Page 1 of 1

Lake Maka Ska / Lake Harriet Master Plan

Posted: October 14th, 2015, 1:32 pm
by jw138
Three concept plans for the "Calhoun-Harriet Master Plan" are now available:

https://www.minneapolisparks.org/projec ... nd_comment

They also included a survey to garner feedback:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/calhar2

Re: Lake Calhoun

Posted: October 14th, 2015, 2:05 pm
by acs
When picking my overall favorite out of the three I have to ask myself, "what makes Calhoun-Harriet unique among the major mpls parks and how can we enhance that?" Well, of the three major uses outlined, Theo-With wins hands-down as far as urban nature oasis goes and the central riverfront is hard to beat as far as history. That's why I see C-H's main value in abundant recreation opportunity that is a draw from all over the city.

Re: Lake Calhoun

Posted: October 14th, 2015, 2:14 pm
by HiawathaGuy
acs wrote:When picking my overall favorite out of the three I have to ask myself, "what makes Calhoun-Harriet unique among the major mpls parks and how can we enhance that?" Well, of the three major uses outlined, Theo-With wins hands-down as far as urban nature oasis goes and the central riverfront is hard to beat as far as history. That's why I see C-H's main value in abundant recreation opportunity that is a draw from all over the city.
Well put, I agree. I still like the land bridge idea featured in the Interlaced Ecology plan. But there's no doubt we could use more recreational offerings, and this area is perfect for that.

Re: Lake Calhoun

Posted: October 14th, 2015, 11:13 pm
by David Greene
I'm a sucker for geology and I love the interpretive signs at Minnehaha. There are one or two in the Harriet-Calhoun area but I'd really like to see a series of markers talking about what shaped the chain of lakes and explanations of the geological features we see today, from the Bassett Creek valley to the gorge.

Obviously aspects of all three plans is what we'll get, so the real question is, what's the focus. I can't disagree that recreation is a huge part of the area but I think history and stories are at least, if not more, important. Recreational activities change but history is something stable we hold on to.

Re: Lake Calhoun

Posted: October 15th, 2015, 8:33 am
by RailBaronYarr
Respectfully, I wholeheartedly disagree. We live in a city, where many people don't have yards or grass or trees or any open space at all. That's likely to continue as our population continues to grow (the areas around Calhoun, in particular). The ability to go use public parks for recreation, relaxation, exercise, whatever, is most important. There are measurable physical and mental health benefits to making these spaces function as well as possible in those regards, and I'm not really sure the same can be said for funneling (limited) money into history/story/archaeology stuff. I know it makes me a grump. I feel the same way about LRT station art. Things like "Explore trolley connection to expand historical interpretation and improve transit connection between the lakes while respecting adjacent uses" has almost no meaning to me. Extending a novelty streetcar that runs a few hours a day for 5 months a year and costs $2/ride into people's backyards shouldn't be a priority. It would mean far more to me if we actually created better *real* transit to get people to these recreational areas from across the city.

I would support this if it meant more community-driven programming at spots around the lake on newly-created stages/gathering areas (which was highlighted once). Let the neighborhoods (which should be diverse in income, race, age, family structure, etc!!) tell the stories.

A hybrid of ecology and recreation seems the best approach - the areas around Calhoun in particular are very prone to flooding, and any redesign that makes the remaining open space usable more often would be welcome in my book.

Re: Lake Calhoun

Posted: October 17th, 2015, 10:35 am
by BBMplsMN
>>I can't disagree that recreation is a huge part of the area but I think history and stories are at least, if not more, important. Recreational activities change but history is something stable we hold on to.<<

I find that reading about the history of the lakes could be better accomplished through a nice website, where you have more time and can go further in depth about the topics. Plus, when you've read the interpretive signs once, you're done with them. As someone who uses the lakes every week and nearly every day (they are my front yard), I would much rather see the money be used to boost recreational activities.

I agree that we'll end up with a combination of the three proposals, which feels right. It just depends how much we get of each of the three ideas. I would lean heavy on the recreation, some on the ecology and a tiny bit of the history.

Re: Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet Master Plan

Posted: December 1st, 2015, 3:45 pm
by twincitizen
Open House #5 tonight. Unfortunately, inexplicably, it is at MPRB HQ instead of the usual locations near Calhoun-Harriet (Bakken Museum, Jones-Harrison Residence, etc.)

Open House #5: (NEW!)
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Topic: Design Options for Focus Areas 5-9
6:30-8:30 pm
MPRB Headquarters, 2117 W River Rd N
Nokomis Room (1st Floor, to the right of lobby)

Project page: https://www.minneapolisparks.org/park_c ... rovements/
(good luck finding tonight's meeting on there...I'm pretty sure it isn't)

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: May 12th, 2016, 1:24 pm
by Anondson
Proposals for changes to parks around Lake Calhoun and Harriet.

http://startribune.com/advisory-group-f ... 379080841/

Re: Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet Master Plan

Posted: September 12th, 2016, 5:43 pm
by Silophant
There's a MPRB survey available collecting opinions on renovation of the Tin Fish building.

Re: Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet Master Plan

Posted: September 12th, 2016, 8:05 pm
by seanrichardryan
What is a seating net? Is it in the water? Will it collect garbage and seaweed on windy days? I need more info.

Re: Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet Master Plan

Posted: September 13th, 2016, 12:46 pm
by zlkahn
Looks like its some kind of large scale hammock that sits above the water
Image

Re: Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet Master Plan

Posted: September 13th, 2016, 12:49 pm
by David Greene
That's like a clown-scary smiling...something.

Re: Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet Master Plan

Posted: September 13th, 2016, 3:49 pm
by seanrichardryan
That's all I needed. OPTION 1 ftw

Re: Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet Master Plan

Posted: September 13th, 2016, 4:19 pm
by dbaur31
It looks like a banana with some kind of hammock in it. Which makes it a gigantic banana hammock. Pass.

Re: Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet Master Plan

Posted: September 13th, 2016, 4:35 pm
by MNdible
The survey is pretty absurd.

They really should be asking you, "Do you want to expand the public space around the Refectory or not?"

Instead, they're asking you which of these two very specific design options do you like better. So, Sean is going to vote for Option 1 because he doesn't like banana hammocks. But in fact, he might broadly support the idea that an expanded and more functional Refectory would be a good thing.

But the Park Board doesn't know that -- they just know he voted for Option 1. Dumb.

Re: Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet Master Plan

Posted: September 13th, 2016, 5:29 pm
by BBMplsMN
MNdible wrote:Instead, they're asking you which of these two very specific design options do you like better. So, Sean is going to vote for Option 1 because he doesn't like banana hammocks. But in fact, he might broadly support the idea that an expanded and more functional Refectory would be a good thing.

But the Park Board doesn't know that -- they just know he voted for Option 1. Dumb.
The survey has space to comment and expand on your choices. I mostly voted for Option 2, but I specifically stated what I liked and disliked about it. I wasn't sold on the net, but I liked the terraced seating area and the potential for a fire pit.

Re: Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet Master Plan

Posted: September 13th, 2016, 8:13 pm
by MNdible
The fact that they've included space for comments doesn't excuse a poorly designed survey.