Downtown Minneapolis - News & General Topics

[Nathan]

I think that we've mentioned this before, but you're talking about putting a new freeway exit from 394 next to one of the most expensive and quiet neighborhoods/lake in the city. If you REALLY think that's a good Idea... I dunno. Imagine all of the people using this as a shortcut to get to Isles, and places like Uptown/Calhoun, or wherever. Congrats you've created a way to avoid Hennepin Ave and the whole Lyn/Hen interchange though. I just don't think it's a good idea for traffic on the parkways or that the neighborhood would ever be cool with that.

*and probably also turning Franklin Ave into more of a Road then a Street would go hand in hand... I know I would use it thusly. I live in Uptown/work in Plymouth, and I would use Penn to get into town everyday to avoid the Hen/Dunwoody Exit conflict with 94E traffic.

[David Greene]

I live in Uptown/work in Plymouth, and I would use Penn to get into town everyday to avoid the Hen/Dunwoody Exit conflict with 94E traffic.

Well, isn't that the point of more connectivity? The whole reason Hennepin/Dunwoody/Lyndale is a mess is because it's the only well-known way to get into Uptown from I-94. If you're coming from 94 East a better option is to drive down the Parade and take Kenwood Parkway to Mt. Curve to Irving. Not many people think about that route, however. I suspect this route is the reason the Parade wasn't rebuilt with a more sane connection to Dunwoody. Such a connection would encourage people to use more of the street grid. Personally, I see that as an improvement.

Hey, I agree the neighborhood would be up in arms with a Penn extension or a better connection to the Parade but what gives them the special right to remain a "quiet" neighborhood?

For the record, I often drive up Irving rather than Hennepin to get out of Uptown and I take the Kenwood Parkway route to get back in. With the Van White bridge there's even more reason for me to do that. Van White lets me bypass the bottleneck entirely, which is part of the point of the bridge in the first place.

[mulad]

I think fotoapparatic has a point, though the benefit of getting Bryn-Mawr connected to the Kenwood area is pretty strong. There is a bike/ped path along I-394, but it's kind of indirect (judging by the desire paths across the railroad tracks, people probably take a surface route much more than the bridge).

This would dump people into a pretty decent grid, so there would be a number of options for getting to specifc spots, but it also doesn't get too easy. I tried setting the intersection of Kenwood and Douglas as a start point for directions in Google Maps, and dragged around the end point a bit to try and see what travel times would be like from there to places in the Kenwood neighborhood, Uptown, and Whittier, and it looks like many people would still stick to the Interstate for at least one more exit (Dunwoody) to reach certain places because that would still be faster.

But along with building a bridge connection over the valley, it would be wise to look at removing half or all of the freeway ramps at Penn -- there's some potential for people in the neighborhood to use I-394 to get downtown, for instance, which I'd consider a bit undesirable (especially if we're trying to get people using LRT nearby too).

[Nathan]

While I don't think they have a special "Right" I think you are using the opposite tactic that the pro-road/car/speed people used on Park and Portland when they are pushing the bike lanes and slower traffic to make it more of a neighborhood feel. "those people bought on park or portland, they knew what to expect" but that doesn't mean they should HAVE to live on a street like that in the city. If all of the people like me opted to use the Penn exit as a shortcut through Kenwood increased amounts of traffic would probably force road "improvements" in the Kenwood neighborhood. moving it in the direction that Park and Portland were forced to years ago, lowering property values... the last thing Kenwood needs is a few thousand extra cars racing through it. I like going for walks there (the neighborhood is an amenity in itself, and historic. In case you didn't see it was just listed as one of America's top 10 neighborhoods http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/nei ... s/2013/#MN), and around the lakes, and so does just about everyone else in Mpls I'd imagine. And to think of that many more cars on the Parkways making them little hwys... I just don't like the idea of it.

I agree with the connection. Seriously, I wish there was a way, and Penn makes sense, but not when it's also access to 394.

To Mulad's point about speed... the after work traffic on the Dunwoody exit is awful, but only because people wanting to get off there have to get through the line of cars waiting to get on 94E and they do drastic things to avoid waiting in that line with them. If that exit could happen before the exit only for 94E, so many problems would be solved.

The parade thing bothers me. It should have connected directly with Dunwoody rather than ess curve again when they re-built it.

[Anondson]

I can also see the Bryn Mawr neighborhood also protesting the connection. It would drive lots of traffic that currently must take Hennepin/Lyndale go between Uptown and North to drive Penn. Penn through Bryn Mawr does not have room for extra traffic.

[John]

All I can say is it will be a cold day in hell when they connect Penn Ave to Kenwood Parkway through Bryn Mawr. Not only will all the residents be opposed to it from those neighborhoods, there would be an uproar from environmentalists for plowing through the Cedar Lake Trail with its prairie and woodlands.

[David Greene]

But along with building a bridge connection over the valley, it would be wise to look at removing half or all of the freeway ramps at Penn -- there's some potential for people in the neighborhood to use I-394 to get downtown, for instance, which I'd consider a bit undesirable (especially if we're trying to get people using LRT nearby too).

I've thought the same but it would seriously compromise access to/from Bryn Mawr and points north.

[David Greene]

I agree with the connection. Seriously, I wish there was a way, and Penn makes sense, but not when it's also access to 394.

I do understand your concerns. The connection makes huge sense to me especially with SW LRT and a potentially missing 21st St. station.

Would it be at all possible to make the exit from 394 west a left-turn-only thing and similarly from 394 east (right turn only)? Of course signage could be used but I wonder if something more physical could be done to discourage people from a (proposed) illegal turn.

[fehler]

"Yes" to the Penn Bridge. "No" to removing the freeway access to Penn/Cedar Lake Road. Unless there was an opening of 394 freeway ramps at Theo Wirth Parkway/France Ave. There needs to be some access to 394 between Dunwoody and Hwy100, else there needs to be major improvements in the frontage roads on both sides of 394 from downtown to the 394/Hwy 100 crossing.

[Nathan]

I think there are provisions to make a bicycling and pedestrian bridge/ connection from kenwood to that station in the plans for the sw light rail already... but no vehicle provisions. at least when I scanned through I saw some sort of mention.

[woofner]

To be clear, a driveable connection between Bryn Mawr and Kenwood/Lowry Hill would need to be all bridge (or else be massively disruptive to the valley/bluff/properties) because the grades needed to plant a roadway on the valley floor would be far too steep. It would be around 1200' long and piers would be 30-50' high. This would be a very expensive bridge for the City, so for all the good reasons pro or con that have been mentioned here, it is not really in the realm of reality.

I have seen a Kenwood/Lowry Hill connection in past SWLRT plans, but not for some time. I think it would be tough to make an ADA-compliant connection so I doubt it would be done as an official part of the project. Slide 31 of this presentation shows a bike/ped bridge over the rail lines that strikes me as unrealistic. Maybe they need less clearance somehow for rail than for a highway, but the embankment for the Sabo bridge is like 800' long. Unless they plan to send the mainline of the Kenilworth trail on an embankment, they don't have nearly enough room. Maybe that is what they intend, because that's what they did for the LRT trail, and it would actually make a Kenwood/Lowry Hill connection easier, but it would be a substantial impact on existing conditions (mostly in terms of the shape of the bluff).

[mulad]

Good point about the height, though the first thing that popped into mind was the suspension bridges around town that have been put in places where they don't seem to belong. This spot would seem to be a better application of that design, though the abutments could end up being huge, and I can't speak to cost.

Your URL just points at a committee page -- what was the specific presentation you were referring to?

[woofner]

Oops this one:

http://metrocouncil.org/getdoc/74a94364 ... ation.aspx

Now that we're already about as on topic as Voyager 1 is in the solar system, this seems as good a place as any to complain about how you have to dig through all those committee presentations to get any current, detailed information about the SWLRT project. It's stupid, because these issues are very well organized into a set of 25 "Technical Issues", they could easily organize an info page accordingly.

Ps what the hell kind of topic is Downtown Minneapolis Urban Planning anyway? That's just begging for OT.

[min-chi-cbus]

In case anyone is curious, the projects that I track on a spreadsheet (comprising most of the ones talked about on here) amount to just over 12,000 units planned/approved/under construction/recently completed in Minneapolis, and almost exactly 50% of those are in the downtown areas (North Loop, St. Anthony, CBD/Loring Park, and the Mills District).

For St. Paul I have a little less than 3,000 units, however I do not track St. Paul projects nearly as diligently as Minneapolis ones, so that number is likely incorrect.

[Wedgeguy]

Was going thru boxes with fall cleaning and came across an old Downtown Journal from January of 2009 and I think for some reason I saved it at the time for it's development watch section. There were 40 project's listed at that time. I think that the current is low to mid 40's for projects. Will save and bring to next Happy Hour for those that were not into this at the beginning of 2009. It is interesting to see what was proposed and actually completed and what died on the vine!

[skyrab]

So...Hi! New to the forum here but very intrigued by the level of passion/vision that I have read from all (well...most:) I tend to be optimistic about our Minneapolis Downtown (lifelong resident of Mpls. and burbs), so the negative comments kind of cause a bit of a buzz-kill; yet, I realize there must be a reality check, live and let live.
Truth in advertising is that I am not an "insider" in any discussions about architecture anywhere, forget about Mpls. I simply have always been drawn to appreciate those who develop, design, create and build with a sensitivity showing he/she understands the aesthetics of building beauty/placement/influence/harmony amidst a city's skyline.
I am primarily interested in new skyscrapers in Minneapolis as they are proposed. I have traveled a good deal in my life (I am 50) to other cities in the US, Canada, Europe and have seen enough Dubai/Far East/etc. skyscraper architecture in pictures to solidify my feeling of civic pride in our own Downtown Minneapolis.
So I am posting this initial commentary, unsure of who will read it; however, hopeful that many of you "in the know" will enlighten/educate me (forgive my ignorance but appreciate my enthusiastic sincerity) about proposed super-talls/skyscrapers in Downtown Minneapolis. I have enjoyed those posts who have also included renderings and/or live shots of building progress. Skyrab out:)

[Minnekid]

The proposed skyscrapers are somewhat few. Supertalls are non existent, but smaller infill projects are everywhere. It makes perfect sense since Minneapolis has a lot of properties/parking lots yet to build on where anything would be better than nothing. That combined with the market not large enough for supertalls creates smaller density causing buildings. Yes supertalls are more density, but I always think brooklyn as very dense with smaller buildings. so small can mean dense too.

[Wedgeguy]

Welcome Skyrab. In my 50's also I have seen the skyline change and have seen many development proposals that came and went and some that were proposed and tweaked later. If and when Washington gets their act together where we have real economic growth, we will have to wait for any super-talls to ever get built in this city.

[MNdible]

Here's a project that's been around forever threatening to come back to life. [PDF]

Since 1999, there has been interest in constructing an indoor golf facility above Ramp A (TAD 7th Street Ramp)... A new draft concept has been developed that includes not only Ramp A but the City’s adjacent Hawthorne Transportation Center parking ramp. This new draft concept, which still needs further refinement, has identified the following potential activities and uses: playing fields, running/walking track, golf driving range, youth center, education facilities, mentoring/training, club house, retail/food, and green roof/performance space.

[skyrab]

I say Skyway putt-putting, mini-golfing the inner-tubes, you know, play on through the system, I think I'm on to something...no wait, I'm on something...no... wait, yeah... that could be the fly in the ointment, extremely long waits/jam-ups, not so Minnesota nice; nevertheless, wouldn't that be fun watching the 18th hole balls drop out onto some exciting street receptacle or unsuspecting citizen for a prize! Definitely Minne-golf:)