Page 27 of 27

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 20th, 2019, 10:12 am
by amiller92
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.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 20th, 2019, 10:21 am
by MNdible
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.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 20th, 2019, 11:10 am
by EOst
It's not a hill I would die on, but I appreciate the outside-the-box thinking.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 20th, 2019, 10:41 pm
by mister.shoes
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.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 1:42 pm
by fehler
Needs street labels, I can't tell where this is supposed to be.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 21st, 2019, 3:09 pm
by mister.shoes
Whoops. That layer had gotten turned off before export. Fixed. Thanks for the reminder.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 22nd, 2019, 5:38 pm
by davidejames
Love the idea you drew up.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 24th, 2019, 9:13 am
by amiller92
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.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 25th, 2019, 8:13 am
by mister.shoes
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.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: August 13th, 2019, 3:28 pm
by CalMcKenney
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?

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: August 19th, 2019, 8:32 am
by SurlyLHT
I was jogging up Theo Wirth on Sunday. As I went north past Bassett Creek the path and Theo Wirth PArkway were clear on my way back there was water on both...bit later in the day the parkway was completely flooded. The walkway between Calhoun and Isles has been flooded for awhile and one of the paths around Calhoun has been eaten by the lake. Anyone notice any further flooding around the parks and city? I'm wondering if the park board has a plan to address flooding?

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: August 19th, 2019, 9:00 am
by minntransplant
SurlyLHT wrote:
August 19th, 2019, 8:32 am
I was jogging up Theo Wirth on Sunday. As I went north past Bassett Creek the path and Theo Wirth PArkway were clear on my way back there was water on both...bit later in the day the parkway was completely flooded. The walkway between Calhoun and Isles has been flooded for awhile and one of the paths around Calhoun has been eaten by the lake. Anyone notice any further flooding around the parks and city? I'm wondering if the park board has a plan to address flooding?
Dupont/Kings Highway was under water yesterday between the cemetery and Lyndale farmstead park. It was basically a lake. The ducks were enjoying it.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: August 19th, 2019, 9:27 am
by SurlyLHT
There needs to be some sort of long-ranged plan to adapt the infatructure to climate change. In some instances, it might best for us to retreat a bit.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: August 19th, 2019, 9:40 am
by alexschief
Walked past Peavey Field Park last week, and was blown away by the improvements. The playground, basketball courts, and field were all pristine. The former two were being used on a Wednesday morning.

The investments that the city is making in the park system are visible and impressive, especially as they come, via the Park Board's equity framework, in underserved neighborhoods. There seem to be new park facilities and ambitious park plans everywhere. It's really exciting to see.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: August 19th, 2019, 10:25 am
by amiller92
SurlyLHT wrote:
August 19th, 2019, 9:27 am
There needs to be some sort of long-ranged plan to adapt the infatructure to climate change. In some instances, it might best for us to retreat a bit.
The in-progress Minnehaha Parkway Regional Trail Master Plan includes a bunch of re-meandering of the creek and additional water storage areas. https://www.minneapolisparks.org/park_c ... ster_plan/

I'm pretty sure water storage is a big driver of the discussion around the future of Hiawatha golf course. https://www.minneapolisparks.org/park_c ... ster_plan/

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: August 19th, 2019, 11:12 am
by Anondson
Water storage was a huge part of the Lynnhurst park too, I recalled a bunch of underground water tanks there.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: August 20th, 2019, 10:27 am
by SurlyLHT
I found this article about a landbridge for cougars to get over a freeway in LA interesting. Within Minneapolis we already have incidental ecological corridors and could plan some more. Especially along our bikeways and parkways like the Midtown Greenway, Victory Memorial drive and etc. If these areas met certain requirements wildlife would be able to travel around our city easily just as cyclists and runners do.



https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... 01-freeway

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: August 20th, 2019, 3:17 pm
by twincitizen
Has anyone else been taken aback by the massive amount of "master planning" going on right now with the parks? The Hiawatha Golf Course re-do is kinda on its own separate timeline, but simultaneous plans are being put together for Minnehaha Parkway/Creek (which is huge), Mississippi River Gorge, and the Nokomis-Hiawatha Master Plan was completed just a few years ago. That's a ton of planning just in one quadrant of the city (all in Commissioner Musich's district too). On top of that, the Park Board is now undertaking sector master plans for Southwest, North, and NE/SE.

This is a lot to take on all at once, and it's not clear to me what the timelines for implementation (or funding) are for any of this. Like cool, we're planning to add some pickleball courts (awesome!), and soccer fields to replace softball fields (makes sense!), but when is any of this actually going to happen? The Minnehaha Creek Master Plan, for example, seems to include elements that could be implemented in 2020, and some wishful thinking stuff that could take 10-20 years and a ton of money. But the plans aren't super clear about what's what.

Can anyone on the inside shed some light on what's going on with all this planning? As a planner myself, I'm obviously not opposed (keep us employed!) but it does seem a little odd that so much planning is happening simultaneously, when there's clearly not enough money to do all of this cool stuff.

https://www.minneapolisparks.org/park_c ... ter_plans/

tl;dr Plans are great, but when can I expect to see an actual pickleball court in my neighborhood? Every single tennis court along Minnehaha Creek between Lake Nokomis and 34th Ave (there's like 6 of 'em) are busted as hell and kind of a huge blight on the area.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: August 21st, 2019, 9:37 am
by fehler
I had the opportunity to car pool with Adam Arvidson for a long drive to the North Shore (we chaperoned the 5th Grade camping trip). He's the Director of Planning Services with MPRB, and we got to talking about some of the recent projects. He explained a more recent (within the last decade) shift in the system, with more of the planning being brought in-house, and more of the construction being contracted ( I think? I might be misremebering that last bit). This has meant more public connection and notification and community meetings before a project starts. I don't think there are actually "more" projects going on than before, but because the planners are directly accountable, they're more vocal and receptive about the projects.