South Nicollet Ave - Lake to Crosstown (Lyndale-Kingfield-Tangletown-Windom)

Calhoun-Isles, Cedar-Riverside, Longfellow, Nokomis, Phillips, Powderhorn, and Southwest
min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby min-chi-cbus » June 21st, 2016, 8:45 pm

People are just slow to embrace change.....it's human nature. I think we like development changes because of what it represents to us (e.g. progression, growth, improvement), but that same change can drive fear in those who may view that change as an attack, a disruption or invasion of their daily norms, and an impetus to adapt to something they may not want to. I don't love that attitude but I probably react similarly to change I don't support, so I guess I can empathize with their perspective.

Archiapolis
Foshay Tower
Posts: 818
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby Archiapolis » June 22nd, 2016, 7:53 am

UrsusUrbanicus wrote:Thanks to all for the photos and the discussion, which have rendered completely obvious the silliness of these "parking" concerns. Personally, I suspect parking panic is just the socially-acceptable cover story for what's really on some of these people's minds: concern about who might move in. This is all speculative, of course... so it's hard to know whether the underlying mindset is a toxic one (OMG, they might be black, or my kids might see two women holding hands), vs. just unreasonably sensitive for an urban environment (they might work late shifts, so we might hear their car door shut when they get home at 2 AM), or even just insular-Midwestern (exposure to any People We Don't Know).
A couple things (because I know that more of my opinions are needed here :? ).../begin rant that should be in another thread

The guy who appears to be driving these protests is the guy who owns the property on the corner and he is a lawyer. Lawyers obviously know how to defend interests and he is interested. Parking concerns are easy to arouse versus addressing the xenophobia that you are identifying (minorities, lgbtq, etc) which I'd wager to be operating just beneath the surface. Living/working in the city has a different set of social concerns than living in isolation somewhere as a subsistence farmer and anyone who can't accept that needs to assess how much they value their desire to be isolated. Everyone deserves to be safe and to live/work in a lawful environment but everyone does not deserve to have their chosen social norms protected.

I live in what I call a "pseudo-urban" or "semi-urban" part of southwest Minneapolis surrounded by SFH. My "older" neighbors across the street appear to do shift work - coming and going at times that don't fit "9-5." They have a garage and a wide driveway but for some reason choose to park on the street in line with their side door. Our house is elevated about 6' from the street, and theirs about 4' which creates a little valley between our houses and a nice echo effect. They have to listen to our kids doing what kids do at times when they might be sleeping/resting for their shift work and we have to hear an occasional car door shut at odd hours or as sane people call it, "living in an American city in the year 2016."

We have friends who were renting in the 50th and France area when Red Cow opened up. I followed the whole thing: 1.Yay! An accessible burger joint! 2. Hmm, their parking lot fills up fast. 3. Oh no, people are parking on the street. 4. Grr! Noisy people are leaving the restaurant and talking on the way to their cars. 5. RAGE! Minneapolis has to act to protect our parking and put up signs and blarg! It's happening again on Penn and 54th with Red Wagon and the continued success of Cafe Maude. Penn Ave fills up very quickly but the "rage phase" has not occurred quite yet. Perhaps it is because there are a lot of duplexes on Penn in this area and the renters don't feel entitled to the swath of parking outside of their dwelling like many single family homeowners appear to. What continues to befuddle me is that the neighbors don't see the good that is created (on balance) from having successful commercial enterprises right in the neighborhood. There is added traffic and car doors closing and people talking (maybe drunkenly here and there) but many people walk or bike and don't talk loudly after 9:00 and don't close car doors AND a nice trellis with people smiling sit under it and delicious pizza/beer is right there!

56th and Nicollet is not going burn to the ground because people can't park DIRECTLY outside of their dwelling/business - see every large city's desirable neighborhoods for evidence.
/end rant

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7926
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby mattaudio » June 22nd, 2016, 8:05 am

Wife was just at Cafe Maude last night, and we love Red Wagon (owned by a neighbor). I'll have to make sure to park on Oliver or Queen next time I'm over there, and be really loud as I walk back to my car.

thom
Block E
Posts: 23
Joined: November 5th, 2015, 3:15 pm

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby thom » June 22nd, 2016, 8:11 am

Archiapolis wrote: Parking concerns are easy to arouse versus addressing the xenophobia that you are identifying (minorities, lgbtq, etc) which I'd wager to be operating just beneath the surface.
Is there actually any evidence to support this accusation, or are you just speculating that somebody is a racist homophobe because they happen to disagree with you on a how a specific parcel of land should be developed? I can think of a thousand less cynical explanations for why somebody might oppose development on an adjacent piece of property.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7926
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby mattaudio » June 22nd, 2016, 8:44 am

What are three of those thousand?

kirby96
Union Depot
Posts: 356
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 11:30 am

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby kirby96 » June 22nd, 2016, 8:50 am

^"The sun will be blocked." "It's ugly" "I envision a single story row of owner-occupied record shops and florists"

thom
Block E
Posts: 23
Joined: November 5th, 2015, 3:15 pm

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby thom » June 22nd, 2016, 9:47 am

kirby96 wrote:^"The sun will be blocked." "It's ugly" "I envision a single story row of owner-occupied record shops and florists"
Exactly. More generically, a complaint about certain development often used on this discussion board: "It's not the specific development I had imagined for that spot."

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7926
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby mattaudio » June 22nd, 2016, 10:07 am

At least we can all agree that is also an equally illegitimate criticism of a development.

Archiapolis
Foshay Tower
Posts: 818
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby Archiapolis » June 22nd, 2016, 11:03 am

thom wrote:
Archiapolis wrote: Parking concerns are easy to arouse versus addressing the xenophobia that you are identifying (minorities, lgbtq, etc) which I'd wager to be operating just beneath the surface.
Is there actually any evidence to support this accusation, or are you just speculating that somebody is a racist homophobe because they happen to disagree with you on a how a specific parcel of land should be developed? I can think of a thousand less cynical explanations for why somebody might oppose development on an adjacent piece of property.
Well, I was actually responding to UrsusUrbanica who brought up the notion.

While I appreciate your optimism about our species/culture, I don't share it - it's fine to disagree. I was building off of the idea that UrsusUrbanica suggested - there is latent racism, homophobia, xenophobia in the world/US/Minneapolis and that all of these contribute to a resistance to change.

I apologize for projecting a cynical worldview but just to follow your optimistic line of thinking, you honestly think there are "a thousand" explanations for opposition to development that aren't informed by social norms regarding race, sexuality/gender, immigration, and general fear of "the other?" You didn't say anything about those explanations being reasonable, rational or driven by any kind of informed opinion regarding the goals of the city or the zoning code.

I'd like to take a run at a few issues that you might include in the thousand explanations and give my opinion of why they are entirely worthy of ridicule.

Parking:
Are you honestly saying that six dwelling units and associated parking concerns are a reasonable driver for protest? If you really believe that parking could cause such anger as a single issue, let me just put the parking situation into perspective. As I satirically pointed out earlier, if all six units have two cars per unit, that is twelve cars. Assuming that twelve cars parked the entire length of 56th from Nicollet to 1st Ave South:

Roughly 120' of possible parking between Nicollet corner and alley, and another 120' of possible parking between alley and 1st Ave south = 240'. A largish SUV is +/- 17'. 240' / 17' = 14 SUVs. Assuming all 6 units have two largish SUVs for each unit, and that they all park on the south side of 56th, there are STILL two SUVs worth of parking available to say nothing of the north side of 56th, parking on Nicollet, etc. Is this "reduction" in the street parking that is NOT owned by adjacent property owners, that they have no right to, nor legal claim to and wholly owned by the city one of your "thousand explanations" for protest/opposition? I obviously think it is absolutely preposterous that neighbors protest/strongly oppose a project for this single issue but perhaps you disagree or perhaps this along with other issues that aren't driven by societal issues add up to protest/strong opposition.

Height/Massing:
The zoning is what the zoning is and (to my knowledge) the height of this project is not a result of a variance, it is conforming to the zoning ordinance for height. I believe that the setbacks also conform to the zoning ordinance and are not a result of a variance. Gross ignorance on the part of the person who owned this property as part of the purchase of the corner lot before selling it to these developers is just that - gross ignorance. I can allow that the property owner to the south of the proposal could object to the change from a vacant lot to a three story building next door. However, if the property owner to the south wished for the property to remain vacant, they could have purchased it and done nothing. Assuming the south property owner opposes the project, I respectfully disagree with this owner's opposition as some basic research regarding the neighborhood when they were considering purchase could have clarified what might happen on that lot (as this project is "by right"). Assuming that the corner lot owner and the south property owner were the sole protestors, their opposition reflects gross ignorance and general ignorance respectively. Perhaps they were the only protestors but judging by the photos, they weren't, unless they enlisted friends/family. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are arguing in good faith - perhaps you feel that the parking issue and the the height/massing together are reason for the corner owner to protest but I believe I've shown how grossly ignorant those arguments are. The parking issue is presumed to be "off the table" for the south property owner as they are not affected directly which would mean that the height/massing would be one of their reasons for opposition - it may be ignorant, and in my opinion ridiculous but they are entitled to their worldview about urbanism.

Shadowing:
Assuming parking and height/massing aren't single issues perhaps it is shadowing. As I said, it appears that the property owner to the north bought this property and sold it to the developers. It is grossly ignorant on his part to then protest a project that fits the zoning ordinance for height based on shadowing. There is a multi-family project to the west which *could* be shadowed by low winter sun in the mornings but it would be pot calling kettle black for a three story project to object to shadowing from another three story project in addition to this project by allowed by code - in short, this property has no cause for umbrage. Properties on 1st Ave could experience shadowing in the late afternoon/evening in the summer but late afternoon shadowing is desirable in this climate during the summer so they have no cause for umbrage.

Historic preservation:
This is an empty lot.

Obviously, when you said "a thousand" you meant "several" and you didn't say that the explanations would be reasonable or have any foundation in informed opinion. I've attempted to illustrate why the reasons for opposition that are NOT driven by societal issues are ignorant at the least and are preposterous at worst but I will allow that not everyone shares my opinions on urbanism or puts energy into understanding their neighborhood or the zoning code. Intuitively, the residents live in a city and at/near a major north/south arterial street and could understand that things might be built on such a street that might have some height/mass but I don't want to be too optimistic regarding people's understanding of the urban environment lest I lose my cynical edge. I believe that I have taken shadowing, height/massing and historic preservation off of the table entirely which leaves parking which I've shown to be a specious claim. Since you are making the claim that there are several reasons that are not societally driven that would drive such vehement opposition to this and many projects across the city/country it is incumbent on you to illuminate them - I'd be very interested to hear what they are. I've only addressed the basic zoning issues that I could think of that were NOT driven by societal norms with which neighbors could take exception. I've taken three of them off of the table entirely leaving only parking as a possibility.

I applaud your optimism and apologize for my cynicism. As ignorant and stupid as I find parking concerns to be, I'd love to believe that this is the sole driver for NIMBY opposition to development. Unfortunately, I absolutely believe that the opposition to this (and MANY other) projects is largely driven by latent xenophobia and that "parking concerns" are a thinly-veiled code for such xenophobia. My cynicism tells me that people would not put time/energy into strong protest and/or opposition to development if they were motivated solely by "parking concerns." I've shown that neighbors have zero cause for umbrage based on the zoning code, I hope that you can take the time to address concerns that I've not thought of that aren't driven by unfounded fear of people. Crime resultant from multi-family dwellings is a concern that is often cited but I'd argue that there are latent racial/xenophobic fears embedded in that claim as well. I'm really trying to understand what legitimate claims that aren't driven by societal norms that you believe to be at work here (and elsewhere).

Thanks for engaging. Apologies for the length.

kirby96
Union Depot
Posts: 356
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 11:30 am

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby kirby96 » June 22nd, 2016, 11:36 am

No one is saying the guy isn't a xenophobe. Nor that xenophobia isn't part of 'fear of change'. Nor is anyone saying the thousand reasons for opposing are legitimate. In fact, I would argue the opposite. There are a thousand reasons to oppose it (xenophobia, parking, shadowing, noise, out-of-character) that are all somewhere on the scale of 'nuttiness' as you described in detail. What was said is simply that you don't know what's in their head, so why jump to the most lurid of a bunch of nutty possibilities sans any evidence (which you have now explained and which makes more sense with your added context)?

Archiapolis
Foshay Tower
Posts: 818
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby Archiapolis » June 22nd, 2016, 12:27 pm

Okay. In summary:

The neighbor to the north may or may not be a xenophobe. Xenophobia is a part of "fear of change." There are a thousand reasons for opposing projects that may or may not be legitimate but probably aren't legitimate. I do NOT know what is in their head.

Why jump to the most lurid possibility?

From above:

"Unfortunately, I absolutely believe that the opposition to this (and MANY other) projects is largely driven by latent xenophobia and that "parking concerns" are a thinly-veiled code for such xenophobia. My cynicism tells me that people would not put time/energy into strong protest and/or opposition to development if they were motivated solely by "parking concerns."

I've been in countless meetings where city goals for population growth, zoning ordinances, sustainability and other drivers of development get offered to neighborhood groups that by visual appearance look to be functional members of society capable of rational discourse. However, reason and rational thought are absent in much of the vocal opposition that I have witnessed. The only conclusion that I can draw is that there are VERY strong motivators that have nothing to do with zoning ordinances, city goals, sustainability or any reasonable notion that go unstated and instead get codified in "acceptable" opposition that avoids racial/class/social language.

You are free to disagree with me if you posit that things like "shadowing" could drive the kind of ire that I have witnessed and that it can be parsed from a fearful worldview. I do not believe for a moment that xenophobia does not fuel opposition. I would offer that many books exist that explore the "NIMBY mindset"/opposition to development and that it is IMPOSSIBLE to extricate worldview from notions that drive opposition but again, you are free to disagree.

Here are a few books that are a result of a "NIMBY" search on Amazon (from the first two pages of 22 returns) to say nothing of more academic research on the subject.

Snob Zones: Fear, Prejudice, and Real Estate

Environmental Inequalities: Class, Race, and Industrial Pollution in Gary, Indiana, 1945-1980

Since it is impossible to know what is going on in someone's head, all I can do is refer to the evidence in academic study, which is bolstered by my first hand experience and knowledge.

kirby96
Union Depot
Posts: 356
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 11:30 am

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby kirby96 » June 22nd, 2016, 12:55 pm

...I'll see your Snob Zones and Environmental Inequalities and raise you an Alatus Tower, Nye's Development, Acme Parking Lot, Stadium Village Tower, and Linden Corner. I'll throw in Dinkytown and Uptown hotels just to sweeten the pot.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby FISHMANPET » June 22nd, 2016, 1:03 pm

And everyone of those (except Stadium Village Tower, which doesn't really have any nearby existing residents) has been fought on vague notions of protecting neighborhood character which are all a little bit linked to the kind of stuff Archiapolis is talking about.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1748
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby amiller92 » June 22nd, 2016, 2:39 pm

Archiapolis wrote:Unfortunately, I absolutely believe that the opposition to this (and MANY other) projects is largely driven by latent xenophobia and that "parking concerns" are a thinly-veiled code for such xenophobia.
Could be, but people really do care about parking too. People in my majority-black neighborhood in DC (Shaw, or if you're in real estate, Logan Circle/Dupont East) opposed development over concerns about parking that I'm fairly confident weren't rooted in xenophobia.

Although they probably were also motivated by concerns about "gentrification."

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1748
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby amiller92 » June 22nd, 2016, 2:41 pm

Archiapolis wrote:I've been in countless meetings where city goals for population growth, zoning ordinances, sustainability and other drivers of development get offered to neighborhood groups that by visual appearance look to be functional members of society capable of rational discourse.
Gotta call BS. These people were in public meetings. :D

Archiapolis
Foshay Tower
Posts: 818
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby Archiapolis » June 23rd, 2016, 8:06 am

kirby96 wrote:...I'll see your Snob Zones and Environmental Inequalities and raise you an Alatus Tower, Nye's Development, Acme Parking Lot, Stadium Village Tower, and Linden Corner. I'll throw in Dinkytown and Uptown hotels just to sweeten the pot.
Sorry, I'm missing the point and you appear to be very confident about it so I want to try to understand. The books I offered are studying the correlation between worldview and development - a notion that was rejected and I tried to support with these books as part of my evidence. You just listed projects. Do you mean to say that opposition to these projects is free of racism, classism, and xenophobia? I've made a claim, argued at length in support of it using the zoning code as well as first-hand experience and I've offered a few books as evidence. You listed projects; I see no evidence in this list that is parsing opposition from social inputs.

Feel free to have the last word or maybe the confident way that you expressed your list is already the last word.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7926
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby mattaudio » July 13th, 2016, 2:44 pm

Tarp-covered cars are now a matter of city record. Ugh.
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 183094.pdf

I almost want to speak against these two variance requests just to point out how ridiculous the neighbors are being.

User avatar
Sacrelicio
Union Depot
Posts: 367
Joined: November 11th, 2015, 6:38 pm
Location: Field

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby Sacrelicio » July 13th, 2016, 3:32 pm

UrsusUrbanicus wrote:Thanks to all for the photos and the discussion, which have rendered completely obvious the silliness of these "parking" concerns. Personally, I suspect parking panic is just the socially-acceptable cover story for what's really on some of these people's minds: concern about who might move in. This is all speculative, of course... so it's hard to know whether the underlying mindset is a toxic one (OMG, they might be black, or my kids might see two women holding hands), vs. just unreasonably sensitive for an urban environment (they might work late shifts, so we might hear their car door shut when they get home at 2 AM), or even just insular-Midwestern (exposure to any People We Don't Know).
I actually suspect that it's all about the parking in this case, no matter how silly the concerns are. Not saying there isn't a little xenophobia or maybe some other concerns related to the actual construction (too tall, doesn't look right) but people are crazy about their parking in this town. If there is a chance that they can't park directly in front at any time, it's a big deal. I used to live in a somewhat more parking-constrained area (36th and Garfield) and I parked on the street. It didn't bother me if I had to park a little ways away sometimes (usually for snow emergencies) but I definitely heard the complaints from neighbors and visitors about having to park "all the way at the end of the street" and "a block away."

UrsusUrbanicus
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 121
Joined: February 13th, 2014, 2:08 pm

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby UrsusUrbanicus » July 13th, 2016, 11:40 pm

Sacrelicio wrote:I used to live in a somewhat more parking-constrained area (36th and Garfield) and I parked on the street. It didn't bother me if I had to park a little ways away sometimes (usually for snow emergencies) but I definitely heard the complaints from neighbors and visitors about having to park "all the way at the end of the street" and "a block away."
Yeah, it really is all about perspective. It hadn't occurred to me that they might really be so attached to the concept of nearly-adjacent parking. I'm on Aldrich near Franklin, and I literally do a little happy dance in my seat if I snag something on Colfax.

Still, even with that strong an attachment (and that close a geographic expectation), I do have to wonder how severe a crunch they really think a six-unit building is going to create. And I still find myself thinking "you're living in one of maybe four places in the state that could qualify as a 'city'; you could easily choose from plenty of other places that are [even-more-]completely designed around the automobile."

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7926
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: South Nicollet (Lyndale & Kingfield & Tangletown & Windom)

Postby mattaudio » July 20th, 2016, 11:05 am

I'm frustrated by the project team on 5605, which seems to have used the community pitchforks as a justification for the parking they really wanted. Now I wish I spoke out against their variance requests on Monday.

The architect wrote, "I want to commend you on your creativity with the blue tarps and signs last night."

Ridiculous.


Return to “Minneapolis - South, Southwest, and Uptown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest