and probably shift to Lyndale and Nicollet.

streets.mn

Minneapolis Conservation Districts are a Terrible Idea

Postby streets.mn » January 30th, 2014, 2:30 pm

Minneapolis Conservation Districts are a Terrible Idea
https://streets.mn/2014/01/30/minnea ... ible-idea/

streets.mn

Conservation districts can be a tool for smart growth

Postby streets.mn » February 6th, 2014, 10:21 am

Conservation districts can be a tool for smart growth
https://streets.mn/2014/02/06/conser ... rt-growth/

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Minneapolis Density

Postby mattaudio » February 9th, 2014, 9:34 pm

Strib editorial board is against proposed conservation district concept.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/edit ... 23391.html

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4241
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Minneapolis Density

Postby FISHMANPET » February 9th, 2014, 9:54 pm

Love that last pargraph. Future residents are indeed an unrepresented constituency (and a reason why I think we need an organized YIMBY group here).

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby twincitizen » February 10th, 2014, 8:58 am

I would totally be in favor of bulldozing some of those '60's walkups and building NICE apartments there.
Cheap shot: I thought you cared about poor people.

Real talk: That would be a terrible idea and you know it. 60s-70s walkups are probably most folks' first apartment in the area and comprise much of the "market-rate affordable" housing we have. Heck, I'm living in my second one.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby RailBaronYarr » February 10th, 2014, 9:16 am

Real talk: That would be a terrible idea and you know it. 60s-70s walkups are probably most folks' first apartment in the area and comprise much of the "market-rate affordable" housing we have. Heck, I'm living in my second one.
Exactly. Not to mention the cost of buying one of them is likely more prohibitive than 2 older homes in disrepair (ex the Colfax apt proposal, which I know David was on board with). I'm all in favor of supporting dense development in highly under-utilized lots - all the ones David cites should be no-brainers from the big developers' POV. But even the corner of Lyndale/Franklin, with its 70% surface parking and marginal mixed-use structure, is getting pushback from the neighbors who should be supporting those locations. Beyond that, what happens when all the crummy surface parking lots are taken up? Line in the sand, no more development for the Wedge (or, at least nothing new that's different than a 2.5 story SFH style structure)?

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1138
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby mplsjaromir » February 10th, 2014, 9:54 am

I am always skeptical of public policy proposals that claim to solve problems that have no evidence of existing.

It is reminiscent of Voter ID Laws. Proponents of those laws claim it is to reduce voter fraud. Hard for one to make an argument in favor of voter fraud. In reality they are not many instances of voter impersonation, so one has to wonder why the proposals are so common. Outright banning people from the political process would be unpalatable, so making it hard for people to vote is the next best thing. I see many similarities between voter ID and Cam Gordon's proposal. I do not see any neighborhoods destroyed by small scale, zone conforming buildings. So why push this ordinance? To placate that group of people who fear change and are comfortable with the status quo, and to limit the amount of people who have a say in how an area develops.

If Cam Gordon proposed an outright moratorium on growth he would be rightfully lambasted. Instead he tried this maneuver that makes the case that neighborhoods should not have unsightly development. Hard to be against that. Nothing can be shown that a neighborhood has been unreasonably changed for the worse from small scale development. On Streets.mn Gordon's aide did invoke the Metropolitan Building. (Sidenote: I've found invariability every discussion of pro v. anti development someone brings up the Metropolitan Building, a concept not dissimilar to Godwin's law. We could call the inevitable invocation of Metropolitan Building as Garwood's Law or something) Comparing six story apartment buildings built on surface parking lots to top down urban renewal is the epitome of bad faith arguing.

I am glad the Strib editorial board is against this, I have registered my opposition to this ordinance with my ward's council member.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby twincitizen » February 10th, 2014, 11:27 am

Comparing six story apartment buildings built on surface parking lots to top down urban renewal is the epitome of bad faith arguing.
This sentence should be read like the Pledge of Allegiance before every neighborhood meeting and public hearing.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby David Greene » February 10th, 2014, 11:42 am

Real talk: That would be a terrible idea and you know it. 60s-70s walkups are probably most folks' first apartment in the area and comprise much of the "market-rate affordable" housing we have. Heck, I'm living in my second one.
Well, the implicit assumption was that the new construction would serve the same population. I agree a luxury apartment wouldn't be appropriate. Affordable doesn't have to look crappy.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Minneapolis Conservation District ordinance

Postby mattaudio » February 10th, 2014, 12:07 pm

But high end apartments reduce demand for downmarket apartments, thereby lowering the price. It's unbelievable how much people pay for less-than-remarkable century-old brownstones (with dated renos) or 60s-70s walkups.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests