urbanMSP

Any long-term redevelopment of this area is going to require some parking, even if the Stadium itself does not. If that's going to be true either way, I would *much* rather it be consolidated into a single large district ramp instead of a new one in each new building. However, if the area is going to be developed piece-by-piece over time by multiple firms, as seems to be the case, I have a hard time imagining that type of coordination and will would be possible without city involvement.

It won't be, unfortunately. Either the city will have to run public ramps or work very closely with development to encourage/ensure that happens.

I would agree with EOst's point. I guess it sounded much more like people were advocating the city build a ramp themselves rather than strongly encouraging one as time moves on. If the latter, fine. But at this stage in the area's redevelopment, a parking ramp, let alone a city-owned one, just feels like a waste. There's plenty of land owned in large parcels that'll be redeveloped in big chunks in the future (allowing for a district ramp), with tons of under-utilized parking on it right now for stadium/regular traffic. To the extent that the land directly abutting Snelling and University can forego a parking ramp, I'd say that's a good thing for the city and area as it makes driving slightly less convenient and makes the pedestrian/bike experience closest to the LRT station slightly better than if you had a parking ramp (visually and re: conflicts with cars).

I would agree with EOst's point. I guess it sounded much more like people were advocating the city build a ramp themselves rather than strongly encouraging one as time moves on.

My opinion was that the mixed-use development should include parking that can be used by the development during the week, and for a fee during events, even if it's only a few levels of spaces.

I feel that the Stadium developer's decision not include spaces (thus far anyway) is the nonsensical "if I don't build it, people won't be tempted" concept. It doesn't work. People will still drive to matches. I believe either way it's going to be a minority based on other stadiums that have limited parking.

People living in the CIties will be more likely to park & ride. Someone driving in from Duluth probably won't be.

Didnt they say numerous times that a parking plan is in the works?

Just because it doesn't make financial sense for the developer doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for the city. The city is responsible for all kinds of externalities that the developer isn't, which could make whatever parking proposal worth it. Same reason why government provides other goods/services. Having one centralized and mitigated district parking ramp is probably a good idea. What would the optimal way to fund it (publicly and/or privately)? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What about all the underutilized parking on the current side streets? The city has already paid for that.

Based on the site plan, aren't all of the new streets in this new grid going to have on street parking as well? Does anyone know how to estimate how many parking spots that is? I feel like it's a fair amount.

I think the parking should be built organically with the developments as they occur. I'd imagine that most of this space will remain surface parking lots until the property is developed, so that's currently thousands (?) Or seems like it of spots, and then as developments start popping up, the developers can add a floor or two of district parking based on what the market demands.

I think it's important not to build a ton of parking for events that only happen x number of times a year.

There are also existing private parking lots very close to the stadium that could easily be contracted out for game day parking. It's not like this is going to be 10,000 people coming on the train and 10,000 people parking in front of people's houses in Midway.

There are also existing private parking lots very close to the stadium that could easily be contracted out for game day parking. It's not like this is going to be 10,000 people coming on the train and 10,000 people parking in front of people's houses in Midway.

Good point, some of us will be taking the bus. The A line will be very convenient. There are all kinds of places to park from Highland and points north along and around Snelling, not to mention points north of the stadium from Rosedale all the way down to Midway.

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-un ... 378659041/

So, the most interesting part of the article are the comments. Some people just don't want the stadium to be built. Their position seems to be based on some philosophy that the stadium group is receiving a huge blank check from the taxpayers.
But I wonder if any of them plan to attend any games or events at Target Field, TCF Stadium, or US Bank Stadium?

I don't see a single comment suggesting that the stadium should not be built. Where do you see that?

To me it seemed like mostlyright, birdpeep, Krossman, and kenw1952 were at best indifferent to the project. Were they not complaining about tax payer subsidized stadiums and having billionaires finance their own project?

Precisely. Nobody is against the stadium, other than maybe stanleysays whining about parking and traffic. People don't have a problem with the stadium, they have a problem with the tax breaks. I'm mostly indifferent, but I get contrarian when there are people who mistakenly think a tax break is somehow not a real cost.

Anyone have any idea where this goes from here given the legislature not finishing up last night?

I think the property tax break passed with the tax bill. The liquor license too. No dice on the sales tax exemption.

I think the property tax break passed with the tax bill. The liquor license too. No dice on the sales tax exemption.

But isn't that a deal breaker? I thought they wanted to start in June, no?

It's not supposed to be:
northernpitch.com/_/minnesota-soccer-news/legislature-approves-property-tax-exemption-for-minnesota-united-stadium-in-st-paul-r878

They can do a retroactive sales tax break. It has been done before.

Dayton practically stated he would sign the bill.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/05/23/st ... ov-dayton/