Parking concerns are easy to arouse versus addressing the xenophobia that you are identifying (minorities, lgbtq, etc) which I'd wager to be operating just beneath the surface.
Is there actually any evidence to support this accusation, or are you just speculating that somebody is a racist homophobe because they happen to disagree with you on a how a specific parcel of land should be developed? I can think of a thousand less cynical explanations for why somebody might oppose development on an adjacent piece of property.
Well, I was actually responding to UrsusUrbanica who brought up the notion.
While I appreciate your optimism about our species/culture, I don't share it - it's fine to disagree. I was building off of the idea that UrsusUrbanica suggested - there is latent racism, homophobia, xenophobia in the world/US/Minneapolis and that all of these contribute to a resistance to change.
I apologize for projecting a cynical worldview but just to follow your optimistic line of thinking, you honestly think there are "a thousand" explanations for opposition to development that aren't informed by social norms regarding race, sexuality/gender, immigration, and general fear of "the other?" You didn't say anything about those explanations being reasonable, rational or driven by any kind of informed opinion regarding the goals of the city or the zoning code.
I'd like to take a run at a few issues that you might include in the thousand explanations and give my opinion of why they are entirely worthy of ridicule.
Parking:
Are you honestly saying that six dwelling units and associated parking concerns are a reasonable driver for protest? If you really believe that parking could cause such anger as a single issue, let me just put the parking situation into perspective. As I satirically pointed out earlier, if all six units have two cars per unit, that is twelve cars. Assuming that twelve cars parked the entire length of 56th from Nicollet to 1st Ave South:
Roughly 120' of possible parking between Nicollet corner and alley, and another 120' of possible parking between alley and 1st Ave south = 240'. A largish SUV is +/- 17'. 240' / 17' = 14 SUVs. Assuming all 6 units have two largish SUVs for each unit, and that they all park on the south side of 56th, there are STILL two SUVs worth of parking available to say nothing of the north side of 56th, parking on Nicollet, etc. Is this "reduction" in the street parking that is NOT owned by adjacent property owners, that they have no right to, nor legal claim to and wholly owned by the city one of your "thousand explanations" for protest/opposition? I obviously think it is absolutely preposterous that neighbors protest/strongly oppose a project for this single issue but perhaps you disagree or perhaps this along with other issues that aren't driven by societal issues add up to protest/strong opposition.
Height/Massing:
The zoning is what the zoning is and (to my knowledge) the height of this project is not a result of a variance, it is conforming to the zoning ordinance for height. I believe that the setbacks also conform to the zoning ordinance and are not a result of a variance. Gross ignorance on the part of the person who owned this property as part of the purchase of the corner lot before selling it to these developers is just that - gross ignorance. I can allow that the property owner to the south of the proposal could object to the change from a vacant lot to a three story building next door. However, if the property owner to the south wished for the property to remain vacant, they could have purchased it and done nothing. Assuming the south property owner opposes the project, I respectfully disagree with this owner's opposition as some basic research regarding the neighborhood when they were considering purchase could have clarified what might happen on that lot (as this project is "by right"). Assuming that the corner lot owner and the south property owner were the sole protestors, their opposition reflects gross ignorance and general ignorance respectively. Perhaps they were the only protestors but judging by the photos, they weren't, unless they enlisted friends/family. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are arguing in good faith - perhaps you feel that the parking issue and the the height/massing together are reason for the corner owner to protest but I believe I've shown how grossly ignorant those arguments are. The parking issue is presumed to be "off the table" for the south property owner as they are not affected directly which would mean that the height/massing would be one of their reasons for opposition - it may be ignorant, and in my opinion ridiculous but they are entitled to their worldview about urbanism.
Shadowing:
Assuming parking and height/massing aren't single issues perhaps it is shadowing. As I said, it appears that the property owner to the north bought this property and sold it to the developers. It is grossly ignorant on his part to then protest a project that fits the zoning ordinance for height based on shadowing. There is a multi-family project to the west which *could* be shadowed by low winter sun in the mornings but it would be pot calling kettle black for a three story project to object to shadowing from another three story project in addition to this project by allowed by code - in short, this property has no cause for umbrage. Properties on 1st Ave could experience shadowing in the late afternoon/evening in the summer but late afternoon shadowing is desirable in this climate during the summer so they have no cause for umbrage.
Historic preservation:
This is an empty lot.
Obviously, when you said "a thousand" you meant "several" and you didn't say that the explanations would be reasonable or have any foundation in informed opinion. I've attempted to illustrate why the reasons for opposition that are NOT driven by societal issues are ignorant at the least and are preposterous at worst but I will allow that not everyone shares my opinions on urbanism or puts energy into understanding their neighborhood or the zoning code. Intuitively, the residents live in a city and at/near a major north/south arterial street and could understand that things might be built on such a street that might have some height/mass but I don't want to be too optimistic regarding people's understanding of the urban environment lest I lose my cynical edge. I believe that I have taken shadowing, height/massing and historic preservation off of the table entirely which leaves parking which I've shown to be a specious claim. Since you are making the claim that there are several reasons that are not societally driven that would drive such vehement opposition to this and many projects across the city/country it is incumbent on you to illuminate them - I'd be very interested to hear what they are. I've only addressed the basic zoning issues that I could think of that were NOT driven by societal norms with which neighbors could take exception. I've taken three of them off of the table entirely leaving only parking as a possibility.
I applaud your optimism and apologize for my cynicism. As ignorant and stupid as I find parking concerns to be, I'd love to believe that this is the sole driver for NIMBY opposition to development. Unfortunately, I absolutely believe that the opposition to this (and MANY other) projects is largely driven by latent xenophobia and that "parking concerns" are a thinly-veiled code for such xenophobia. My cynicism tells me that people would not put time/energy into strong protest and/or opposition to development if they were motivated solely by "parking concerns." I've shown that neighbors have zero cause for umbrage based on the zoning code, I hope that you can take the time to address concerns that I've not thought of that aren't driven by unfounded fear of people. Crime resultant from multi-family dwellings is a concern that is often cited but I'd argue that there are latent racial/xenophobic fears embedded in that claim as well. I'm really trying to understand what legitimate claims that aren't driven by societal norms that you believe to be at work here (and elsewhere).
Thanks for engaging. Apologies for the length.