urbanMSP

“There’s not much parking for visitors,” said Councilmember Joanie Clausen. “If we reduce density, we can add parking and put in a turn-around.”

Sounds about right.

Sounds like Golden Valley has a case of the Head in the sand syndrome. How much different would it be from a regular city street where people have to look for parking when visiting?

This could as well be used to start a discussion of the pros and cons of historic districts, the small city of Excelsior organized an historic district for Water Street, its "Main Street". The historic district now looks to be interfering with a land owner adding a second story.

http://sailor.mnsun.com/2014/09/25/seco ... n-the-air/

The existing hospitals don't invest in their psych departments because it's a money looser compared to say cardiology or maternity. But they don't want new competition either, so they tend to egg on opposition to any new proposals.

As far as the townhouses, there's a specific type of buyer that likes those- those that want most of the benefits of a single family house without most of the work. Since it's detached you can turn up your home theater and subwoofers up basically as loud as you want. My friend used to live in one of them, and he'd invite us over on Friday nights for movies. If several residents have parties on Friday nights with 5-10 people I can see why they're worried about car storage,

Since when is it a right to have enough free parking to support all of your guests at a party you may throw once or twice a year? Sounds like a privilege to me!

Right. We cannot end the fight until every car has a roof over its head and doesn't have to spend the night out on the street.

Good article in the Strib today, about the glut of big-box vacancies in the suburbs and how they are being dealt with. My favorite quote:

“We thought we’d solved the problem forever,” said Cottage Grove City Administrator Ryan Schroeder, describing the ebullient mood when the national hardware chain came to town. “Who ever hears of a Home Depot closing?”

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/277393171.html

Cottage Grove is interesting. There is very little retail period in Cottage Grove. It's pretty much all residential and until recently there was not even a Caribou coffee shop and a few chain fast food place. For the most part, the people of Cottage Grove actually did not want a Home Depot at all. They do have a Menards and the residents are very loyal to that store, which is why the Home Depot failed.

Arbor Lakes IV:

http://nwsccc-maplegrove.granicus.com/M ... a_id=33793

Arbor Lakes IV:

http://nwsccc-maplegrove.granicus.com/M ... a_id=33793

They're not going to aim for a fourth single-developer main street within a mile of the other three, yet separated by a gulf of parking?
http://goo.gl/maps/wahr9

WORST PLACE IN AMERICA. Also, this:



Ambitious indeed. Does it meet these 'goals'? I'd say no, but I'm no suburban planner.

I like Arbor Lakes. Because I have no desire to ever shop or eat there, it keeps those things far away from me.

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/ ... page=1&c=y

Well this isn't a surprise..

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/ ... page=1&c=y

Well this isn't a surprise..

God that pisses Me off. I know it's only strib comments but I feel the need to tear this apart once I get to work. Also, where can we comment on the met council plan? It's not the best from an urban perspective but I won't let it get even more suburban if my opinion matters.

You can comment thru tomorrow, October 1st. http://www.metrocouncil.org/Transportat ... Draft.aspx

They're not receiving as big a piece of the funding pie because they're becoming an increasingly smaller proportion of the metro's population percentage, and nowhere near dense enough for transit like rail. The suburbs have had their day in the sun for the past 65+ years, and now the tide is changing.

I wish funding allocations were based upon some kind of objective algorithm that appropriately weights different priorities (e.g. Functionality, pop. Density, pop. Changes, %residents that use mass transit, socioeconomic chars., etc....) so that blanket arguments like "we think the population projections are wrong" or who pounds their fist on the table the hardest doesn't dictate the outcome as much, and instead the outcome is based at least 80%-90% on predetermined and agreed-upon objectionable criteria (and also leaving a little bit of wiggle room for politics and other subjectivity).

If we ask exurbanites to help fund metro infrastructure, should we be shocked if exurbanites want some of the infrastructure to be exurban?

If we ask exurbanites to help fund metro infrastructure, should we be shocked if exurbanites want some of the infrastructure to be exurban?

This is exactly why we need to stop worrying about regionalism so much. If people are paying the true cost of their mobility decisions, we know how it will shake out. It will look good for urban land use and transit, and it will look bad for sprawl growth in Carver County.

It's a downright shame the way "freight and highways" get no funding at all compared to "non-motorized transit". Why is it we never give automobile transportation a decent portion of transportation funding? Very unfair.

Seriously, though, am I missing something as I read the financing section of the Thrive plan? It looks an awful lot like what's being proposed is that spending on local, highway, and transit be in pretty much direct proportion to revenue derived from each of those sectors and related federal programs. Are people really getting up in arms because their highway use isn't going to be subsidized out of proportion and that's somehow unfair?

http://www.woodburybulletin.com/content ... evelopment
Fifth-generation Woodbury farm turning over to development