Dinkytown not Megatown/Save Dinkytown

[seanrichardryan]

CM Goodman was on a planned trip to Finland.

[mhwbkr]

Parking permits in the surrounding area could help as well, or meters unless you have a permit or something. I work on campus and there are plenty of coworkers, mostly students, who drive and park in the neighborhoods and walk the rest of the way to campus. This also happens in my neighborhood on the West Bank just south of 94. So make that parking still available to actual visitors to the neighborhood in some way, but keep people from dumping their cars there from 9-5 every day.

That's probably a good idea, but I doubt the neighborhood association would support it.

I'm not sure how well that would work coupled with eliminating parking minimums for the student apartments, as many on here advocate doing. I am very skeptical that a significant amount of students will opt to completely forgo access to their cars while they live in a place that is very likely to be temporary. If they won't buy a spot in their building's lot, why would they buy a street permit? And if minimums are drastically cut down or eliminated entirely, and more students buy permits, won't that just cause more congestion in the streets?

[mplsjaromir]

No permits, market pricing for street parking. I cannot feel bad for people who feel they deserve inexpensive parking.

[mplsjaromir]

Ahh, I see.

[FISHMANPET]

Existing residents will need to be bought off with permits. As much as I don't like the idea it's just a political reality. Put meters everywhere, and let permit parks park for free. As they move away don't issue new permits to new residents, make them pay, and in 15-20 years everything will work out.

But if we make it hard/expensive for a student to bring a car to Dinkytown then students won't bring their cars. I brought my car to college because the parking permit for my apartment (not in Dinkytown) was free. If I'd had to pay a signifigant amount of money I would have thought twice about it. Most of my trips were to go grocery shopping, which won't require a car in Dinkytown anymore.

[mhwbkr]

No permits, market pricing for street parking. I cannot feel bad for people who feel they deserve inexpensive parking.

The issue right now is the low number of spots relative to the number of businesses, not the cost of parking.

FWIW, I just talked to the DBA president, he said the new U parking czar who took over a couple weeks ago has been much more helpful and businesses will likely soon be able to use the U of M lots behind CVS and the 14th Ave Ramp. So game-days will be pretty tough, but at least its a start.The city also began cooperating a bit more than portrayed above recently and have allowed a couple corners to be used as shuttle stops. So I'll leave that statement up there as the historical document it is, but I should walk back a bit the criticisms of the city it contains.

However, this was all done by community effort (in this case the DBA), with little to no collaboration from the developers that greatly exacerbated this situation.

[Nick]

I would imagine that having a grocery store in Dinkytown would dramatically decrease the number of necessary cars in Marcy-Holmes, but who knows. I always took the 3 to Downtown Target when I lived up at 26th and Como, but I don't think that was that common.

*Also, I think I want to move all the parallel conversation from the "Dinkytown" thread over to this one*

[mhwbkr]

Existing residents will need to be bought off with permits. As much as I don't like the idea it's just a political reality. Put meters everywhere, and let permit parks park for free. As they move away don't issue new permits to new residents, make them pay, and in 15-20 years everything will work out.

But if we make it hard/expensive for a student to bring a car to Dinkytown then students won't bring their cars. I brought my car to college because the parking permit for my apartment (not in Dinkytown) was free. If I'd had to pay a signifigant amount of money I would have thought twice about it. Most of my trips were to go grocery shopping, which won't require a car in Dinkytown anymore.

I too got rid of my car when I moved to Minneapolis, as my first apartment was downtown and I started acquiring tickets. I hope you're right that students will begin to make similar choices, but proposals that end with "and in 15-20 years everything will work out" don't really help folks who are struggling to keep their business afloat right now, due to pressures brought by developers without any real concern for the well-being of the community they've effected.

It sounds like the DBA has come together with the city to constructively work on the parking, but it shouldn't have had to come to this. Stakeholders here should have been able to have some time to prepare and set guidelines through the small area plan, rather being forced to react to the removal of parking and the changed zoning.

[mhwbkr]

Also, Goodman totally kicked ass and asked the hardest questions to Opus' reps at the Z&P hearing, so I feel pretty confident assuming she would have voted for the moratorium.

[MNdible]

I've been pretty sympathetic to the cause, but a couple of points:

First, it's not the city's responsibility to come in and fix a broken parking arrangement between private parties. They can help facilitate to some extent, and if the DBA is really motivated, they could work with the city on a grand shared parking solution and have a special assessment to support it. But it's just not the city's job to run interference to protect a private parking arrangement.

Second, to suggest that the rezoning that happened here was in anyway extraordinary just doesn't jibe with me. Dinkytown has been identified as an Activity Center in the Comp Plan, and everybody has been very clear that this piece of land is in the core of Dinkytown. Activity Center zoning is C3A, so it seems very clear to me that rezoning this parcel to C3A is about as cut-and-dried as this sort of thing gets.

[FISHMANPET]

but proposals that end with "and in 15-20 years everything will work out" don't really help folks who are struggling to keep their business afloat right now, due to pressures brought by developers without any real concern for the well-being of the community they've effected.

That's not quite what I said. Public parking for businesses can happen in the University Ramp, I think that's a good idea and everybody should work hard to make that happen. That solves a lot of the problems of business parking.

The other side of the coin is resident parking. I say give paring permits to current homeowners in the area. if you own your home, you can get a pass for every adult in your household. But put meters everywhere. If you have a permit, park wherever you want for as long as you want, you've earned it. If you don't have a permit, pay at the meter. If someone sells their homes, don't give permits to new residents. In 15-20 years most of the parking permits will be gone, and all the on street parking will be metered.

The closer to the core you get, the higher the rates should be, with the expectation of about 85% occupancy for any given block. Higher meter rates in Dinkytown actually help the businesses there. 85% occupancy means people will always be able to find a space and zip in to a shop and buy some books or have breakfast at Al's or whatever, and it will only cost a buck or two. But it will be too expensive to park there for an entire work day, or even for a show at the Varsity or a romantic dinner at Loring. So people in those situations will park farther out where it's cheaper, or just not drive at all. The closer you are to the core, the faster turnover is, which is good for everybody.

[mhwbkr]

First, it's not the city's responsibility to come in and fix a broken parking arrangement between private parties. They can help facilitate to some extent, and if the DBA is really motivated, they could work with the city on a grand shared parking solution and have a special assessment to support it. But it's just not the city's job to run interference to protect a private parking arrangement.

It would be pretty shitty of them to start a small area plan, over-ride their agency and options by approving a project that it outside the guidelines set in the neighborhood's master plan AND rezones the area, and then say its not our problem when the now very motivated DBA comes to them and says we need to know what you will allow us to do to help manage the situation we've been left with.

Second, to suggest that the rezoning that happened here was in anyway extraordinary just doesn't jibe with me. Dinkytown has been identified as an Activity Center in the Comp Plan, and everybody has been very clear that this piece of land is in the core of Dinkytown. Activity Center zoning is C3A, so it seems very clear to me that rezoning this parcel to C3A is about as cut-and-dried as this sort of thing gets.

When you put it that way, it sounds cut-and-dry but you fail to include the small area plan (which Gary Schiff even noted is the usual situation for a moratorium), the many ways the project is way outside the guidelines of the neighborhood master plan that is still in effect, and controversial nature of the project in the neighborhood--close vote by the neighborhood association that resulted in only conditional support, no support from the business association, opposition from the ward CM and the CM of the next closest ward (Gordon), a petition against it with 3100 signatures that were mostly collected in the area, etc.

[mhwbkr]

That's not quite what I said. Public parking for businesses can happen in the University Ramp, I think that's a good idea and everybody should work hard to make that happen. That solves a lot of the problems of business parking.

The other side of the coin is resident parking. I say give paring permits to current homeowners in the area. if you own your home, you can get a pass for every adult in your household. But put meters everywhere. If you have a permit, park wherever you want for as long as you want, you've earned it. If you don't have a permit, pay at the meter. If someone sells their homes, don't give permits to new residents. In 15-20 years most of the parking permits will be gone, and all the on street parking will be metered.

The closer to the core you get, the higher the rates should be, with the expectation of about 85% occupancy for any given block. Higher meter rates in Dinkytown actually help the businesses there. 85% occupancy means people will always be able to find a space and zip in to a shop and buy some books or have breakfast at Al's or whatever, and it will only cost a buck or two. But it will be too expensive to park there for an entire work day, or even for a show at the Varsity or a romantic dinner at Loring. So people in those situations will park farther out where it's cheaper, or just not drive at all. The closer you are to the core, the faster turnover is, which is good for everybody.

I get what you're saying. Sorry for the confusion on my part. I wouldn't say the University Ramp is a complete solution for the businesses, but its a really good start and I'm excited to see how the shuttle works out. It starts running on the 15th, nightly from 5pm to 10pm.

[TheUrbanGopher]

Matt,

I know I am behind this whole discussion, but thank you again for coming on here and speaking your points. At this point, it would be nice to truly collaborate to help with the SAP or something now that the moratorium is shot.

It sounds like many of the problems you experienced with Opus specifically was their inability to cooperate with the neighborhood/business associations/others on the design process. Have you talked with Doran about the new project? Do you think there is some way we would be able to talk to Doran or the Council at this point in the process aside from public comments at Planning Committee? I personally like many of his projects, but am skeptical with what he has proposed for that area. (I guess this belongs on the project page but whatever.)

[RailBaronYarr]

But at least the playing field is more level than it is in the newer mixed use buildings. There are no protections from Doran, Opus, Gem, etc from setting commercial rent prices higher than can small businesses can afford. The owners of the smaller buildings will gladly follow suit and adjust to the new market, leaving their soon-to-be former tenants few good prospects.

The decision of existing landlords to not charge full or market rents is not the city's problem or Doran's. Land (and building value) will go up because living on campus is far more desirable than it has been in the past. We didn't complain when Mesa booted out whatever was in the second half of its building and restrict them. We shouldn't cap market rate rents to protect a certain class of business, even if small businesses are desirable (in my opinion). For years, big boxes and chains gained the competitive edge by utilizing low-value land uses subsidized with high-cost public infrastructure projects and reduced land tax rates. As far as I'm aware, this isn't the case in any of the proposed DInkytown developments. If we want to encourage small businesses in the area, why not go the flip route and provide startup cash/assistance funded in part by the added property tax and metered parking revenue from developments like this? And again, the public's job isn't to ensure that every business small, niche, unique, large, chain, etc has access to the most valuable parcel in the core of an activity center. Let development spread outward from the core as well with lower-value (and therefore cost) buildings to serve smaller business' needs.

All this assumes you're 100% right on the inability of small businesses to survive in new spaces moving forward. Do you have any insight to Purple Onion, Baldy's BBQ, Chilly Billy's, etc rent situation in the newer spaces?

I guess I don't really get what your expansionist vision of Dinkytown has to do with the pressures being faced by the businesses in Dinkytown right now, although I could probably get behind it. But, again, the city seems intent on making decisions that are more based on what the developer's think is best, than as a result of comprehensive, community-inclusive planning processes. I take this view from my experience with Dinkytown, but I know some experienced planners you can talk to who will make similar observations. Plans like what you just articulated likely won't come as a result of increasing the influence and power of the large developers.

If Dinkytown had not been limited for as long as it had, by the C1 zoning within the core, parking minimums, etc along with zoning outside the core, we would have seen more commercial-supporting structures sprout up over time. We'd already have older, aging, lower value buildings in place that would make a natural transition for places that can no longer afford the rents in the heart of Dinkytown. As it is, I'm advocating playing catch-up a little. I'll also note that for a business to just up and move, even a short distance, is not easy. Customers become confused, capacity to sell goes down, etc. I agree. I've stated it in other threads that this impact (not being forced to move by market forces) is what should be softened when speaking of personal residences. If a business doesn't own their building, they feel all the negatives with none of the positives of profiting off the sale (though they also presumably reduce month to month headaches and costs/risks of property ownership as well). Put in some regs that require landlords to assist in moving, forgive XX months' rent, etc to soften the impact to the business, costs that would then change the economics of selling the parcel to a developer but not limit development nearly as much.

[RailBaronYarr]

Regarding parking, I'll agree that there are many students who have use for a car even if they live 1-2 blocks from campus. Matt, you point out trips home, summer internships, jobs off campus during the school year, or just for leisure. There are, however, options to do these things without the use of a personal car right on the street. Car sharing (ZipCar and HourCar, with the latter expanding at the U), Green Line to StP/Minneapolis, decent bus network, biking, sharing vehicles with roommates, etc. How many people would bring their car for the occasional use if parking costs exceeded that of a car-sharing program? How many jobs do students access during the school year not served by transit? How many would take MVTA/SW Metro/etc buses to their suburban hometown rather than just drive it?

I agree that the city can't be part of the process of development and then be slow to respond (or not at all) regarding how it deals with its own public space (namely, on-street parking). IMO, that's why they're part of it in the first place. The city should already know what areas in MH+DT need meters added, be working on a pricing scheme based on current counts, working on reaching out to landlords on notifying them on a permit process for tenants, etc etc. This is good, responsive governance and I agree it isn't there to the extent that it should be.

[PhilmerPhil]

Somewhat related: The Former Noodles & Company space at the newish GrandMarc building at Seven Corners is being filled by some sort of non chain Asian Restaurant. Just goes to show that with time, new spaces that only chains can afford eventually become within reach for small startups.

In the meantime, there is no shortage of aging commercial districts in the city with vacancies that would be happy to be filled with businesses that may have been displaced by higher rents in the more competitive neighborhoods.

[FISHMANPET]

That reminds me that in Stadium Village, the space next to Walgreens is being filled by a non-chain Asian restaurant as well. And at the corner of Oak & Washington in an old building is Chipotle, a chain.

[kirby96]

In the meantime, there is no shortage of aging commercial districts in the city with vacancies that would be happy to be filled with businesses that may have been displaced by higher rents in the more competitive neighborhoods.

Exactly. If there is demand for these businesses, they won't just 'go away'. They'll go where they can afford to do business. Which likely means positive developments for parts of the city far worse off than Dinkytown.

I used to live in St. Paul, and my neighbors/relatives would lament the change of Grand Avenue to 'chain-dominated' over the past 20 years. I would politely remind them that when Grand was 'the way they liked it', just a few short blocks away Selby-Dale was one of the most dangerous intersections in the Twin Cities metro (my grandfather owned a convenience store there for awhile). Seems like the much hated development of Grand Avenue has worked out just fine for Selby-Dale, and more importantly, for St. Paul as a whole.

I'm highly confident that even if the 'Save Dinkytown'-ers worst fears are realized, it would simply mean more small business development in parts of the city that need it far more. This is why I get so frustrated with this selfish NIMBY-ism.

[talindsay]

That reminds me that in Stadium Village, the space next to Walgreens is being filled by a non-chain Asian restaurant as well. And at the corner of Oak & Washington in an old building is Chipotle, a chain.

Sorry, you mean the space next to the Corner W by Walgreens. The poor staff there have to say, "welcome to the Corner W" when you walk in. They're not paid enough to sound that stupid. Turns out it's an important distinction though, as the store doesn't have a pharmacy (!!)