The Commons - Downtown East Park

[Wedgeguy]

So, in a hypothetical world where we're able close down Portland Avenue through the park, I'm assuming that we would also eliminate the bike bath from crossing through the middle of it, right?

Of course, some bicyclist may run over a person that is walking across the bike path with out looking what is coming their way!

[RailBaronYarr]

^I guess I'm not sure which, if any, of those posts are serious. Bikes (who routinely exceed the 10 mph speed limit) coexist with people around Calhoun and Harriet every day. You could make the case that, during summer afternoons/evenings, those trails are busier than a bike path through The Commons will ever be thanks to the draw of the lake and linearity of the bike path for recreation. It's been 43 years since a cyclist killed a pedestrian in Minneapolis. I don't know why a 10' wide bike path made from pavers to keep speed down would be an issue at all. Other city parks have bike trails bisecting them. It also serves as a solution to the emergency vehicle route booeyman.

I'm in the camp that if Portland remains a street, just sell off the remaining 2/3 block for development to pay for a better single block park.

[MNdible]

Well, my post was serious. If you have a contiguous park and were designing it from scratch, you wouldn't want to bisect the busiest part of the park with a commuter bike trail. Do similar conditions happen elsewhere? Not really -- none of the instances you point to are really analogous. Would it be the end of the world? No. Would it allow for better park designs if it didn't? Yes.

To put it differently, would you support cutting a commuter bike trail through the middle of Union Square?

[twincitizen]

Before we get into further hypotheticals, I'll counter that one of the key points of opposition to closing Portland was emergency vehicles would be impacted. By retaining a ~10' wide trail there, you can nip that concern in the bud, as emergency vehicles could use the trail as necessary.

If you were designing a park from scratch, would you put a straight-shot trail through the middle of it? Probably not. But in this instance it seems like a very practical thing to do, if your goal is to close the street to vehicle traffic.

[Archiapolis]

I'm going to get in touch with CM Bender and CM Frey and see what they think of an "urban advocacy citizens group"

Hold that thought: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Forward- ... 82?fref=ts

If the outcome of this FB page is truly this:
"Together, we explore and build awareness of city-wide issues and *campaign* for specific projects or policies to achieve that future as Minneapolis changes."

Emphasis on "campaign." Then I'm in.

[twincitizen]

"Advocate" is probably a better word. Forward Mpls is more of a group than an organization, and it is not chartered or officialized in any way. We don't have a board (yet) that takes official positions (yet). That may need to happen in the future as the group grows and maybe not everyone in the group will agree with every single issue. The group got started early last year out of some advocacy around supporting the 2320 Colfax and FrankLyn developments. Most members of the group were also involved with the Hennepin-Lyndale bottleneck in one way or another, but individually and not as a group.

By way of the Facebook page and an expanding listserv group, members are able to send out information to the rest of the group and those that are passionate about any individual topic can then contact their elected officials independently. So far, it seems to be working pretty well. While it is somewhat awkward that the *group* doesn't really take official positions, I'm not sure how useful that would really be in influencing elected officials anyways. The endgame to every development proposal or city plan or whatever is "Do you have 7 votes?" and I think the most effective way to affect that outcome is by individuals getting involved with their City Councilperson. Forward Minneapolis serves primarily as a platform to inform folks that 1. "Hey, proposal/project X is going on, and there's a public meeting on day Y, and the City Council votes on day Z." and 2. "If you care about that issue, you should get involved and contact your City (or potentially County) representatives"

[FISHMANPET]

Man there's a listserv?

I think before the last election I personally saw a need for an organization that would go so far as recruit pro-urbanist candidates and get them elected, but that seems to have taken care of itself, so maybe there's not such a need for that long term "campaign" anymore. However there could be value in a group of "dreamers" or "idea people" (or, "thought leaders" but that makes me throw up in my mouth) to help advice city leaders in various things. I was at a Corcoran Neighborhood Transportation Committee meeting and they were discussing ideas for "fixing" the Hiawatha-Lake intersection, and the consensus was that it was a really hard problem and there weren't any good ideas. I kind of volunteered the efforts of this board to the Executive Director as a group of people that have a lot of knowledge and also a lot of crazy ideas, and maybe somewhere in those crazy ideas is something to work toward.

[RailBaronYarr]

I will openly admit that in the few times I've been to NYC, I never visited Union Square, so can't really comment on it much. From google streetview/pictures it seems like it would be a bad idea. However, the pavilion on Calhoun with the Tin Fish is as good an example in Minneapolis as I can think of. It's less "open green" and more programmed space with a high number of people coming, going, boats being launched, milling about with food, stopping at the bathroom, etc. The bike path passes right through all this. It's not ideal, no. Bikes slow down, people pay attention. I'm sure there are some near misses.

But severing one of the few bicycle paths connecting S Minneapolis to the river (and downtown) seems like a bad tradeoff for the gain in park connectivity (I assume my feelings are the same way people who value every car connection feel about closing Portland to vehicles). If you told me we'd make a protected SB bike lane on 5th Ave with a seamless connection to Portland after the park, maybe that would be a good tradeoff. I'm open to ideas. But as Matt notes, emergency response was a big no-no with the county, and a bike path solves that while still making the park better than if it were bisected by a 2 lane street.

[EOst]

I'll preface the following by saying that it is great that people go the meetings and engage here and other places but I'm a little surprised that there *appears* to be so much capitulation on these forums. It seems like there is very little taste for "fighting for something better." There are idealists everywhere (this forum being no different) and I guess I'd rather fight for an ideal and lose than give in and accept what is offered even if it is bad/worse (as "it" frequently is).

Maybe closing Portland is flat out IMPOSSIBLE. If someone has knowledge (link) to this effect then I'd like to see it. If such information exists then I guess I'll shut up. In the meantime, I'm going to email CM Frey asking for such information and advocating for closing Portland. I've already signed "the petition" that is floating around. I'd be willing to take further action than sitting at my desk and emailing people and signing digital petitions and I've thrown it out many times on various threads that we need to start an "urbanism" advocacy group from the members of these forums and I've been met with crickets chirping.

Don't get me wrong--I signed the petition, I've emailed my CM, I'll even go to meetings (if they fit into my schedule, which is rare). I want Portland closed too. I'm just pushing back on the hyperbolic predictions of the park being "ruined" if, despite our efforts, it doesn't happen. Either way, this is a park worth having.

[Archiapolis]

I also think a bike path/thoughtful hard scape that doesn't look like a road would be acceptable. BUT, you also have to recognize that people are angry because they feel that there is a bait and switch happening here (as has happened many other times when developers present a rendering). People are sick of the bait and switch generally but specifically, I think the feeling here is that the developers in this area have received tons of handouts. People are outraged that after receiving tons of handouts it isn't fair that the amenities for this park are being pared down.

Maybe the current mayor/council isn't to blame so much as the elected officials who didn't stand up to the developers at the time this idea was first presented. The first time these people showed a massive green space with a closed Portland Ave, there should have been comments entered into the record that unless the developers can present a document showing the county's willingness to close Portland, this project will not be considered legitimate. Unfortunately, in the rush to get the Vikings a stadium and improvements to DTE this park was not scrutinized properly and now that the details are underwhelming relative to the false picture created by the renderings people are outraged. I think the negative responses are perfectly warranted and I wish that there would be opportunity to press the closure question to officials in an open setting.

The park may not be "ruined" by leaving Portlnd Ave open but it will undeniably be much different (less) than what was advertised and that should be acknowledged.

[mattaudio]

Why would we assume that?

[MNdible]

Who are all of these people that are outraged?

[EOst]

It seems to me that the developers did exactly what a lot of people here push for the city to do; they presented a radical and appealing vision, in the hope that this vision would be attractive and popular enough to overcome institutional resistance. If the City Council voted tomorrow to endorse dedicated bus lanes on Hennepin and the county declared it a non-starter, would it be fair to blame the city for a bait-and-switch?

I mean, ultimately, you can blame whoever you want. But either way, we're getting a large and attractive park in the middle of a transformational redevelopment of the most soul-sucking part of downtown Minneapolis, one which is already paying dividends (Thresher Square, the Portland Tower, the Guthrie ramp parcel, and so on). We can and should push to make it better, but we should acknowledge too what's already been won.

[sota767]

I'll preface the following by saying that it is great that people go the meetings and engage here and other places but I'm a little surprised that there *appears* to be so much capitulation on these forums. It seems like there is very little taste for "fighting for something better." There are idealists everywhere (this forum being no different) and I guess I'd rather fight for an ideal and lose than give in and accept what is offered even if it is bad/worse (as "it" frequently is).

That's what made me the most upset attending the Wednesday meeting. Here are probably 100 or more people in a room interested in the design of a park. And yet everyone just resigned and accepting that there will be a road running through the middle of it. Why do we have to accept "good enough"? Yeah it's idealistic, and maybe it won't actually happen, but I'd rather push back for something better then just accept a mediocre design.

[Lancestar2]

Who are all of these people that are outraged?

Mostly people who don't live in the downtown community, yet still identify Minneapolis as part of our local identity. They strive for perfection in development, yet when anything less than perfection is proposed they are enraged at the loss potential, while completely ignoring all the positive enhancements the less than prefect project would bring to the community. Which is why the argument of throwing away entire proposals away in order to allow the space to sit idle and in an even worse state until something better comes along is considered a realistic option. I can understand people may think that way from outside the downtown community. Yet, them taking the time to post here trying to encourage others to support there position can be rather surprising.

I fear this epidemic will spread, soon we may have protesters in street demanding the proposed park be thrown away because it is trash and garbage due to the fact that an existing road will not be ripped out to allow for a connected park. Which would mean the space would continue to be a parking lot until something better came along. This outrage can be confusing and seem illogical, yet when you take into consideration the fact they are not directly connected to the community you can understand there logic, but not there motivation to become involved as obviously they are not a member of the community and don't care about the value it could bring. Makes ya think don't it?

[Nick]

no

[David Greene]

no

-1

[Lancestar2]

lol I forgot where I was... this is urban where everyone loves to complain and be dramatic. Continue on complaining about how uninspiring, and bland this space shall be? Perhaps somebody should suggest we scrap this project? How about that? Let's start a petition to let the developer keep it as a parking lot until something better comes along! Better?

[Anondson]

... this is urban where everyone loves to complain and be dramatic.

Yup, no complaining and drama on other forums. Nope. None.

Weaponized irony right there.

[Archiapolis]

Why would we assume that?

Could you clarify what "that" is referring to?