Opposition to New Development

[FISHMANPET]

And it can't solve it, as it stands the need for affordable housing far exceeds the supply of affordable housing, and there just isn't enough money as things stand to build enough housing for all of them.

Here I unequivocally and emphatically disagree. We're the wealthiest country in the history of the planet. We have enough money. We simply choose not to provide housing..

and there just isn't enough money as things stand to build enough housing for all of them.

and there just isn't enough money as things stand to build enough housing for all of them.

as things stand

as things stand

You have this habit of not understanding the nuance of a point, even when it's actually laid out clearly, until someone beats you over the head with it. In our current political climate, a constraint you are more than welcome to use in support of things you agree with, we are unable to build enough affordable housing. But either you are unable to see that constraint here, or you just don't care.

And it's funny, I added that bit because, even though any reasonable reasonable person would understand my meaning without it, I knew you would take me literally at 100% face value, but even explicitly calling out the current constraint was too nuanced for you.

Is it a case of "fuck you got mine?" Is everyone that came before and including you a noble resident fighting for truth justice and the American way, and every person that comes after you is some greedy transiet that doesn't care about your place?

You have this habit of going to extremes and assuming the worst of people. I would welcome more density in Uptown. I do not want our entire block to become apartment buildings. I could probably accept a third of our block becoming apartment buildings, or even half if it was done well (think 1920's-scale two-lot buildings rather than the current half-block buildings).

I don't think this is an unreasonable position and I'm pretty sure most of the homeowners on our block (not that many, BTW) could live with it. I would like to see some more parking lots and underutilized buildings come down before a lot of new stuff gets built on our block. Does this make me some sort of evil landowner?

This is funny because I very deliberately setup a straw man of a composite of some of the worst behavior I've seen both here and other places, and applied it to a very hypothetical situation that doesn't currently exist, and you felt the need to jump to the defense of the Wedge. I won't explicitly describe what that implies to me, which is fine, most people will understand it, and you will remain blissfully aware.

[David Greene]

Peter, just stop it. Stop with the gotcha politics.

I talked about our block because that's what I know. I was responding to some very anti-homeowner rhetoric you put forward. As you admit, you put forward the worst composite you could come up with, consistent with my observation that you generally go to extremes.

Fine, I missed, "as things stand," but honestly, your generally libertarian viewpoints don't lend oneself to believe you've actually considered other possibilities. It's not that far out of the realm of possibility that we actually put real money into affordable housing.

I won't explicitly describe what that implies to me, which is fine, most people will understand it, and you will remain blissfully aware.

Don't be coy. If you want to say something, say it, because you're right, I have no idea what you're getting at. And do please answer the question. Is my position unreasonable?

[RailBaronYarr]

I'll say that it's my opinion that having the belief that a neighborhood like the Wedge, at most 2 miles from the CBD (and surrounded by natural and man-made amenities) should retain a mix of detached homes (as a form, who knows if they'd be homesteaded or rented or subdivided or whatever) - up to 2/3 of the total lots - is not a reasonable position. I don't think it would happen in a mostly open market, and I don't think Minneapolis would be worse off if everything in the Wedge were a mix of 4-6 story apartments and condos. Your position wasn't one of historic preservation (as far as I could tell), but more of a general what's right for an urban neighborhood stance. And that's what "most homeowners could live with" in the Wedge, the best-case development standpoint.

I guess, it feels odd being a person who appreciates a detached structure and a small, manageable lot and a garage pushing for allowing the exact opposite. My wife an I paid more money for our home than a solid portion of the metro can afford, and I don't really think this house would still be a "single family home" absent the zoning restriction keeping it from even subdividing to a duplex. And I'm 3/4 of a mile further south than you. Who is more of a problem for Minneapolis housing affordability, me and my wife taking up a 1/8 acre lot by ourselves (and people owning 4-500k ++ homes in the Wedge) or dudebros by the hundreds on 2 acres of Wedge land paying $2,000 a month for a 1BR apartment?

I know we could upzone the whole city to B4N tomorrow and we'd still have housing affordability issues and the Wedge would retain a bunch of detached structures through 2100. But in the end, the fact that people in a super urban block can barely imagine 1/3, maybe half, of the parcels built out to non-attached 2-4 story apartments is a bit odd to me. As always, I mean no offense to you and we're all just typing mostly meaningless words here (and maybe we should meet sometime and have our kids play )

[David Greene]

I understand what you're saying, but isn't it worthwhile to maintain a variety of housing? I mean, half the Wedge going to apartments seems a pretty huge move to me. Various people have talked about relaxing zoning/regulations to make smaller, denser apartments possible again and I'm totally on board with that. But I do think making all of, say, the Wedge, Whittier, East Isles and Lowry Hill 6-story stick apartments seems really extreme. If that is so, how do you choose which neighborhood goes all apartments and which retains some or most of its existing housing stock? How do you choose who gets pushed out?

I like owning a house because we can change it however we want, get creative, make it our own. We lose that ability with any kind of attached housing. We also want to live in the city near high quality transit and walkable amenities. That rather reduces the number of places to go by quite a lot. We kind of want to stay here, y'know? Yes, we own so we can stay as long as we want, but realistically, if all the families move out that becomes more difficult.

[mattaudio]

If that is so, how do you choose which neighborhood goes all apartments and which retains some or most of its existing housing stock? How do you choose who gets pushed out?

Don't property owners decide that? A century ago, there were plenty of blocks on the downtown fringe with single family houses that don't exist anymore. Granted, some were lost to urban renewal - let's not count those since that's not really an organic way to change land use. But most were removed as land use intensified. In fact, there was an article a few years ago about the last single family house being razed in Downtown East for redevelopment, IIRC. (I guess they weren't counting that old industrial conversion to a SFH on 10th Ave north of the stadium.)

[David Greene]

Yes of course property owners decide that. I'm just trying to get an idea of what people expect/want to see happen in Uptown. I'd like to maintain a mix of housing styles. Others want all apartments.

And realistically, if every other house on our block is going down for apartments, it's a pretty good bet we'd sell because we'd basically be forced to, or lose a huge amount of equity in the house.

My long-term plans for the place include adding bedrooms and making it capable of being as dense as some of those old 1920's two-lot apartment buildings. Even now, with a basement and attic still unfinished, it could hold almost that many people and very well may someday. So built form and density are orthogonal to a degree.

[min-chi-cbus]

Not that anyone cares particularly what I'd like, but I do favor a mix of forms/uses as far as zoning goes, and have no problems per se with SF housing in the Wedge IFF that's what the market is supporting. However, what gets tricky is when things like affordable housing and its issues come into play, where a perfect capitalist marketplace cannot really account for "fairness" when it comes to housing affordability and gentrification, and so government intervention is a potential necessity. Because I absolutely agree that some/many of those residents who would be priced out of their own damn homes should be allowed to stay under, let's call it, grandfathered zoning applications -- so those who already lived in a neighborhood and would otherwise not leave if they could continue paying current taxes on their property (like Prop 13 in California, which people like my mother despise because millionaires who sat on a property in a neighborhood that becomes hot can pay the same low tax rate as those under the poverty line if they're grandfathered like anybody else -- and she has a good point....so what is the ideal solution?).

[trigonalmayhem]

As soon as zoning went from addressing nuisance concerns to limiting density of land use it jumped the shark. Sure no one wants a fertilizer plant next door but (in my mind) you should have no right to tell them how tall or dense they can build. If you want to control your neighbor's land use move somewhere with an HOA.

[RailBaronYarr]

tl;dr I still don't agree with David but we can probably be friends not on a message board

Maybe we can/should separate the discussion of people getting pushed out into homeowners and renters. The former gets to choose when they want to leave or sell. The latter can be pushed out without form changing (one could make the argument that limiting development does this moreso than allowing it). And, the latter gets a huge windfall when they do sell (tax free!).

I like owning a house because we can change it however we want, get creative, make it our own. We lose that ability with any kind of attached housing. We also want to live in the city near high quality transit and walkable amenities. That rather reduces the number of places to go by quite a lot.

Yes. I like a detached home, too. It was on the "pro" side of our list when looking at places a year ago (which included touring some smaller attached condos in Lowry Hill/Isles, which still does a allow a good deal of customization btw). We also wanted walkability and access to transit. Unfortunately, not everyone gets to have everything they want when buying a home. I'm not convinced that even higher quality transit and single family detached homes are incompatible - see a place like this. (obviously, the regulatory shift to allow infill of homes like this would be substantial)

We kind of want to stay here, y'know? Yes, we own so we can stay as long as we want, but realistically, if all the families move out that becomes more difficult.

And realistically, if every other house on our block is going down for apartments, it's a pretty good bet we'd sell because we'd basically be forced to, or lose a huge amount of equity in the house.

Why would you be forced to? Why is it impossible to envision that higher density structures in the Wedge could be condos or townhomes or other owner-occupied units? Why is it impossible to envision small families (1, maybe 2 kids) in units like these? I picked a random census tract in Flatbush (middle of Brooklyn), and 335 households of 1,335 total (25%) have 1 or more children. I'm not saying we should build the Wedge/etc out to Brooklyn-level densities because I love Brooklyn. I'm saying there are families there, too, and a single-family home on a small patch of grass isn't the only way they'll choose to live.

Besides, let's say the Wedge was (re-)upzoned to R6. Who says that means you lose the equity in your home? People who prefer detached SFRs would still be bidding against would-be developers, right? They set the minimum your home is worth that a developer must be willing to pay above-and-beyond for the lot (plus teardown costs) to make new construction profitable. If you want to make the case that enough apartment buildings in a neighborhood reaches a tipping point where detached SFRs are no longer desirable to families (and thus developers are your only market), fine. People make that case quite often (in fact, it was the underlying rationale in the SCOTUS ruling in Euclid v Ambler). But that surely doesn't explain why SFRs in the Wedge fetch more per sqft than an identical home in neighborhoods without a single apartment. It also ignores the type of positive feedback loop whereby new development makes other new development more attractive (especially if paired with more commercial amenities). You can't have it both ways and claim gentrification begets gentrification but then say your home will lose equity at some apartment tipping point ratio.

My long-term plans for the place include adding bedrooms and making it capable of being as dense as some of those old 1920's two-lot apartment buildings. Even now, with a basement and attic still unfinished, it could hold almost that many people and very well may someday. So built form and density are orthogonal to a degree.

But those tricky unrelated occupant laws, the difficulty (regulatory and financial) to turn a something like that into multiple units, and SRO housing being illegal all make that density for a certain built form impractical in 2015 Minneapolis. I 100% support removing those barriers (just like ADUs) to allow more folks to live in existing structures (really!). I just don't see how anyone could define the "right" mix of housing style types for a neighborhood.

[David Greene]

When I say "forced" I'm thinking of the scenario you outlined: so many apartments that one SFH is out of place. Most homeowners don't want to be crowded by big buildings on either side. I agree that houses in the Wedge cost more than some other places (and cost a lot less than still others, including right across Hennepin). I also agree that we can take plenty more apartment buildings without impacting home values negatively.

You're right that families can live in apartments and condos, but my experience has been that it's really difficult to engage/form relationships with people living in such structures. Maybe that's different with condos but I doubt it. They all have an air of the gated community about them, especially the new construction.

I'm not at all blaming the residents for that. Part of it is apartment/condo management and part of it is the built form. For example, there isn't a front porch on which to sit and say "hi" to your neighbors. I often walk across the street to chat up a neighbor in the yard. I can't really do that with someone in an apartment building or condo. I really value being able to talk to the other parents on my block. I have learned a lot from them and it has helped us raise our child.

So as usual there are no easy answers but I would like to think we can maintain some diversity in built form in a place like the Wedge.

And yes, we can still be friends.

And yes, Peter, we can still be friends too.

[twincitizen]

Not sure where where else to put this. Via @wedgelive on Twitter, a really good article about neighborhood politics & development in Seattle
http://thecisforcrank.com/2015/06/30/th ... d-council/

[bubzki2]

This really is some top-notch journalism and citizenry. (This is on the far outskirts of Rochester)

http://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/ ... 62394.html

[FISHMANPET]

Guys, serious question: is it worth arguing with the "unwashed masses" when it comes to housing (and I realize I'm being offensive and dismissive of people by using that term but that's kind of my point).

I mean, for one, I'm not talking about basically anybody that cares enough to post here, regardless of what your opinions are. And certainly the likes of MRRDC and other such organizations, even if I totally disagree with them, I can tell they're at least attempting to be engaged with the issue.

But every time someone proposes a building (and this seems to be happening a lot with the towers north of downtown) City Pages or some such organization posts something to Facebook and people universally start bitching about "we don't need condos" when basically every word they've said is factually untrue.

So like, these people are really not engaged with the issue in any meaningful way other than the default human impulse to dislike change. Is it worth engaging with these people? I mean, what's the point in one person trying to debate 100 people with varying spelling and grammar skills. Are we gonna change any minds in the City Pages comment section? Are those 100 people going to have any real impact on the process?

I'm engaged here, I'm engaged with my neighborhood organization, I'm engaged with city councilors. I'm making a difference. Are they?

[Silophant]

It's super not.

[EOst]

I would be very surprised if any of those people took the time to be engaged in the process in any way that took more effort than a Change.org petition.

[trigonalmayhem]

Great example: the people who think stopping the apartment development where Nye's is will somehow result in the bar staying open and nothing changing.

[twincitizen]

A field guide to Chicago NIMBYs: http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2015 ... go-nimbys/

[FISHMANPET]

lol at BEASTS.

[seanrichardryan]

Isn't at least half of this forum made up of BEASTs?

[EOst]