DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

[Avian]

If they remove the deco facade and plant it (at least in part) on Block E, that would pretty much deaden that stretch of Hennepin. If the facade is worth saving, then don't expect any bright lights or animated ticker-tape displays like Times Square to be put on the face of the building. The skyway would probably have to go, too. Nope, Block E is the wrong place for this facade.

[twincitizen]

It's the City's problem more than Ryan's. Ryan gets to build their development regardless, and the land sale is supposed to close by the end of the year. If anything, the City could decline to purchase the Strib building block from Ryan if demo permits get blocked (by the city, ironically).

[RailBaronYarr]

http://finance-commerce.com/2013/08/rep ... m=facebook

20 - 25 percent delays in the area during peak rush hours. 30 percent delay on southbound Chicago in the evening. I'm not sure if the percent delay means number of vehicles added to each street, time taken to travel a block, or what. Given the strong opposition, I was expecting delays to double or something. My experience in DTE in the evening rush hour is not one of total gridlock, so I guess I don't see the big deal. If we're talking about adding 1 minute to a drive that currently takes 5 minutes to get to 94 or 35W, what's the issue?

Edit, the article is a bit misleading. Looking in to the data, "Roadway Option 1," which would see Park & Portland fully closed, sees just over 50% delays in network travel in DTE, with a couple intersections "failing" by engineers' guidelines.

[twincitizen]

I think the City should push hard for the closure of both streets and then "compromise" to close only Portland. I've probably repeated this to the point of annoyance, but I just don't see the current underground ramp triangle parcel ever being truly integrated into the park to be worthy of permanent closure of Park Ave.

[DTSB]

All of the discussion is around longer automobile commutes. Maybe the reason is because they are county roads, but I wish they would look at all commuting options. Maybe this would get more people to use mass transit and actually make the commute better.

[mullen]

we're still an auto centrc metro. it's all about car flow here. god forbid we'd have to close a street. they've only closed streets to auto traffic in every major european city as well as new york. those cities are wonderful pedestrian/biking havens. we like our freeway one-ways here. have to get home in time for the 6 o'lock news.

don't get me started on nicollet mall....this is should be a ped/bike only street...u know, a "mall". but again, bringing that up is just awful.

[min-chi-cbus]

In general, I'm against making the transit network/infrastructure WORSE, even if it's for the betterment of alternative forms of transit. So I don't personally think that's a great argument to use when considering closing a street. A park is a better argument, but I'd still rather pay to have the road tunneled or even trenched like in Central Park (See, even they don't close EVERY road) than completely closed. And that's coming from a pro-transit guy!

So I can close one road, trench/tunnel the other, and call it even!

[RailBaronYarr]

All of the discussion is around longer automobile commutes. Maybe the reason is because they are county roads, but I wish they would look at all commuting options. Maybe this would get more people to use mass transit and actually make the commute better.

Yep. http://mplsbike.org/blog/posts/washingt ... eers-eyes/

On one side of the scale are thousands of residents, plus thousands of visitors and thousands of employees, who would start benefitting in 2014. On the other side is 60-180 seconds for 1,300 commuters in 2035. The holistic public policy calculus, and the political calculus, should be glaringly obvious by now.

WRT to the Strib block plan, I share the same thoughts. Downtown population is going to continue rising. Most of these people will be working downtown (or taking the bus/LRT or a bike to nearby work locations). The county is so concerned with moving vehicles because they think this represents economic vitality/growth. If the vehicles they were talking about moving in such large quantities were delivery trucks, contractors working downtown, semi-trucks hauling bulk goods, and even visitors (business and tourists) - then I could understand it. But people choosing to live somewhere else and commute in/out of downtown during peak rush hours doesn't represent any sort of economic vitality, just a choice in where to live. Their commute shouldn't be prioritized over the street life and quality of people living (or even visiting) downtown.

[talindsay]

I suggest that if the road surface is raised (like a speed hump) for the entire width of the park, paved with some alternate surface (stone comes to mind), narrowed to a sparse one lane each direction - maybe 9' per lane - and given concrete bollards along both sides, with a posted 10 mph speed limit and sign requiring traffic stop for pedestrians, then the roads can go *through* the park with little or no impact on the park land - with the option of closing them easily when useful (weekends, events, etc.). Technically the roads wouldn't be removed so the political issues would be less, but using this one-block stretch of road would be so unpalatable that almost everybody would go around instead of going through. This type of through-road in a park is used in DC in a few places, and I've seen them in Paris and Brussels too. Basically, keep it open to traffic but make it so pedestrian-oriented and car-unfriendly that drivers choose not to use it.

[min-chi-cbus]

I suggest that if the road surface is raised (like a speed hump) for the entire width of the park, paved with some alternate surface (stone comes to mind), narrowed to a sparse one lane each direction - maybe 9' per lane - and given concrete bollards along both sides, with a posted 10 mph speed limit and sign requiring traffic stop for pedestrians, then the roads can go *through* the park with little or no impact on the park land - with the option of closing them easily when useful (weekends, events, etc.). Technically the roads wouldn't be removed so the political issues would be less, but using this one-block stretch of road would be so unpalatable that almost everybody would go around instead of going through. This type of through-road in a park is used in DC in a few places, and I've seen them in Paris and Brussels too. Basically, keep it open to traffic but make it so pedestrian-oriented and car-unfriendly that drivers choose not to use it.

That's a good idea (minus the speed bumps, due to Emergency vehicles)!

[talindsay]

Thanks! I don't mean speed *bumps*, I mean speed *humps* - long, flat raised sections to delineate pedestrian zones. They're more effective and safer than speed bumps, according to something I read somewhere (how's that for a hedge?).

[lordmoke]

Great article with a lot of information:
http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2013/ ... ntown-east

[RailBaronYarr]

I made my post in the comments section there, but it should be noted that the numbers the AUAR presents are for 2035 (not immediate), assume a 0.5% yearly increase in vehicle counts (despite the opposite trend), ignore mode change given additional options currently operating, under construction, or heavily planned. The overview showing % increase in delay makes it sound scarier than it actually is. The AUAR shows average per-vehicle delays in the 51 intersection area would be between 3-4 minutes for the options that close Park, Portland, or both under "Minimum" and "Maximum" development. The Max development paired with both lane closures saw a 12 minute average vehicle delay. I'll admit, that seems a bit high to justify.

But given the faulty assumptions and lacking data (does each option improve/worsen bike/transit commuting, etc), I'm inclined to say just close off Portland with Park being narrowed. Keeps vehicle traffic in the area moving reasonably well, keeps access to current ramp entrance (and possible development above) open, and provides emergency vehicles the through-route, all while creating a contiguous 2-block parkspace.

[talindsay]

So more of these blocks have substantial structures on them than I'd remembered - there will be quite a lot of demolition with this project. That's okay, since most of the structures have to do with the now-ended needs of a major printing business and that kind of light industrial use isn't likely to come back to this area.

Looking closely at the underground parking structure adjacent to the light rail station, I would agree that it's probably not practical to try and integrate this partial block into the park - it's certainly possible, but it would involve a *lot* of reworking of both the parking garage and the light rail station - probably not worth it.

[twincitizen]

Agree with previous two posts: Fully close/eliminate Portland, narrow Park Avenue (or don't, whatever) because the triangle underground ramp parcel can't easily be integrated into the park anyways. The elimination of Portland is simply non-negotiable if you actually care about making this park an asset to this development and, more importantly, future development in the area.

[woofner]

Why does the park need to be larger than a block in order to be "an asset to this development and, more importantly, future development in the area"?

[Wedgeguy]

Why does the park need to be larger than a block in order to be "an asset to this development and, more importantly, future development in the area"?

I have to agree with that. We have no lake in the middle that make the need for 2 uninterrupted block a no go. We can create a large pedestrian crossing zone mid block. We can't fill and figure out a real program for the 1/2 block Peavey Plaza, How do we make not make these blocks look like the south yard of the Hennepin Government Center that has a handful of people at any time. This will be no Cental Park or Grant Park. Open space is one thing, a park is a totally different creature.

[RailBaronYarr]

^^ My answer would be that to have the type of amenities that make this park as useful as possible, to as many people as possible, bisecting it down the middle with cars that often speed is a terrible idea. Obviously, 2 parks separated by a street is better than no parks and certainly helps in the development of the area as a place to live, but not nearly as good.

[min-chi-cbus]

How would you feel if it was NEARLY seemless, and there was a very accessible and easy-to-cross connection between the two blocks? If we could keep both streets open AND keep the park seemless I'd call that a "win-win", and it'd be my #1 option.

[RailBaronYarr]

Isn't it a bigger win if it's actually closed off, and motor vehicle traffic in 22 years assuming 0.5% YOY count increases only has to be delayed by 3 minutes in the entire area?