Uptown (and LynLake) Development & General Topics

Calhoun-Isles, Cedar-Riverside, Longfellow, Nokomis, Phillips, Powderhorn, and Southwest
David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4761
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby David Greene » January 5th, 2017, 3:12 pm

FISHMANPET wrote:Furthermore people just seem to think there's an infinite supply of single family homes in any particular area. There's almost never any acknowledgement that building towers would increase the number of homes in an area. Again I don't think anybody would state that they think there are infinite homes but they're certainly never reached the conclusion that there's a finite number of single family homes in a given area.
No one thinks there's an infinite supply of SFHs. That's exactly the opposite of the point people are making.

Others never seem to acknowledge that replacing SFHs lessens the supply of SFHs, driving up prices. People actually do like living in SFHs. Shocking, I know.

Both sides need to acknowledge the viewpoints of the other. There is not one form of housing that will work for everyone. We need a mix. Striking that balance is what this whole debate is about but extremists tend to want to pull the discussion in an all-or-nothing direction.

I have said many times that I would welcome 13-or-more story infill buildings. That lessens the pressure on taking more SFHs. Other people don't want that for various reasons. Such people aren't being disingenuous, they just have a different opinion and/or taste.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 837
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby LakeCharles » January 5th, 2017, 3:18 pm

But along the lake, prices are in the millions. If a couple get developed, does the price of each home get driven up by some thousands? Do I care? Why does anyone care? If you can shell out 4 million dollars for a home, you can shell out 4.2 million dollars for a home.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby RailBaronYarr » January 5th, 2017, 4:03 pm

I'm going to make a bold statement that, no, we actually don't NEED a mix. Our society would actually function just fine if literally every parcel in Minneapolis were attached housing of some kind. Families with kids would actually make do just fine. There are actually thousands of family households in Minneapolis right now living in a structure with 2+ units.

With that being said, the idea that this region's detached single family home supply is in dire straits is ludicrous. There is no amount of conceivable development, on any time horizon, that would leave the city of Minneapolis (let alone Mpls, St Paul, and all first-ring burbs) without any single family homes to choose from. That link assumed all non-downtown development was in 3-4 story, 1-3 lot redevelopment of mostly single family homes (this scenario takes up more land per net new unit than including vacant/brownfield redevelopment opportunities or considering any 6+ story residential construction, or subdivision of existing SFHs including detached ADUs). Literally the last thing we should be worrying about is how rich white people looking for cabin living a mile from downtown will afford a slightly more expensive home.

And this is getting off-topic, but the people who don't share your 13-story tower on the edges of the neighborhood vision (lol, how would you go engage with them without a front porch and door to knock on or garden for them to invite you to!?) ALSO don't want a 3 story apartment on 2-3 lots. So yeah, they're being disingenuous if they say they want development.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4761
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby David Greene » January 5th, 2017, 7:53 pm

That's a perfect example of the all-or-nothing thinking I'm talking about. Look at what you wrote. It's all very extreme, full of straw men.

One can support development and still not want 13-story buildings or even six-story buildings.

We need a mix because it's quite obvious people prefer different things.

And LOL at the million dollar house canard. If you think everyone living in Flux is poorer than people living in SFHs in the Wedge you need to talk to more people.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

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

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby FISHMANPET » January 5th, 2017, 8:15 pm

Merely wanting something is not reason enough to grant it. Many people want to send all the East African refugees back to Africa, and Hispanics and Latinos back to where they came from. Just because people want it isn't a reason to do it. Likewise, just because people want single family homes isn't a reason for the government to enforce that desire through zoning.

Also we're not actually talking about the Wedge here! But thanks for building up that strawman.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4761
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby David Greene » January 5th, 2017, 8:25 pm

We're not? "All over the city" includes Uptown, I think.

And yes, when were talking public policy, politics matters and like it or not, multiple voices have sway. We're going to have both because that's what the majority of residents want.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

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

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby FISHMANPET » January 5th, 2017, 8:31 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

For someone who claims to be very involved in social justice, you seem very happy to say "majority rules" when it comes to something you personally agree with.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2326
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby EOst » January 5th, 2017, 9:00 pm

Tyranny of the majority involves a scenario in which a majority of an electorate places its own interests above, and at the expense and to the detriment of, those in the minority, where by that detriment constitutes active oppression comparable to that of a tyrant or despot.
A majority democratically choosing something (here "the preservation of some SFHs") is not "the tyranny of the majority" because it's not "tyranny."

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

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby FISHMANPET » January 5th, 2017, 9:24 pm

Using government regulation to force your neighborhood to be single family because that's what you (and a majority of the residents that are already there) sounds like tyranny to me, particularly against those that have been blocked from living in the neighborhood because of those government regulations.

anders
City Center
Posts: 30
Joined: December 30th, 2013, 3:33 am

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby anders » January 6th, 2017, 12:00 am

David Greene wrote:Others never seem to acknowledge that replacing SFHs lessens the supply of SFHs, driving up prices. People actually do like living in SFHs. Shocking, I know.

I have said many times that I would welcome 13-or-more story infill buildings. That lessens the pressure on taking more SFHs. Other people don't want that for various reasons. Such people aren't being disingenuous, they just have a different opinion and/or taste.
While the sun continues to rise in the east and people continue to have differing opinions on art, cinema, breakfast cereals, and the 'ideal' home, there are certain larger facts and pressures that undoubtedly affect the value of land. The amount of readily developable land in areas where demand exists, for example, is decreasing as it is used up. The demand for housing in general is going up. Family sizes are not increasing, so that won't soak up the demand. For a range of reasons, many people prefer living in the city rather than in the suburb where more developable land exists. This is a good thing because we know that climate change is exacerbated by energy-intensive lifestyles (and transport remains energy-intensive).

Blah blah blah. You know all this stuff. We all do here. So can we move past platitudes about "taste" and "opinions" and recognize that there is a fundamental unresolved challenge of where we're going to fit more people? No one's going to go around razing full blocks of SFHs, but using regulatory power in order to artificially suppress the price of one housing type (incidentally, the most expensive, energy-intensive, and group-segregating type, if we're going down that road) seems like a pretty low priority in 21st century Minneapolis.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby RailBaronYarr » January 6th, 2017, 1:20 am

Maybe I'm crazy, but I guess I don't see thinking we don't *need* something like SFHs (at some minimum % of all parcels) but also that even an urbanist's greatest wet dream wouldn't see the majority of them go away as being absolutist or extreme. I don't think it's a straw man to say life would move on if they did all disappear over the next 200 years. It was an unnecessary swipe at you, but you actually did claim that you don't like large apartment buildings because you can't knock on their doors to have neighborly interaction - something I find hard to reconcile with your advocacy for 13-story apartment buildings (*real neighbors are for the neighborhood interior in small structures, right?), and disingenuous given the many places people in apartments are out and about in the public realm.

And whatever you might believe the opinions of the silent majority in given neighborhoods are re: development, the actual history in this city (and, particularly in many Uptown neighborhoods) has been repeated downzoning over time, including getting the vast majority of land zoned R1 or R2/B to prevent even the gentlest kind of density (triplexes, 4-plexes, 6-8-unit single lot apartment buildings). People appeal 4-story, single-lot, 10-unit structures based on made up claims of renters having more garbage than homeowners. Even simple things like re-allowing duplexes on standard lot sizes in R2/R2B and ADUs didn't go through without a little pushback. I'm waiting for anyone but the urbanist community to propose any sort of up-zoning, including missing middle. I actually testified at the recent Wedge re-zoning planning commission hearing and said I felt the downzones of R5 and R6 should have been counterbalanced by allowing many R2B to become R3 or R4 in much more of the Wedge, and that the whole thing shouldn't have been done without a broader look across Hennepin, Lyndale, and Lake. I attended the neighborhood walk and staff meeting regarding that downzoning proposal and heard several people become giddy upon hearing neighboring parcels were being brought down to R2B. And I read the history of that proposal, where neighbors were so extreme in their demands (proposing leaving literally 5 R5 or R6 parcels in the entire Wedge) that they couldn't even find a compromise with CPED. So, I dunno, you'll excuse me for being a little surprised at that accusation toward me.

In any case, I only brought this whole damn thing up because the specific e-democracy thread was about our precious shoreland overlay district. My point was that of all the things people get riled up about, the height of a building against a park+river/lake has very little to do with its environmental impact, and the very post defending its creation spoke directly to that (caring about profit and aesthetic preferences).

User avatar
Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4070
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby Anondson » January 6th, 2017, 7:47 am

I am find nothing compelling in the argument that the northwest and northeast corners of the lake are harmed or ruined by tall structures. That lawn filled single family yards are preferable to towers for the lake quality.

The traffic arguments seem ahistorical to my recollection, traffic was thousands of cars worse in the 1990s.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2326
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby EOst » January 6th, 2017, 8:49 am

FISHMANPET wrote:Using government regulation to force your neighborhood to be single family because that's what you (and a majority of the residents that are already there) sounds like tyranny to me, particularly against those that have been blocked from living in the neighborhood because of those government regulations.
But, again, that's not what "tyranny" is. You are abusing a term with an intentionally precise meaning.

Put another way: If zoning regulations which prohibit structures over a certain height are "tyrannical," how can you exclude regulations prohibiting drive-thrus or limiting parking spaces or requiring fire detectors? After all, you're "using government regulation to force your neighborhood [to do something] because that's what you (and a majority of the residents) want." Democratic decisions--even ones you disagree with--are not presumptively illegitimate just because they place requirements on others or limit the supply of things you want.

Again, a democratic majority imposing a law you disagree with isn't "tyranny," even "tyranny of the majority," unless it is tyrannical in nature, i.e. unless it is creating cruel and arbitrary laws written with specific animus toward specific groups. Don't cheapen a term we may soon need for bigger things.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby Tiller » January 6th, 2017, 9:33 am

EOst's last sentence is spot-on, but you don't need to stretch zoning regulations very far to view many of them as "cruel and arbitrary laws written with specific animus toward specific groups." The "cruel" part is just more indirect and thus less recognizable/urgent.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1776
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby amiller92 » January 6th, 2017, 9:53 am

David Greene wrote:
FISHMANPET wrote:Others never seem to acknowledge that replacing SFHs lessens the supply of SFHs, driving up prices.
I honestly do not think that price pressure on single family homes near the lakes is a supply issue. Nor do I think keeping one or two or three will do anything to relieve that pressure.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1776
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby amiller92 » January 6th, 2017, 9:55 am

David Greene wrote:We need a mix because it's quite obvious people prefer different things.
Sure, but that doesn't mean we need, as a matter of policy, to provide all things in all places.

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

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby FISHMANPET » January 6th, 2017, 11:49 am

EOst wrote:
FISHMANPET wrote:Using government regulation to force your neighborhood to be single family because that's what you (and a majority of the residents that are already there) sounds like tyranny to me, particularly against those that have been blocked from living in the neighborhood because of those government regulations.
But, again, that's not what "tyranny" is. You are abusing a term with an intentionally precise meaning.

Put another way: If zoning regulations which prohibit structures over a certain height are "tyrannical," how can you exclude regulations prohibiting drive-thrus or limiting parking spaces or requiring fire detectors? After all, you're "using government regulation to force your neighborhood [to do something] because that's what you (and a majority of the residents) want." Democratic decisions--even ones you disagree with--are not presumptively illegitimate just because they place requirements on others or limit the supply of things you want.

Again, a democratic majority imposing a law you disagree with isn't "tyranny," even "tyranny of the majority," unless it is tyrannical in nature, i.e. unless it is creating cruel and arbitrary laws written with specific animus toward specific groups. Don't cheapen a term we may soon need for bigger things.
Not every law or regulation is tyrannical. But that doesn't mean that no law or regulation is tyrannical.

But going down your list anyway:
Prohibiting Drive Thrus: driving is not a right, also drive thrus are dangerous for people not in those cars, so it's a similar tyranny of the majority situation
Limiting parking: See above
Requiring fire detectors: I assume at this point you're being facetious but the smoke and C02 detectors save lives at minimal cost. And technically speaking they're only really required when a house transaction is happening. A builder can't sell you a home without them, but you're free to rip them out if you'd rather die. Landlords are required to provide them because tenants and landlords aren't on equal footing and tenants aren't in a position to demand smoke alarms where they aren't present. We, as a society, have decided on a few points of what a livable home should be, and enforced those standards through our laws. It should have water and electricity, and those utilities should be installed in a way in which they won't kill somebody. It should have heat when it's cold. And it should have smoke alarms. Basically, this is a regulation of inclusivity, not exclusivity. It says "everyone should have a smoke alarm." It doesn't say "we should limit the number of people with smoke alarms."I don't think you'll find a single reasonable person that says "well actually smoke alarms are bad." And yes a majority of people have decided that smoke alarms are good. Sometimes the majority is right!

And we get to restrictive zoning. It's inherently a policy of exclusion. It is designed to exclude people. It limits the people that can be in a space. I believe housing is a human right, and therefore by extension regulations that limit access to housing is cruel and oppressive. Or in another word, tyrannical.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6225
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby twincitizen » January 10th, 2017, 1:46 pm

New Horizon opening another location in the former NIP building at 2431 Hennepin Ave, will include an elevated deck outdoor play area on the south side

http://www.southwestjournal.com/news/bi ... n-academy/

As seen on streetview in October, they are quite literally gutting the interior: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9582853 ... 56!6m1!1e1

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4301
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby grant1simons2 » January 17th, 2017, 5:28 pm

lordmoke wrote:Plans for 3453 Hennepin:
http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 187357.pdf

Strange little project.
Planning commission file: http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 192554.pdf

Updated materials

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Uptown General Topics & Development Map

Postby RailBaronYarr » January 20th, 2017, 2:11 pm

^^ So if anyone likes small-scale infill that fits in with the neighborhood, please email planning staff (Aaron Hanauer) in support. Especially if you live/d in CARAG or ECCO. I'm hearing rumors that despite the CARAG organization's support, there is some pushback against this thing.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest