urbanMSP

For the last year I have walked though that neighborhood during the day and a few evenings. I've waited at bus stops and had no problems happen with anyone. What we are hearing about is what I call, scared of the FOLKS, never taking the time during the day to walk to the coffee shop and meet the owner, not walking to CVS to get a few things. Many of these people are still suburbanites now stuck in the city and they have not learned how to live here in the city.

I agree with your observation, but I think that is going to change over the next few years. Some of what your talking about is a generational difference. For me, it's exciting to see the large number of Millenials who are embracing the urban life style. They are much less car oriented in their means for getting around, and they're not as interested in living in homes with huge amounts of wasted space. They have a more global outlook and are less afraid of diversity. They're into social networking. It's a different era than when you and I were in our twenties.

For the last year I have walked though that neighborhood during the day and a few evenings. I've waited at bus stops and had no problems happen with anyone. What we are hearing about is what I call, scared of the FOLKS, never taking the time during the day to walk to the coffee shop and meet the owner, not walking to CVS to get a few things. Many of these people are still suburbanites now stuck in the city and they have not learned how to live here in the city.

That is exactly my thought when I read that post. I just moved to the 15th and Chicago ave area a month ago and everyone I have met on the street is actually very friendly (sometimes overly so, like trying to hold a conversation when I'm trying to get on my way to somewhere). the people in my neighborhood definitely look different from the people the grant Parker's were used to seeing in the suburbs before they moved here, and I think that is a huge part of it.

To attract families with children downtown, you need to have good and accessible schools, especially at the elementary level where there is currently a growing demographic. There has been some talk of opening up a public elementary school, and if that happened, I think it would be helpful in attracting even more young families. But then the issue would be to retain these families living downtown as the children move into junior high and beyond. In my crystal ball, I see the very affluent parents with children staying put and sending their kids to private schools. For more middle class families, there may be a out migration to the suburbs for better high schools, unless the future Mpls public school system is flexible (and financially able) enough to address their needs.

I hear a lot about opening a public elementary school downtown, but we already have two of them. The Fair School (at 10th and Hennepin) and Emerson Dual Immersion (at 14th and Spruce). I live downtown with a 12 year old and a 9 year old (3 bedroom condo). One child walks to school, and the other takes a school bus ride to his middle school. When they get to high school our "Attendance Area School" is Southwest which was named the #1 school in Minnesota. So I don't buy the schools being an issue for living downtown.

To attract families with children downtown, you need to have good and accessible schools, especially at the elementary level where there is currently a growing demographic. There has been some talk of opening up a public elementary school, and if that happened, I think it would be helpful in attracting even more young families. But then the issue would be to retain these families living downtown as the children move into junior high and beyond. In my crystal ball, I see the very affluent parents with children staying put and sending their kids to private schools. For more middle class families, there may be a out migration to the suburbs for better high schools, unless the future Mpls public school system is flexible (and financially able) enough to address their needs.

I hear a lot about opening a public elementary school downtown, but we already have two of them. The Fair School (at 10th and Hennepin) and Emerson Dual Immersion (at 14th and Spruce). I live downtown with a 12 year old and a 9 year old (3 bedroom condo). One child walks to school, and the other takes a school bus ride to his middle school. When they get to high school our "Attendance Area School" is Southwest which was named the #1 school in Minnesota. So I don't buy the schools being an issue for living downtown.

Oh wow, that's great first-person information, and very encouraging to know! I wonder why DT is in the Southwest District?? Either way, knowing that my children's future is not in jeopardy because me or my wife would like to live in an urban environment is VERY reassuring! I'd seriously consider living downtown with two young kids!!

I agree it is weird that DT is in the Southwest District. It is in Zone 3A which includes Downtown East, Downtown West, Elliot Park, and Loring Park neighborhoods. (North Loop is in a different zone. I think their high school is North??)

With all the financial problems of Mpls schools, building and maintaining a new elementary school downtown is likely a moot point. The Emerson Immersion school would be a great and logical place to create a community school with a focus on attracting children living downtown.

So it sure seems like we're currently stuck with a lot of potential urbanism but we're missing the connections that create walkable residential neighborhoods on the periphery of the CBD (such as Elliot Park). Here are my ideas:
- Road diets so these neighborhoods (especially Elliot Park/DTE) are no longer car sewers between the freeways and the CBD
- Wider sidewalks when possible
- Focus on creating corridors of urbanism until we have a critical mass of urbanism across the neighborhood. Create some sort of micro-grant program to entice building owners to create spaces that address the sidewalks... make a main street for the neighborhood that attracts people.
- If our streetcar network takes off, focus on connecting first and second ring residential neighborhoods (Elliot Park, University, St. Anthony NE, North Loop, Loring Park, Stevens Square, Cedar-Riverside etc) rather than replacement of longer bus routes (Nicollet streetcar does not need to go to 46th St). http://goo.gl/maps/wX2df

Here's my question:

The North Loop is increasingly becoming a family friendly urban neighborhood, but unfortunately, that living option just not financially possible for the overwhelming majority.

When will the market meet the demand for housing in the core so that it becomes a feasible choice for non-execs/doctors/lawyers like me to afford a space to raise a family in? (Unfortunately not soon enough for me to make that decision.)

Here's my question:

The North Loop is increasingly becoming a family friendly urban neighborhood, but unfortunately, that living option just not financially possible for the overwhelming majority.

When will the market meet the demand for housing in the core so that it becomes a feasible choice for non-execs/doctors/lawyers like me to afford a space to raise a family in? (Unfortunately not soon enough for me to make that decision.)

You are involved in the arts (film and video). What about the Pillsbury A-Mill artist lofts? I agree with you there's a need for more moderate income housing downtown, especially for families. I wish they would redevelop the south end of Nicollet Ave ( from 15th to Franklin) into an area like that.

Here's my question:

The North Loop is increasingly becoming a family friendly urban neighborhood, but unfortunately, that living option just not financially possible for the overwhelming majority.

When will the market meet the demand for housing in the core so that it becomes a feasible choice for non-execs/doctors/lawyers like me to afford a space to raise a family in? (Unfortunately not soon enough for me to make that decision.)

Halleujah!!!

I think about this a lot. The only feasible options seem to be the smattering of older condo/apt complexes that are basic and not as well-appointed. Just yesterday I read some article about Mill & Main and there was a quote saying that the prospective renters they've encountered could care less if the price point is $2000 or $2500 per month. Really? Are these the people who burn hot and bright and then go financially tits up after two years, or can they really sustain this for years?

Edit: And the $2000-$2500 was for 1-Bedrooms, which wouldn't work for families in the first place.

There will probably never be new construction middle income housing, at least not until developers think the luxury market is saturated. But even if they can't saturate it, these nice buildings now will filter down as newer better buildings are built.

So if you want middle income housing, support every luxury project you can find, and wait.

There will probably never be new construction middle income housing, at least not until developers think the luxury market is saturated. But even if they can't saturate it, these nice buildings now will filter down as newer better buildings are built.

So if you want middle income housing, support every luxury project you can find, and wait.

I fully understand this economic reasoning--it makes complete sense. I just want to hear peoples' thoughts and speculations on when (if) this will ever happen. How long do we have to wait before middle class families living in core neighborhoods isn't just a fantasy? My lifetime? My unborn children's lifetime?

I love this project. It creates middle class housing in the inner city while being environmentally conscious.
http://www.ecovillageminneapolis.com/

If you'd timed it right, you could have picked up a condo in one of a number of late 70's - early 80's vintage condo buildings very affordably during the downturn. Even now, they're still a pretty good deal. Yes, they're a touch dated, and, no, they don't have all the amenities. But they're still for the most part nice buildings.

There will probably never be new construction middle income housing, at least not until developers think the luxury market is saturated. But even if they can't saturate it, these nice buildings now will filter down as newer better buildings are built.

So if you want middle income housing, support every luxury project you can find, and wait.

I remember reading a great article arguing just this point. Looking at a few Twin Cities neighborhoods, the author described fine old houses and buildings that deteriorated and served many years as solid lower-income housing. Then, not long before reaching the point of hopeless dilapidation, these were often renovated to become once again middle- or upper-income housing.

Buildings built on the cheap as lower-income housing frequently fall quickly into disrepair and must be torn down, functioning less efficiently over the long run as inexpensive housing than solidly built but out-of-fashion structures.

That said, there's not enough of the trickle-down housing to meet demand, so other ways must be found to create housing for lower-income groups. Ideally, enough would be spent at the get-go to make per-unit costs over the lifetime of the structure as low as is consistent with decent housing quality, but there are plenty of reasons that things rarely work this neatly.

Perhaps something to consider is that a lot of places that have middle class families raising children in very high density neighborhoods have much higher housing costs overall than we do. I'm not sure it will ever be very common for middle class families to raise children downtown without spending a much larger percentage of their income on housing than most americans are used to. I also think it's unreasonable to expect the sort of home that many families want-- where each child has their own bedroom, the family might have a separate playroom/family room, ect. We might have to redefine what we really consider to be a middle class family lifestyle to fit the higher housing costs of very dense places.

I still think we need to see some more modest two bedroom units built. Too many 1-bedrooms with big master suites to them that could easily be a modest 2-bedroom in the same square footage.

Yeah, I love my 2 bedroom with 1000 sqft, I just wish it was somewhere else. And everything being built is 1 bedroom and more square feet than I have now.

Perhaps something to consider is that a lot of places that have middle class families raising children in very high density neighborhoods have much higher housing costs overall than we do. I'm not sure it will ever be very common for middle class families to raise children downtown without spending a much larger percentage of their income on housing than most americans are used to. I also think it's unreasonable to expect the sort of home that many families want-- where each child has their own bedroom, the family might have a separate playroom/family room, ect. We might have to redefine what we really consider to be a middle class family lifestyle to fit the higher housing costs of very dense places.

I still think we need to see some more modest two bedroom units built. Too many 1-bedrooms with big master suites to them that could easily be a modest 2-bedroom in the same square footage.

As I read this thread I can't help but think the same thing. Where in the world can a family find good and affordable housing in a prime, central neighborhood? This discussion strikes me a little bit of having cake and also eating cake.

There are 100% livable two bedrooms in my building in Loring Park for like $1250. There are really very few 2+ bedroom rental units at any price range downtown--or anywhere else for that matter.

in my complex in Elliot Park/Downtown East, you could get a very nice renovated 2 br for $800-900 or a 3 bedroom for probably around $1200