Suburbs - General Topics

[UrsusUrbanicus]

They said the number one question (or hostile accusation) they got from residents and passers-by was if the building was 100% low-income housing. (It is not)

This should come as a surprise to none of us, but in the minds of a lot of people there is a perfect 1:1 correlation between density/apartments and low-income/crime/"those people"

That latter link in some people's minds -- between low-income and crime/nuisance -- is a story in and of itself. Though there may be a wide-scale statistical correlation between higher crime and lower income, these are aggregate statistics that say a lot more about the desperation that arises from concentrated poverty ("Just get a job"? At what store? Selling what to whom? Who are buying it with what money?) than about any specific person. Making such assumptions of criminality in regard to any given low-income individual, simply because they're low-income, is just unfair. And yet it's one of the most common implicit assumptions in American political discourse...

Not to mention, these are probably the same Tea Party types who think the world will end if the minimum wage is bumped up toward something livable. It's the modern equivalent of having one's cake and eating it too: Having one's $0.99-rather-than-$1.19 fast-food taco and still bitching when those who make it have the audacity to want to live somewhere nearby.

[RailBaronYarr]

Well it's a step in the right direction for density. Is it just the one building or are there more?

I mean it does increase density, but does it give the anti density crowd ammunition that density is ugly and imposing? Possibly? Those false cornices random purposeless massing jumbled materials

Yes because people in the suburbs with their beige vinyl homes with fake stone trimming along the edges of the garage and multiple, soaring roof peaks can really complain about architecture or massing. They certainly don't give a damn that units don't face the sidewalk or that it lacks trees. This has everything to do with the "those people" issues twincitizen outlined.

[sdho]

efffffffff that!!! You can get a decent one bedroom IN Minneapolis for that. wow. I don't get people in the Burbs and their perceptions of things. wow. A building mistakable for low income housing with a Luxury price tag.

Was just discussing this with mattaudio. Especially in municipalities with relatively few apartments, you can't expect much of a discount for being farther out from city center. Apartments in the Southdale District (71France, One Southdale) go for more than the price of equivalent units along the Greenway in Uptown. In any case, you're going to pay a premium for a brand-new apartments anywhere. $990 for a studio doesn't seem insane -- especially given it's a pretty large 600 sq ft, and still has the same nice finishes and amenities.

As for being mistaken for low-income, I suspect any building of more than 5 units would trigger concerns that it's affordable housing among the particular constituency twincitizen was referring to. I don't think it's an indictment of the building design.

[mplsjaromir]

^^^Agree. I don't know where in Minneapolis you will find an apartment with in suite laundry for $990. Certainly not one this new.

[Mdcastle]

Can you get one with en-suite laundry, granite counters, and available covered parking?. Not anyone that can't afford anything more than an apartment or chooses to live in one wants to live IN Minneapolis. Even if you're not (as many people in the suburbs are) afraid of crime, it might be closer to your job or family or you might like how convenient it is to the freeway and commuter rail.

[Silophant]

Not anyone that can't afford anything more than an apartment or chooses to live in one wants to live IN Minneapolis.

What does this sentence mean?

[Mdcastle]

Some people can't afford a single family house.
Some people that could afford one don't want one.
Some of the above want to live in the suburbs. So there's a market for decent apartments in the suburbs.

[min-chi-cbus]

Not anyone that can't afford anything more than an apartment or chooses to live in one wants to live IN Minneapolis.

What does this sentence mean?

Replace the word "anyone" with "everyone"..... It took me several tries myself, as well as his explanation.

[Mdcastle]

Before this gets into a long argument about how traffic in the suburbs is more dangerous than crime in the city, like the article Alex wrote, the point is the perception is there. People don't behave rationally in regards to risk. If you have a kid in the house a swimming pool is more dangerous than firearm. And driving is more dangerous than flying, but you'd never know it from how people react.

This isn't strictly city vs suburbs either, it's also country vs metro. My relatives from rural Wisconsin (who know I live in the suburbs) ask "how I could live in a place like this" and "am I afraid to go grocery shopping after dark?".

[Wedgeguy]

It is safer for me to walk to the grocery store after dark in the city than it is for your relatives in rural areas to go driving at night and hit a deer and get inured or killed by that. I'd say my odds are much lower than theirs.

[RailBaronYarr]

^I think Monte knows that, and while he and I disagree on at least a few things, he's making a very good point here that addresses this. People don't always behave rationally. Most people can't tell you the risk of dying per mile driven or by walking at night in the Bronx. And I also agree there is demand for apartments (even nice ones) in the suburbs (by necessity or actual preference), which is why the I think zoning discussion isn't only relevant to the hottest neighborhoods in Minneapolis or St Paul.

[sdho]

^ This. We all do better when we all do better as a metro. One of the best things we could do to make transit more viable -- and use our land more efficiently -- is to focus on dense transit-oriented nodes, like this project or Burnsville's Heart of the City. We're not going to tear down all of Minneapolis outside the CBD to rebuild it in perfect concentric rings of density. Allowing multiple nuclei of different sizes is the best (and most politically feasible) way to add density to the area.

[RailBaronYarr]

Agreed. I think there's a public good to focused planning in the suburbs to get nodes up to a level of density and walkability that is a significant enough generator of transit trips, and people actually make a decent % of their weekly trips by bike/foot within a 1/2 mile of their home. At the same time, suburban residential neighborhoods in general should relax zoning to allow 2-4 unit buildings, ADUs, and maybe the next level up. I'd also say small-scale commercial should be lumped in with that (beyond the typical allowance for things like in-home daycare, home offices, and the select few other uses typically allowed). Sure, it sucks away demand for multi-family housing and commercial space from those dense nodes, but I think the market for people looking to live in a duplex or triplex and share a back/front yard is pretty different than people looking to live in an apartment. Anyway.

[mattaudio]

That's a natural way for non-auto-dependent regions to exist. Look at any European region, or even the old commuter rail towns around Chicago. Though I urge caution with phrases such as "we all do better when we all do better as a metro" because that brand of regionalism is often sold to try and justify ridiculous sprawl-inducing subsidies and infrastructure.

[phop]

Citylab noticed Columbia Heights new ban on new auto-oriented businesses.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/12/a-m ... ty/421872/

Huh, Columbia Heights makes another national think piece. This one's about the changing identities of inner-ring suburbs:

http://www.governing.com/columns/assess ... burbs.html

[Multimodal]

Couldn't Columbia Heights start by making Central Avenue more pedestrian friendly? Who's jurisdiction is Central Avenue?

[sdho]

Central Ave carries TH 65 for its whole length in Columbia Heights. So, it's under MnDOT jurisdiction. I believe Columbia Heights controls behind-the-curb features, like sidewalk pavement, trees, and lights. And they have invested some effort, as noted in the article, in making new business frontage more pedestrian-friendly.

[matthew5080]

Sounds like the AMC in Eden Prairie will be getting an upgrade or update, depending on how you view this! The theater announced a plan that includes alcohol sales and reclining seats, which would eliminate half of its current seating (which they claim goes relatively unused). Currently the city has a ban on alcohol sales in movie theaters, but the city council is looking into changing that ordinance. The plan would cost $6.5 million.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/m ... airie.html

[Wedgeguy]

Not sure is suburban cities can tax liquor like MPLS or St. Paul do, but if people want to have that as part of their theater experience then EP will lose out and the mall would probably see fewer dollars as guests would find other cities and theaters to go to. If EP does get alcohol tax rev, then this would give them some extra gravy for their tax coffers.

[Anondson]

Bet it is being sought because of the popularity of it in theaters like Icon in West End. Icon only allows it in the VIP seats, which helps limit any problems with drinking being a problem to the experience.