urbanMSP

Dreaming isn't necessary, pressing them to stick to their own recommendations is.

The impound handles 'disabled' and evidence vehicles too, so expect a surface lot to always be a part of the their operations. That said, a simple two level ramp would do wonders during snow emergency.

Turning that into farmland is just the most boneheaded idea ever.

Well okay then. Sorry.

Egads, that was way meaner than it should have been. Sometimes I wish there was a tool that would just hold everything I put on the internet for 5 minutes and make me read it again after 5 minutes before actually posting it. Anyway, sorry Grant. But I'm not a fan of urban farming, especially an area like this that's so close to so much high capacity transportation.

It's all cool! There are just a ton of possibilities for this site, and on that day in particular I was feeling like urban farming was just right for it. Especially if no one wants to develop it after a while.

If SWLRT goes forward, the value of this land seems ridiculous relative to use as an impound lot for the city (long term).

Considering how little money is going into this 'upgrade', I don't think full redevelopment is really off the table. They'll be lucky to get asphalt, new waiting space/bathrooms, and a chain-link fence from that budget. The needed storm water management systems will likely eat up a quarter of funds allotted.
How much would 15 acres of LRT adjacent land sell for?

That seems true on the face of things. However one of the strib comments was as follows. Does anyone know if this is true or is this BS? If true that puts a big dent in the viability of development long-term.

alanam8: It's worth noting that the land beneath the impound lot is heavily contaminated with lead and other hazardous chemicals. The problems date back to the 19th century, when the area was used as a landfill, through WWII, when it was used as a site to dismantle munitions. Needless to say, modern methods of enviro management weren't available - or used. But even if the land is cleaned up - and the costs would be extraordinary - the land itself soft former wetland, and requires pilings that can go as far as 200 feet down. Developers can pretend that they're up for paying those kinds of costs, but the reality is that this slice of land is probably best suited to being ... an impound lot.

Planning Docs: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 151660.pdf

I've yet seen an explanation as to why total tow counts have been trending downward. Why do we think this won't reverse at some point? We are a growing city after all.

That seems true on the face of things. However one of the strib comments was as follows. Does anyone know if this is true or is this BS? If true that puts a big dent in the viability of development long-term.

alanam8: It's worth noting that the land beneath the impound lot is heavily contaminated with lead and other hazardous chemicals. The problems date back to the 19th century, when the area was used as a landfill, through WWII, when it was used as a site to dismantle munitions. Needless to say, modern methods of enviro management weren't available - or used. But even if the land is cleaned up - and the costs would be extraordinary - the land itself soft former wetland, and requires pilings that can go as far as 200 feet down. Developers can pretend that they're up for paying those kinds of costs, but the reality is that this slice of land is probably best suited to being ... an impound lot.

Unless this is coming from a geotechnical engineer who has seen/analyzed soil borings FROM THIS SITE - this is BS. "Former Wetland" says nothing about the depth of unsuitable soils, the next layer, and layers beyond that. If the soil is going to need remediation due to the pollution (which may or may not be true), it would be excavated and hauled off anyway and engineered soils would be brought back in. There are funds available for soil remediation so doing so isn't insurmountable (as shown on countless sites).

Finally, Junction Flats was built on driven piles and large/thick pile caps so the claim that "Developers can pretend that they're up for paying those kinds of costs, but the reality is that this slice of land is probably best suited to being ... an impound lot" is also BS. "Developers" on Junction Flats had no problems driving piles on what was (at the time) a marginal site for a "5 over 1" stick framed building that they just sold recently for a hefty profit.

Move the impound lot (to a theoretical site that isn't great for development, preferably near good public transit).

It is true that part of the impound lot is a former landfill and is highly contaminated. This is the part of the BCV Master Plan dedicated to parkland. Much of the impound lot (and don't forget the public works land and other marginal uses) is ready for development as far as contamination goes. There's an old Superfund site north of the impound lot but AFAIK all the cleanup there is done.

It's also true that the soils are challenging. However, Ryan has stated they can build there. They've been pushing for public money to help defray the cost of piling but of course every developer is going to try to get as much subsidy as they can. It's not clear how much of that cost is really burdensome and how much is just developers demanding money to develop.

It's important to look beyond the impound lot. There's a whole area north of there up to Glenwood that's pretty run down light industrial. The MPS bus facility could go, for example. This is why it's B.S. that Goodman controls all of this because "the impound lot is in her ward." The implications go way beyond the impound lot yet the impound lot is playing a role in holding back all of that other development.

Well, if the C-line is routed down Glenwood that northern area could redevelop on its own without regard to what's happening to the south along the cedar lake trail. It will just be weird having redevelopment happen along Linden Yards and Glenwood with the impound lot in between.

I'm skeptical that aBRT will drive development the way LRT can. It'll certainly help and running it on Glenwood is way better than duplicative service on Olson but I think it would be a tough sell to put a lot of money into Glenwood with the impound lot, public works and MPS bus facilities next door.

I'd love to be proven wrong though!

Glenwood is a beautiful street. Starting at International Market Square, going west, a nice collection of light industrial with a few open lots, with new construction occurring. The Washburn Center just opened, and the Glenwood/Inglewood site has hopes. Even Penn Avenue is charming. A better connection between Heritage Park and the Dunwoody Bridge would help tie this area together (seriously, this road goes through 4 name changes in two miles). I can never remember the right street to turn on to get to Dunwoody. A better intersection with Cedar Lake Road would also help. Oh, and a friendlier 2nd Ave N through to the Warehouse District would be nice.

There's a survey about the impound lot facilities.

If this doesn't work, check out the city's Facebook page. (There wasn't a good share option)

https://www.surveymonkey.com/survey-tak ... bYKw_3D_3D

CPC Packet for a redesign of the impound lot.

Disgustingly suburban layout for a city facility just outside of downtown, adjacent to a planned LRT station. Obviously an impound lot is going to have acres of surface parking, but there's no reason for the 200' setback from the street so there can be a driveway that swoops through trees and bushes.

There's a pretty significant change in grade between the site and Van White -- I assume that's what the swooping driveway is accomplishing.

Does this make it more accessible to transit? It seems like a more challenging distance for anyone walking or biking from the east (most of the city)