urbanMSP

No, that's correct. Nothing would be built on them, of course, but the city parks have zoning, and they're mostly zoned R1.

Yes, but that's an example of a situation where you can be technically correct and still misleading. R1 or not, it's not zoning that prevents fourplexes from being built on parks, it's the fact that they're parks. That wouldn't change with the proposal.

Is there anything that would prevent the park board from selling off a park for redevelopment? Obviously it's not a thing I would expect to happen but is it not possible because of expectations or because of a legal prohibition of some kind?

I mean, the whole presentation of the proposal is misleading by omission of mitigating factors. How many people in the comments are talking about yards, when (as far as we know) the lot area maximums aren't going anywhere?

The whole thing--including the Strib's attempt to cover the "controversy" before it exists--makes the impact on neighborhoods seem so much worse than it actually is. If anything, there's a strong argument to be made that these fourplexes would preserve the residential character of the city by building more housing close to existing forms and reducing the need for variances and mega-projects to make up capacity. But that context is entirely lost here.

Is there anything that would prevent the park board from selling off a park for redevelopment? Obviously it's not a thing I would expect to happen but is it not possible because of expectations or because of a legal prohibition of some kind?

MPRB has a "no net loss" policy dating back to the 1960s. I don't know how firmly that's enshrined. Saint Paul has a similar policy in the city charter, which makes it almost impossible to sell parkland without acquiring comparable land (usually) nearby.

It's kind of a surprise that there is no special zoning designation for parks.

I aspired to be an owner occupant of a fourplex but couldn't find anything suitable, so I settled for a duplex. The numbers on an owner occupied fourplex are insanely good. You basically pay nothing for your own housing and usually generate extra income.

A lot of the Midtown Greenway is also R1/R1A which is kinda weird. Look at that thin line that goes East-West across the city in Eost's maps, that's the Greenway.

the fact that the public is aware of elements of a plan before it becomes a fait accompli is exactly how public engagement on a policy like this should work.

Uh, no it's not. Public engagement is supposed to have the staff finish it's plan and the council to consider the proposed plan with public input.

Regardless of whatever nuance the plan may hold, this represents a HUGE change.

Except it's really not. It can reasonably be viewed as reflecting the city as it actually exists today, not as the downzoners of the past wish it to look. And despite the intended outrage, it's still unlikely that we're going to see a vast wave of fourplexes.

I mean, just check out the opposition responses - these structures are going to be too big! (Nothing about allowing more than one unit changes the size of structure that can be built) - what about parking! (You don't know what the proposal says about parking, and, for most of the city, you have to be kidding) - I don't want to be next to renters! (That's pretty ugly, dude). That's all knee jerk stuff.

It should be discussed, and it shouldn't have to wait until the whole plan is wrapped up in a bow.

It should be discussed as the process requires and intends. That's not what's happening now.

Getting worked up about there being “a leak” here is silly. Thanks

Related to smaller scale: Portland designer says 5+1 will be viewed like we view strip malls in the future, recommends building smaller. https://www.minnpost.com/politics-polic ... ld-smaller

The important takeaway from that article IMO is not the prescription (which is borderline obvious) but the reasons why we can't already do it.

Both the McCondos this article is talking about and the luxury towers we're seeing as flashpoints elsewhere are all very rational responses to our zoning code that basically prevents mixed-use villages and smaller-scale multi-family housing, and in turn favors huge developers and huge projects in the limited areas where such development is possible. Hoping the comp plan also includes light loosening of restrictions on commercial use so mixed-use can be more of a "village" like he described, and less of a mega-project. There's no reason to be afraid of a coffee shop or a convenience store popping up here or there.

Wedge Live says it all much better than I did above.

Wedge Live says it all much better than I did above.

What I took away from that article is that the demand for new rental units is large and the need is urgent, but very few four fourplexes will actually built. Just a few here and there.

A handful will be built right away. Then a handful the next year. And a handful the next year. And all these handfuls will be spread out through the in demand areas of the city.

Those opposed to the plan are acting like they're going to wake up one morning in South Philadelphia.

Related to smaller scale: Portland designer says 5+1 will be viewed like we view strip malls in the future, recommends building smaller. https://www.minnpost.com/politics-polic ... ld-smaller

Huh. I'm seeing an argument for smaller, cheaper retail space, and realizing that "density" can mean how many people use a space in addition to how many live there, and a case for how smaller projects can be financed different, but I'm not seeing that case against having housing on top of retail or why we're going to regret it.

Oh, sort of tangentially related, I saw the other day that the CVS (under housing) at 15th and 4th in Dinkytown closed (not necessarily recently). Is that why we're going to regret it? Is there a reason we can't do smaller, cheaper retail under housing (like, maybe the numbers don't work unless you get big dollar rents for retail)?

Yeah, that article seemed like a puff-piece for an egotistical, cooler-than-thou developer.

"Let me tell you more about some of the crazy names I came up with for my projects!"

Yeah, I don’t really buy that 5+1 is, by itself, bad. There are examples of it that have clearly found ways to promote a mix of businesses (Red 20 in Northeast comes to mind; Greenleaf on Lyndale isn’t quite as tall but manages to have all local businesses). Certainly not every building has inspiring design, but a strip mall it is not.

As for the CVS in Dinkytown, that’s been closed for a while. They pretty much called it quits shortly after Target announced it was selling its pharmacy business to CVS. It probably didn’t make sense for that CVS to be competing against a popular hometown brand for general goods and splitting its pharmacy sales between two locations. Of course, that speaks to how difficult it can be to fill a large space when a stable tenant suddenly isn’t so stable.

Ah, yes, I hadn't thought about how CVS has a pharmacy a few blocks away at Target now.

I don't think "is 5+1 good or bad" is a very useful question. Instead the article made me consider, "why is 5+1 the only, or at least the default, application of mixed-use development in so many cities?"

I like his buildings because their initial impact on the neighborhood is much less imposing. This should be easier to achieve in our cities than it is today. Not every step towards improving a neighborhood should be a huge undertaking.

A handful will be built right away. Then a handful the next year. And a handful the next year. And all these handfuls will be spread out through the in demand areas of the city.

Those opposed to the plan are acting like they're going to wake up one morning in South Philadelphia.

So it will move the needle eventually, but it might take 10 or 20 years?

It will prevent restrictive zoning from making the lack of housing worse. Higher density developments on major corridors will do most of the heavy lifting, but in the future, we'll be able to upzone more gradually in areas that have been hostile to development in the past.