urbanMSP

Is it just me or are multi-way boulevards being suggested for just about every street in Minneapolis lately?

I've noticed the same thing, and none of the locations suggested have adequate ROW to actually make it work.

The original suggestion for a MWB in this thread was for one block, presumably Nicollet between Lake and 29th. Therefore there would be ROW. Still, probably not a good idea considering it would provide inconsistent setbacks on the infill site.

What is being done to unify transit in this area? Between the Greenway, 35W BRT, and Nicollet Streetcar there's a lot of future transit within a block or two and I hope it is unified nicely.

Well, there is the 35W BRT station planned, which will have a walkway to the greenway. Hopefully Nicollet-Lake doesn't get one of those awful bus stations like Chicago-Lake. There is a lot of room for larger sidewalks.

MinnPost's Cityscape column had an article on the Kmart area on Friday:

http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2012/ ... ake-street

MinnPost's Cityscape column had an article on the Kmart area on Friday:

http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2012/ ... ake-street

I don't understand the talk of disfavoring some rental housing in new developments. Vacancy rates are remaining low even in the face of what construction we do have happening and rents in the area are continuing to rise.

MinnPost's Cityscape column had an article on the Kmart area on Fridaijnmmmmmmmmmmm:\\-%E2%80%94-something-good-we-hope-%E2%80%94-lake-street

I don't understand the talk of disfavoring some rental housing in new developments. Vacancy rates are remaining low even in the face of what construction we do have happening and rents in the area are continuing to rise.

That naysayer had a good idea with Surly's HQ being there, though.....I wonder if that's Surly's "Mystery Location"? I'm not sure how that would work though given that the block WILL BE split down the middle by Nicollet, leaving less space for something overly sprawly. Besides, I don't see how K-Mart and SuperValu won't be part of this future redevelopment, UNLESS the site actually falls victim to eminent domain.

If the value of the land is $9.1 million though, that's VERY high, especially for a non-downtown/uptown block! I would expect any redevelopment to be QUITE substantial with land values that high!

a streetcar line and the federal money behind it would get this street re-opened.

The Federal money may provide impetus for the city to use the power of condemnation it's always had, but it's not going to pay for much of the project. Most federal streetcar grants have been for $30m, and the highest ever was for $75m, coincidentally the same cost the Mpls Streetcar Funding Study of 2010 estimated it would cost to build a streetcar on Nicollet from 5th to Franklin. In other words, it would take an unprecedented amount of Federal funding to get a streetcar built to Lake St, and even in that case, they'd probably have to choose between a Lake St connection and an Old St Anthony connection, which isn't an obvious choice (although political winds certainly favor Lake St, considering Robert Lilligren's stature vs Diane Hofstede's).

So the willingness of a developer to get involved is a more realistic opportunity than a streetcar, even if Erica Christ is right that it makes for a greater risk of a bad development. It was cool to hear Lilligren confirm that Sherman is the interested party - he's one of the best in town, in my opinion. Final comment: while I can understand why Whittier isn't interested in more rental housing, light industrial is the worst proposal I've ever heard for this site.

July 1, 2013 is the date when it appears the plan will be ready to go - based on the link in that Trans and Public Works document...

This intersection is such an incredible blank canvas for the city; they really can't let it go to waste. No design could fail as miserably as the current one, of course, but never underestimate the power of shallow, short-sighted thinking.

Some ideas that should seriously be considered (and probably won't be) are:

1. High density housing development with no parking. Yes, absolutely no parking. Yes, there will be one guy who lives nearby in a single family house who for some reason doesn't have a garage who will say "No way; I'll need to spend ages looking for a spot on the street." This man's problems should not dictate design. The transit use would be extraordinary, nearby shops would flourish, and it would be affordable. As they are learning in Portland, "Parking a site is the difference between a $750 apartment and a $1,200 apartment" (See: http://bettercities.net/article/housing ... land-18789). We like to pat ourselves in the back in Mpls for being ahead of the curve, but in this case we're not; we still impose parking minimums on developers. That's crazy.

2. Get rid of Kmart. This is probably a non-starter (as it is apparently one of Kmart's highest grossing stores), but it is desirable because Kmart is antithetical to urban space. If Kmart can get on the "urban big-box store" bandwagon that Target and even Walmart have been on, then fine. The redesigned building should interact with the street (curtain windows that actually have sightlines (not these faux curtain windows that just have big banner ads in them - the point is to allow people to see other people), have a smaller footprint, and tailor its product lines at this location to smaller goods more easily transported without resort to an automobile.

3. Clever integration with the Greenway. This greenway of ours is a really unique asset. It has been well integrated with previous developments, but here there is the potential to do something dramatic.

4. Quality public space. This relates to the previous point, but is more general. We seem to half-heartedly do streetscaping here. Mix together a concrete sidewalk, a bench (with a creepy looking real estate broker ad), maybe a spindly tree that will soon die because of compacted soil, and voila! You have our typical 'landscaped' street. This is embarassing. If they are going to rebuild one block of Nicollet, do it right: (1) granite curbs, (2) pervious sidewalks made of paving stones, (3) hardy trees with silva cells (See: http://www.deeproot.com/products/silva- ... rview.html) to protect the roots, (4) extra wide sidewalks, (5) zebra striped pedestrian crossings, (6) pedestrian walk signals with countdown timers, (7) street furniture that is easy to maintain, comfortable to sit on, and handles exposure to the elements well, (8) corner bump-outs, etc. etc.

5. Building(s) with architectural merit. Baron Haussman levelled Paris to the ground from 1850-1870 and rebuilt it with boulevards terminating in notable structures. I think this project is often misunderstood as seeking to project grandeur. The real purpose was social: sewer systems, transport systems, schools integrated with parks, etc. The grand buildings at the end of the boulevards are generally public and of some architectural distinction. Oftentimes these were churches, but they are also theatres, or government administrative buildings, etc. Something easily identifiable and public; focal points for the community. Lake & Nicollet needs something like this: a focal point, both visually and psychologically, to knit together the two halves of Lake Street. You might say this sounds pompous and unnecessary. But I tend to think that people judge communities (not just outsiders, but residents themselves) by the appearance of their physical surroundings. Lake and Nicollet are arguably the two most famous streets in Mpls (sorry Hennepin, you're up there). Currently they meet at a Kmart parking lot, signalling to all the profound lack of confidence and self-respect that the city had in the 1970s. In these (happier) days, we should do a better job, and not just cave to crass commercial interests.

Thoughts?

#1. What is your social goal out of this opportunity? Do you wish to include the clientele from the neighborhood, or are you looking to bring new people into the neighborhood and 'raise the bar'? (I'm not rying to say there aren't good people here, merely that KMart doesn't typically attract the Brooks Brothers crowd)
I guess what I'm getting at is, do you want it to be a taj mahal or a functional, profitable, popular place that invites people to spend time there?
Realistically, looking at the blocks surrounding this parcel, I'd hope that this is the first in redeveloping several blocks here.

#1. What is your social goal out of this opportunity? Do you wish to include the clientele from the neighborhood, or are you looking to bring new people into the neighborhood and 'raise the bar'? (I'm not rying to say there aren't good people here, merely that KMart doesn't typically attract the Brooks Brothers crowd)
I guess what I'm getting at is, do you want it to be a taj mahal or a functional, profitable, popular place that invites people to spend time there?
Realistically, looking at the blocks surrounding this parcel, I'd hope that this is the first in redeveloping several blocks here.

Oh definitely the latter: "functional, profitable, popular place that invites people to spend time there." And no, I would prefer it not be snobby and exclusive; density should serve both the newcomers (creating a great place to live) and the current residents (creating a destination for shopping, leisure, work, etc).

Continuing the Helsinki analogy to Minneapolis, I think the Kallio district of Helsinki is a good model here. Kallio has a ruggedly beautiful Jugendstil church (explanatory video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU6O05ZVwu4) that anchors a tight-knit, dense, middle class neighborhood.

Well considering that more affordable or even moderately-priced housing is apparently less profitable for developers, there is a great opportunity/excuse here to develop this site with the lower-margin affordable housing and give the developer a chance to pour on the profit that he/she may have otherwise received had the developer gone with a more upscale model by allowing the developer to build an unlimited # of units at this location (my guess is that the market could potentially support 300-500 units at this site......especially true if the units are more affordable). This could provide a great transition from the more lower/middle class areas North of here to the more strongly middle class and even upper-middle class areas to the South. I'm envisioning a scaled-down Cedar-Riverside that truly has diverse uses and end-users.....like something that would mimic the demographics of the entire City of Minneapolis (would be a representative sample for the whole city). That's kind of what I'd like to see -- something that represents the city AND fosters creativity and livelihood (I know.....I'm really pinpointing it for the developer, huh?).

Well considering that more affordable or even moderately-priced housing is apparently less profitable for developers, there is a great opportunity/excuse here to develop this site with the lower-margin affordable housing and give the developer a chance to pour on the profit that he/she may have otherwise received had the developer gone with a more upscale model by allowing the developer to build an unlimited # of units at this location (my guess is that the market could potentially support 300-500 units at this site......especially true if the units are more affordable). This could provide a great transition from the more lower/middle class areas North of here to the more strongly middle class and even upper-middle class areas to the South. I'm envisioning a scaled-down Cedar-Riverside that truly has diverse uses and end-users.....like something that would mimic the demographics of the entire City of Minneapolis (would be a representative sample for the whole city). That's kind of what I'd like to see -- something that represents the city AND fosters creativity and livelihood (I know.....I'm really pinpointing it for the developer, huh?).

I agree. Why not let the developer pack as many people in as possible? I don't understand the restrictions here. Paris is supremely elegant and comfortable ... With over 50,000 people per square mile. Mpls has what, 6,500 per square mile?

Well, a big part of it is minimum parking restrictions. They are suffocating American cities. Check out "The Gated City" by Ryan Avent.

In case anyone is wondering, the children's bike license plates available at the Lake Street K-Mart are as follows:

Hopefully the humor isn't lost on everyone

Because "SPOILED" isn't sold out yet?

Because people in Whittier and Phillips don't give their kids stupid, too precious names like Aiden, Logan, Grace and Riley?

Hopefully the humor isn't lost on everyone

It's a LITTLE lost on me, but I get the sense that you're implying that those are mostly "white names", but to also imply that the other (presumably "sold out") names were non-white is a bit of a stretch.....since nobody buys those damn things.
*Edit: I took your words "available" to mean that there were others that were sold out, but now I read it as "the only ones available", so if that's the case ignore my comment above (or just ignore it anyways).

"Bort? What kind of name is Bort?"
"Don't touch that Bort!"
"Did you say my name?"
"No.....my son is also named Bort!"