Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Parks, Minneapolis Public Schools, Density, Zoning, etc.
amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1733
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby amiller92 » June 20th, 2019, 10:12 am

I've seen others have that reaction, but I think it is something interesting to think about. The Park Board shouldn't get in the business of operating apartments, but leasing the air rights to a nonprofit (or MPHA??) that could seem like it's worth exploring rather than dismissing it out of hand.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5775
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby MNdible » June 20th, 2019, 10:21 am

I agree that the Park Board shouldn't get into housing, and that we shouldn't be building non-park functions on park land (which is supposed to be a bedrock park board principal that some board members are very casually ignoring), but my biggest issue is this:

This particular location is probably the most important piece of land in the whole park system. It's already got so many competing demands on it, that it just absolutely doesn't make any sense to compromise these public functions so that we can add 15 or 20 units of housing. It's a stupid trade-off.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2277
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby EOst » June 20th, 2019, 11:10 am

It's not a hill I would die on, but I appreciate the outside-the-box thinking.

User avatar
mister.shoes
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1282
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby mister.shoes » June 20th, 2019, 10:41 pm

So going back to the Minnehaha Parkway discussion...

As I mentioned a ways upthread, I live quite close to the intersection of Portland and the Parkway. We walk and bike the trails both directions from Portland all the time. Our children are almost-5 and just-past-2, so we're vividly aware of keeping little ones safe through that nasty intersection. We also drive it both directions regularly—heck, I use it as my primary access to/from 35W as I head to Edina for work every day (which, btw, I feel the need to disclose as the recommendation from MPRB would screw up my routine quite a bit).

Anyway, I've been brewing an idea for quite some time, and I'm ready to share it with the world. For reference, here is the Park Board's recommendation for the redo of that general area (page 2 in the PDF).
https://www.minneapolisparks.org/wp-con ... 190530.pdf

And here is mine:
PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ss56ea6aj16wp23/idea.pdf?dl=0
JPG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/r6labwwprcmr55m/idea.jpg?dl=0

Notes:

- Split one-ways should turn over as much space to the creek and non-motorized users as possible.
- They should also end up providing more access to the park itself for people wanting to play, particularly EB.
- For the record, I live just north of the Creek, so sticking WB traffic on "our" side is a hard pill to swallow, but it's for the best IMO.
- Red indicates raised or specially-paved intersections. I'm aiming for the slowest possible traffic through those spots.
- The bike lanes on Portland, Park, and Chicago would be at curb height for a short distance past the intersections with the Parkway.
- Moving the walking trail north of the creek between Portland and Chicago allows for more room for stormwater handling on the south side.
- Taking advantage of the Parkway stub between Elliot and Chicago does the same.
- Everything is pretty darn close to at-scale. I spent a lot of time with the measuring tool on the Hennepin Co GIS site.
- 10' bike trail, 8' pedestrian trail, 6' sidewalks, 16' boulevards along the Parkway, etc.
- Small roundabouts: 42' diameter center, large one: 64'.
- Speaking of GIS, I very much intentionally used a map with property lines so we could see just how much space is theoretically available.

Car-specific notes:

I tried to disperse traffic at the three-way intersection with 50th:
- Drivers heading south on Portland will probably end up using 51st.
- Drivers heading north on Portland will have several options: go around on the Parkway, take a left from 51st, go up 4th Ave, etc.
- Drivers heading east on the Parkway can go around or use 51st.

I tried to make Park Ave an enticing NB route:
- The roundabout should at least inspire drivers to go North instead of west to Portland before turning.
- That said, traffic heading north needs to go slower than the current raceway intersection. Again, roundabout.

OK, tear it to shreds.
The problem with being an introvert online is that no one knows you're just hanging out and listening.

fehler
Rice Park
Posts: 439
Joined: July 30th, 2012, 8:33 am

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby fehler » June 21st, 2019, 1:42 pm

Needs street labels, I can't tell where this is supposed to be.

User avatar
mister.shoes
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1282
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby mister.shoes » June 21st, 2019, 3:09 pm

Whoops. That layer had gotten turned off before export. Fixed. Thanks for the reminder.
The problem with being an introvert online is that no one knows you're just hanging out and listening.

davidejames
Block E
Posts: 1
Joined: June 21st, 2019, 11:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby davidejames » June 22nd, 2019, 5:38 pm

Love the idea you drew up.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1733
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby amiller92 » June 24th, 2019, 9:13 am

Street labels help a lot. Primary thought is it sure looks convenient to drive west on the Parkway, which maybe shouldn't be the priority. More specifically, I'm not sure the circle at Park makes much sense as the Parkway is one way in your layout, so half the circle is only for cars essentially making a u-turn from SB Park to NB park.

Second thought is that small circle at 50th looks like it would get pretty backed up. And where it's set adds another outlet (4th) to an already complicated intersection.

What's the deal with the intersection with Portland? Signals for both Parkway crossings, roughly 100 feet apart?

Between Park and 12th you've got the EB parkway running on 51st and 50th streets. Is that an option for the Park Board?

I don't totally hate it, because it does away with the uncomfortable trail crossing at 50th, but I imagine there will be neighbors who won't be too happy about their street becoming the Parkway, especially as part of a design that arguably makes it easier to drive through.

User avatar
mister.shoes
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1282
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby mister.shoes » June 25th, 2019, 8:13 am

I struggled a lot with the WB one-way because I don't want to give in to the idea that the Parkway is a commuter route and auto traffic should be prioritized. At the same time, I think split one-ways give the creek and the trails the prominence they deserve. So I started with that as a baseline and tried to come up with ways to permit WB through traffic, but make it slow and relatively unpleasant and highlight alternatives. The big roundabout at Park is a prime example (you're right, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have the full circle) in that any sort of T makes a continuation on the Parkway more appealing than a turn onto Park. I'd like to see the vast majority of people heading north on Portland use Park instead and forcing a slowdown and a change of viewing angle seems like it could help?

50th is a problem too, you're right. I find it interesting, though, that you appear to see 4th as a complicator, whereas the current setup is essentially three or four intersections in quick succession and the mini roundabout (and the bridge removal) consolidates everything to a single point. That said, I don't have any real feel for how congested it would get. My gut tells me with most WB traffic continuing straight through, most EB traffic on 50th turning south to go around, limited EB traffic on the Parkway itself, and no trail crossings it might be OK? But yes, it's definitely a big question mark. IMO, anything is better than the high-speed dragstrip we've got now.

Portland: the entire area would be treated as a single signalized intersection, not unlike the split Parkway east of Nokomis or Summit Ave in StP. Left turns off each of the Parkway one-ways would have to stop and wait for a Portland green.

Park -> 12th: no clue whatsoever if subsuming those city streets is kosher. If you reference the Park Board's preferred concept, they include those streets in their study area, so I made the enormous assumption I could do the same :)

I'm glad you don't totally hate it ;), but I'd like to hear more about why you think it would be easier to drive through. There are fewer streets, so—yes—people currently on the "little Parkways" who would find themselves on the only Parkway wouldn't love the new traffic, but I'd like to think said traffic would be moving considerably slower than it does now.
The problem with being an introvert online is that no one knows you're just hanging out and listening.

CalMcKenney
City Center
Posts: 29
Joined: April 2nd, 2019, 8:54 am

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby CalMcKenney » August 13th, 2019, 3:28 pm

http://www.startribune.com/study-could- ... 530861392/

Star Trib article about a plan to convert the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam into a visitor center with riverfront dining, boat access, event space and underground parking. UM WHAT? I love this plan as I've been pushing for more places for people to eat and relax by the river.

Anybody have any thoughts on this or a probable timeline on the project?


Return to “Minneapolis - General Topics and Citywide Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest