urbanMSP

I'm hanging out in the pocket park at 5th and Portlans right now, watching cars zoom by.

Push a compromise... two-lane Park Ave through the park, remove Portland. Doesn't degrade any connectivity, especially southbound.

Four concepts presented to the public. So far, looks like the LRT block really isn't being considered.

https://twitter.com/ericthebest/status/ ... 8516569088

It isn't being at all, but it's also not part of the park property. They can't really make plans for a block they don't control.

It isn't being at all, but it's also not part of the park property. They can't really make plans for a block they don't control.

I know, just following up on the question I asked previously.

Plus, it's included in literally every illustration of The Commons/WF/Vikings Stadium as part of the park, so I was hoping something would work out by now. That block will be a little jarring in the middle of all the new development.

Can anyone remind me who does own that block?

Can anyone remind me who does own that block?

I believe it's the MSFA. So it is at least a group with an interest in making it a good public space, though probably with a more stadium-centric definition than we might use.

It just feels like the space from what was originally considered keeps... shrinking...

I saw it coming, sure, but I'm slightly disappointed.

RIP awkward LRT station cafe (or parasols?)

I've complained about this previously, but it really irks me how local media has continued to run renderings they know misrepresent the project. Especially considering everyone knew that was the case almost immediately after it was announced.

I think option 4 looks nice. Though I'd really hope they consider a mid-block crossing, I'm sure people will just jay walk anyways as much as they do on Nicollet Mall but it would help to keep things a bit more legal. Nice pictures though thanks for the update.

Push a compromise... two-lane Park Ave through the park, remove Portland. Doesn't degrade any connectivity, especially southbound.

Genius! Seriously, that's a great idea!!

Why do almost all 4 proposals show a small forest taking up 30% of the park space? Is this area going to be heavy bush or a few trees scattered here and there? None of the 4 options make me jump up for joy. I'd like to see:

-a water feature somewhere, but not a fake stream to nowhere (like some pictures show)
-Portland Ave disappear somehow, whether by going under the ground or removed entirely
-a large play area for children -- I think this park should be family-focused for the majority of time outside of stadium events
-food trucks or hot dog carts over an actual restaurant in the middle of the park (put a restaurant in the apartment project)
-hilly topography (e.g. 20 feet) somewhere in the park (so kids can sled during winter!)
-a fountain feature that's water during summer and ice during winter (for skating)

All 4 proposals include some sort of "water feature" apart from the lake/stream/etc. which would most likely take the form of fountains/jets.

Most also include an area labeled "play" for kids. But it's unlikely this would materialize in the form of a jungle gym-type thing.

Food trucks were mentioned as being a part of the park, but not given a set location yet.

The idea of the forum was to give 4 proposals with lots of different options, then take the best parts of each of these and combine them into the final proposal. It wasn't a "vote for your favorite" type thing.

All of these parks look great from bond, but how will drainage work? How will they keep this majority-grass from being muddy for days after every rainstorm?

I don't know. I feel like this could really use some central hardscape, maybe with some prominent piece of public art. That would increase its appeal beyond pure recreation in the winter too.

All of these parks look great from bond, but how will drainage work? How will they keep this majority-grass from being muddy for days after every rainstorm?

I don't know. I feel like this could really use some central hardscape, maybe with some prominent piece of public art. That would increase its appeal beyond pure recreation in the winter too.

I know that these aren't really "designs" so much as frameworks for designs but they are about as boring as can be. Snow-Kreilich is a good architecture firm and the landscape firm is supposed to be good so I have hopes beyond these skeletal layouts.

With that said, the city has an opportunity here...what can be done to press the county or whoever it is that owns Portland? Has the proverbial ship already sailed? #justcloseitforadayandseewhathappens

All 4 proposals include some sort of "water feature" apart from the lake/stream/etc. which would most likely take the form of fountains/jets.

Most also include an area labeled "play" for kids. But it's unlikely this would materialize in the form of a jungle gym-type thing.

Food trucks were mentioned as being a part of the park, but not given a set location yet.

The idea of the forum was to give 4 proposals with lots of different options, then take the best parts of each of these and combine them into the final proposal. It wasn't a "vote for your favorite" type thing.

My list had nothing to do with what the proposals did or did not have, it was just a list of personal preferences. The proposal closest to that list would probably be my favorite.

Let's try and close it on a Sunday when there will be little affect on traffic and call it a victory. Or let's close it on the day of a large event and see what kind of traffic chaos we have. One has to be really naïve to think that you can close a street for a week and then say, see it does not need to be needed. Close it off on those worse case scenarios events and see what kind of reaction you get.

^The irony in that is that logic is that the Commons is being designed with the intention to close Portland for large events, but keep it open on non-gamedays when it's least needed.

Maybe we should have built three smaller stadiums next to eachother to allow for 9th and 10th Aves to be reopened at the stadium site, because, you know, traffic.