Architecture, Development, and Infrastructure of the Twin Cities
https://urbanmsp.com/
Honest question, why wouldn't they do this, like now? Seems like a home run to me. Aren't the construction and future maintenance costs more than covered by the additional tax revenue? Are they skeptical whether there's enough demand?That gives me greater hope that this or something like it will become a reality by 2020.
The fine work of mister.shoes is not forgotten either.The lid is not forgotten!
Yeah that'd be a great start. I forgot about the creek being covered. I wonder what else could be done to mitigate the freeway presence there. I run under 35W along the creek all the time and it's shame that it had to go through there.I'd be happy to start with a lid from 40th to 42nd: expand MLK Park and re-connect 40th across the void. Probably could extend it a bit on each end. I wouldn't want to do anything that would preclude adding a median BRT stop at 38th in the future though
Not sure any kind of cap is possible south of 51st - terrain wise. You'd bury the creek under a couple layers of infrastructure
Highly improbable under any circumstances. I'll start with technical, because I'm an engineer. MLK park is a giant depression. The freeway side of the park close to the highway is generally much lower than the surrounding neighborhood. You would need massive earthworks and grade changes to make a lid act continuously with the park. That would likely require essentially bulldozing the entire current park. Right now, they are looking at replacing the bike/pedestrian bridge that continues the 40th street bike route. I like the current bridge compared to many other dedicated pedestrian infrastructure in the city because it is fairly level with no stairs or ramps at either end. When they reconstruct, you can expect switchbacks on the MLK park side because they have to raise the height of the bridge to meet current freeway clearance requirements. I requested that they consider ramping up to the new height instead of installing stairs and a switchback ramp, but there was concern about adding even more grade change from the low park elevation up to the sidewalk and street. I'm going to hate that new bridge.I'd be happy to start with a lid from 40th to 42nd: expand MLK Park and re-connect 40th across the void. Probably could extend it a bit on each end. I wouldn't want to do anything that would preclude adding a median BRT stop at 38th in the future though
Not attacking you in any way, but it is so messed up to me how easy it was to ram these stupid freeways through dense urban neighborhoods and how impossible it is to mitigate that damage half a century later. Just infuriates me when I think about it.Highly improbable under any circumstances. I'll start with technical, because I'm an engineer. MLK park is a giant depression. The freeway side of the park close to the highway is generally much lower than the surrounding neighborhood. You would need massive earthworks and grade changes to make a lid act continuously with the park. That would likely require essentially bulldozing the entire current park. Right now, they are looking at replacing the bike/pedestrian bridge that continues the 40th street bike route. I like the current bridge compared to many other dedicated pedestrian infrastructure in the city because it is fairly level with no stairs or ramps at either end. When they reconstruct, you can expect switchbacks on the MLK park side because they have to raise the height of the bridge to meet current freeway clearance requirements. I requested that they consider ramping up to the new height instead of installing stairs and a switchback ramp, but there was concern about adding even more grade change from the low park elevation up to the sidewalk and street. I'm going to hate that new bridge.I'd be happy to start with a lid from 40th to 42nd: expand MLK Park and re-connect 40th across the void. Probably could extend it a bit on each end. I wouldn't want to do anything that would preclude adding a median BRT stop at 38th in the future though
After the technical grade issues, there are still cost effectiveness and political issues. Half of this bridge location would be in fairly affluent Kingfield neighborhood. We are trying to place new parks to alleviate equity concerns and the political push back for doing it here instead of in Rondo (recently proposed by DOT with partners), Cedar-Riverside (long discussed), or in North Minneapolis (part of the river front rehabilitation plan) would be tremendous.
Also, the potential cost payback for useful space here is much smaller than the downtown adjacent options.
As a nearby resident, I think it would be great, but if it were proposed any time soon, I would fight against it because there are better and more deserving neighborhoods.
Thank goodness. I complained to the design staff at the early meeting that I went to about it and maybe they listened. I hadn't seen that communication from Glidden.Regarding 40th St... CM Glidden mentioned that the switchback was no longer needed. But I have yet to see the official plan.
It isn't that bad.MLK park is a giant depression.