TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
User avatar
Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4022
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby Anondson » March 15th, 2019, 11:38 am

There’s a lot to do. Fast tracking rezoning of office parks (along the a new regional trail near other offices) when hundreds of apartments are proposed is another.

QuietBlue
Rice Park
Posts: 496
Joined: September 14th, 2012, 8:50 am

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby QuietBlue » March 15th, 2019, 12:24 pm

Multimodal wrote:
March 15th, 2019, 11:31 am
We’re too far along to cherry pick what we do.

We have to do everything.

As soon as possible.

The more we do, the more normal it becomes, and the easier (politically) it becomes.

Everybody has to internalize that we are all part of the solution. It’s not someone else’s job, or someone else’s project, or some other government entity’s job.
But there's also letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. People who live here and have cars are probably still going to drive somewhat less (maybe a lot less) than if they lived in Edina or SLP or someplace like those.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5797
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby MNdible » March 15th, 2019, 2:18 pm

The only thing that's going to move the dial on transportation (given that our land use patterns are so fully baked) is electrification. And electric cars need parking spaces just like ICE cars.

We're arguing about whether the next 5,000 people who move into downtown will drive their cars a little bit or a very little bit, when there are 2,000,000 people who live in areas where driving a lot is the only viable option.

alexschief
Union Depot
Posts: 397
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: TMBR - 100 3rd Ave N

Postby alexschief » March 15th, 2019, 2:54 pm

MNdible wrote:
March 15th, 2019, 2:18 pm
The only thing that's going to move the dial on transportation (given that our land use patterns are so fully baked) is electrification. And electric cars need parking spaces just like ICE cars.

We're arguing about whether the next 5,000 people who move into downtown will drive their cars a little bit or a very little bit, when there are 2,000,000 people who live in areas where driving a lot is the only viable option.
We're going way off topic here (albeit with a good and important discussion), but the idea that we can just sit around and wait around for electric cars to save us is false. Even if electric cars were to be adopted at the most optimistic possible rate, VMT would still need to come down significantly and land use patterns would need to shift. That's primarily because (1) manufacturing new cars has significant carbon impacts, (2) power generation for the electric cars would need to be at 100% renewable for their operation to be carbon-free, and it is not, and (3) passenger cars are just one part of a transportation puzzle that also includes things like freight. It's also worth remembering that emissions stay emitted, there's no check-in in 2030 where we either pass or we don't, we are taking the test right now, and emissions we don't emit today are as good as emissions we don't emit tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the idea that land use is "baked in" is also wrong. The average American moves more than eleven times in their life, providing plenty of opportunities to move to more or less carbon-intensive homes. Internal migration remains a big feature of American life, and right now, it's hurting our efforts to reduce climate change, with sprawling, car-dependent cities like Houston and Dallas adding nearly one million residents each in just the past seven years. But places like MSP are also growing, and MSP can only lead by its own example. The best policy to reduce emissions is to ensure that as many new people as possible, and as many existing residents as possible are allowed to live in homes where (1) they don't have to drive, and in fact, it is inconvenient to do so, (2) the goods and services they use can be delivered at large scales, (3) they live in smaller spaces, which share walls, floors, and ceilings, with other residents, reducing their individual costs of heating or cooling. There is good news on this front, residences that have these characteristics are currently in demand, which of course anyone on this forum is well aware of.

It's certainly a win when a building like TMBR is built, and we shouldn't make perfect the enemy of good by killing or downsizing projects like these. But we should absolutely push them to be better, push developers to challenge their conventional wisdom and see if they can provide less parking, more retail, etc. etc. And we should do this because the current suite of technologies we have isn't enough to save us without big changes in how we live and how we think about living. That's the essential thing.


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests