urbanMSP

New park for downtown St. Paul bounded by 9th, 10th, Minnesota, and Robert. The park will be phased in and will form a u-shape around the Union Gospel Mission Childcare Center.

http://www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=4685

Wonderful. I know that the land/money for this project came from a private investor - but I praise St. Paul in general for its ability to get projects done while its seems to take Mpls. forever to decide on anything. Look at the Wacouta park as well (again, not sure but that park may also have been privately developed with monies from the surrounding developments).

Still - while so many people always rave about Mpls. - it really could learn some things about urban planing/placemaking from its twin across the river.

And St. Paul could learn something about bike lanes. Too bad we can't have the best of both cities for both cities.

St. Paul was able to get a dedicated sales tax slush fund back in the 1990's to fund this sort of thing. Minneapolis has kindly agreed to dedicate its sales taxes to funding statewide amenities (Metrodome, Convention Center, Target Center, and now Vikings Stadium).

Also, obviously, land is cheaper in downtown St. Paul.

St. Paul decimated their core though. Norwest Center, US Bank Tower, City Square, and the Macy's building took all the prime blocks and turned them into cold, aging parking ramps with towers on top. Travelers, World Trade Center and the Lawson building are newer projects that are decent, but they are so much better than the crap around them. I wonder the feasibility of tearing down the parking ramp podiums and replacing them with something better (I would love to see Cedar St opened up to the sky where the parking ramp covers the roadway.) The only problem would be getting any interest by businesses.

The other parts of downtown are actually quite nice, and are better representations of true downtown living in comparison to Minneapolis. And to get back to the topic at hand, Pedro Park could be a catalyst for the construction of new housing in the NE corner of DT St. Paul.

I really wish this park could have been the whole block, though. Otherwise it is great!

Here are a couple pictures of the block where the park will be built.


DSCN1323 by spectre 000, on Flickr


DSCN1325 by spectre 000, on Flickr

Here are some various concept plans.

Any context around the factors which would lead to a tiny park vs. a 3/4 block park?

I don't think this spot needs a full block park, but it would be nice to have it be at least half. Especially the second-to-last option which would allow for new development to address two streets and part of the park.

It's going to all come down to money. I'd really prefer the full block. I just think the Union Gospel's Day care center building is going to look out of place. But who knows. I'm real impressed with the concepts presented so far.

It's been 11 months. The Penfield is (almost) open next door. What is happening with this planned park?

I just saw it mentioned in another St Paul topic. I had totally forgotten about this. It would be a great addition.

The comment dates on this page are Oct 30, 2013 making it seem like something just happened.

http://blog.yourstpaulhome.com/downtown ... k-no-more/

I was thinking about this the other day...the Pedro family donated their building (in 2010 or '11 I believe) for a park to be built. The building was demolished, but nothing else has been done. I would think that the family would be fairly upset that they made such a valuable donation for an empty lot to sit there for a few years. It would be nice if the city at least updated their plans (or lack of plans, apparently) to show their appreciation of such a donation.

IF my memory is correct there is a clause in the agreement that gave the city a time line to have started on the park or the land went back to the family. Apparently they knew how slow St. Paul would be at getting it done without a bit of push. I want to say it is in 2014, but it has been awhile since I read the article that had that information.

Here's the plan for now: http://blogs.mprnews.org/cities/2014/05 ... paul-park/

More permanent plans need more funding.

Here's the plan for now: http://blogs.mprnews.org/cities/2014/05 ... paul-park/

More permanent plans need more funding.

Nice but I am always confused as to why spend money on a temporary "fix" rather than keep that money towards the overall cost of the long-term/permanent plan.

Here's the plan for now: http://blogs.mprnews.org/cities/2014/05 ... paul-park/

More permanent plans need more funding.

Nice but I am always confused as to why spend money on a temporary "fix" rather than keep that money towards the overall cost of the long-term/permanent plan.

I think there is a stipulation as to having the park at least started or the land goes back to the Pedro family. I think they are running out of time and have to get at least a semblance of a park built or they lose the land. As usual they have it as a back burner issue until they have to do something FAST!!

Isn't a surface parking lot the official temporary land use of downtowns everywhere? (tm)

Adding the link from the Penfield thread over here:
http://blogs.mprnews.org/cities/2014/05 ... paul-park/

Isn't a surface parking lot the official temporary land use of downtowns everywhere? (tm)

Well, not much in downtown Minneapolis in the last decade or so -- the city has taken a pretty hard line on this, so there are a number of locations where buildings have been demolished and replaced with some poorly maintained turf grass instead.

Two examples that come to mind are the Eclipse and the Zenith sites.

Youre forgetting westminster. They knocked down an apartment building with grand plans for a senior living highrise, and now it turns out they just wanted to have a lawn in front of their building, with a parking lot on the site "temporarily"