Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1760
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby amiller92 » July 28th, 2016, 12:58 pm

I too am disappointed with all the gray cement, but I think MNdible is right about why it's the way. Nearly all of it will be behind the security line on game days, so they didn't want any obstructions to setting up the cordone. I'd assume they will put temporary stuff out to provide the vaunted "game day experience" for their ticketholders, but it awfully bare for the remaining 355 days of the year.

VikingFaninMaryland
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 128
Joined: July 24th, 2015, 7:27 pm

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby VikingFaninMaryland » July 28th, 2016, 6:38 pm

MNdible wrote:FMP, part of our misunderstanding apparently was that I always believed that the bridge didn't preclude the center platform, so we were talking a bit at cross purposes I think.

I'd have been happy to see the skyway connection eliminated. I think that it's inelegant and ridiculously out of scale as it pierces the stadium facade, and the VIP-exclusivity always struck me as icky. Hopefully it will look less weird if those Wilf blocks get redeveloped.

Anyway.
The skyway to the stadium isn't exclusive for VIPs.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5832
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby MNdible » July 28th, 2016, 8:36 pm

That may be technically true (or it may not, reports on this have been thin and contradictory). But we can look at the building plans, and wonder how many of the unwashed masses they'll be able to shuffle through the back hallway that connects between the VIP area where the skyway lands and the main seating bowl.

If Lester whispered into your ear that it's indeed open for all, it will be fascinating to see how well things work on the first cold December game.

PhilmerPhil
Moderator
Posts: 1207
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 11:38 am
Location: SOUP: SOuth UPtown

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby PhilmerPhil » July 28th, 2016, 9:03 pm

The grey concrete plaza was pretty active tonight. Would be even better if we threw some movable wooden boxes and flatbars in there and then put them in storage on non event days!

https://twitter.com/philmrphil/status/7 ... 2234431488

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1760
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby amiller92 » July 29th, 2016, 8:56 am

Would be nice if they'd stopping putting temporary fencing and whatnot in the bike lanes.

Also, I don't understand the temporary fencing that's currently up on the south side. If they need fencing there for events, why wasn't it part of the design?

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4760
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby David Greene » July 29th, 2016, 3:09 pm

PhilmerPhil wrote:The grey concrete plaza was pretty active tonight. Would be even better if we threw some movable wooden boxes and flatbars in there and then put them in storage on non event days!

https://twitter.com/philmrphil/status/7 ... 2234431488
This get-off-my-lawner thinks this is an excellent idea. This is the kind of place that *should* be a skate park!

J2K
Metrodome
Posts: 86
Joined: January 10th, 2013, 5:11 pm

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby J2K » July 29th, 2016, 3:11 pm

This will be kind of like a skate park already with all the stairs and hand rails! Just wait until the skaters swing by, I bet they'll be there all the time.

VikingFaninMaryland
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 128
Joined: July 24th, 2015, 7:27 pm

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby VikingFaninMaryland » July 29th, 2016, 4:30 pm

MNdible wrote:That may be technically true (or it may not, reports on this have been thin and contradictory). But we can look at the building plans, and wonder how many of the unwashed masses they'll be able to shuffle through the back hallway that connects between the VIP area where the skyway lands and the main seating bowl.

If Lester whispered into your ear that it's indeed open for all, it will be fascinating to see how well things work on the first cold December game.
I don't need advise from Lester. The Skyway to the stadium is apart of the Minneapolis Skyway system. The stadium is also capable - and designed to support - a second skyway access point along the south side. The problem is that with the Armory and juvenal detention facility, linking up to the larger skyway system has hit at least a temporary dead end.

twinkess
Rice Park
Posts: 478
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:46 am

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby twinkess » July 29th, 2016, 6:20 pm

It isn't open for all. My buddy has season tickets for the new stadium. He checked and isn't able to use it.

uncle phil
Metrodome
Posts: 87
Joined: March 21st, 2014, 11:46 am

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby uncle phil » July 29th, 2016, 10:48 pm

"Skyway System
The Skyway will be open for all U.S. Bank Stadium events. Event hours for the skyway are subject to change based on the event. The Daily Hours for the Skyway are:

Monday – Friday | 6:30 AM – 10:00 PM
Saturday | 9:30 AM – 8:00 PM
Sunday | Noon (12:00 PM) – 6:00 PM
For major events held at the stadium, the skyway system will be opened for extended hours to ensure all guests get home safely."

Archiapolis
Foshay Tower
Posts: 818
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby Archiapolis » August 2nd, 2016, 9:25 am

VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Do you want some cheese with that whine? An “abomination”? Really? For such a pedestrian looking bridge (pun intended), that's a little strong don't you think?
Good burn. Added points for implying mental illness is at work with the “dissociation” diagnosis and attributing it to those who don’t agree with you. I don’t know if I can produce such burns but I’ll see if I can meet your level of contempt…

An abomination is a thing that causes disgust or hatred. I’m disgusted by the fact that this project used one penny of public money and thus, I hate it - seems like an apt usage of the word to me.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: The DTE development is an immediate consequence of U.S. Bank Stadium being built. When planning could have been done - long before the planning of the stadium - you were looking at an island of surface parking lots and run down (and soon to be abandoned) buildings - (StarTribune / the Metrodome?). On a good day in the City planning offices, the future of DTE was grim. People then could not be held to account for what was not known that was not on the planning horizon (until the Wilf’s decided to build on the Metrodome - a decision which initiated the DTE boom). [The clinical term associated with those who refuse to attribute the revitalization of DTE to the Wilf's decision is "dissociation".] Those responsible for transportation today had to work with what they had - a site with severe engineering constraints owing to the necessity of doing everything on a parking ramp roof.
Sorry to ruin your narrative but let me just address something right off of the bat: I support/ed the building of the stadium.

I am aware that this is an unpopular position on this thread but it’s been stated somewhere above and I’ll own up to this fact. As all of this is well-trod territory, I’m not going to fully retread it. However, circa 2010 when the stadium was being debated my profession (architecture) was still in deep trouble and I actively advocated for the stadium as I supported ANYTHING that might spur design/construction in this city. Credit to the Wilf’s for recognizing their leverage position with the government agencies and using the sputtering economy to their advantage. We can (and should) question the financing and the public money used for the stadium especially in terms of equity/social justice. Putting aside the terms of the deal and the resultant design (and the design of other recent construction), it can’t be argued that DTE hasn’t seen a massive surge in design/construction work in this city. Sorry to create cognitive dissonance for you but it IS possible to support things in principle and not love EVERY single aspect of that thing. I supported the design/construction of the stadium. I opposed the design/construction of the bridge to nowhere and I adamantly opposed using Met Council money to construct it.

As has been well-established, I’m an idealist and I advocate for BEST outcomes; I’m not so far gone that I can’t *understand* pragmatism (even if I don’t agree with it) . In this case, I’m very frustrated that more comprehensive design thinking was not applied to this station. While the stadium was being proposed, a lot of development plans for DTE were being discussed and proposed concurrently. It didn’t take extraordinary understanding to see that this station should have been rethought given the possible (likely) outcomes.

As soon as stadium design and development plans started to emerge in downtown east, Met Council should have done preliminary design/cost estimating etc to put the train in a tunnel or to put people in a tunnel. I understand the Wilf’s had the city/county/state over a barrel on the financing but the public entities should have been looking for ANY negotiating points and this station/line was a missed opportunity. Imagine if every Wilf penny put into the bridge had been applied to alterations to this line/station and Met Council money had been used (sparingly if needed) to augment it?

As FISHMANPET has pointed out, everything that has happened at this station as a result of poor planning solidifies the status quo which only locks this “design” in further.

As for the existing building, your assertion that designers had to “do everything on a parking ramp roof” is patented false. Are you an engineer? Are you an architect? Have you seen the drawings of the existing building? I worked on a proposal for the parking ramp site back when the public was being led to believe the stadium was being pursued in Arden Hills. I had preliminary drawings for the downtown Vikings stadium in my hand/on our server as well as existing drawings for the parking ramp while the Vikings were still “negotiating”. I modeled a proposed building on this site, including plaza work etc that accounted for the train station so I’m very aware of what is there. I understand what it would take to alter the existing building (which I mentioned way up thread) - it would have been expensive/not easy but given the outcome that we currently have, I would rather have spent more money to tunnel the train or tunnel the humans and I would have preferred that the Vikings would have paid for the alterations required to do so, or that the government agencies would have negotiated a deal befitting an investment in the city/region, not just the Vikings.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Unless it ends up being too small, the pedestrian bridge is appropriate for its intended use and properly scaled for its known purpose. And the Vikings paid for the pedestrian bridge (the whiney narrative on waisted taxpayer dollars has become such a Pavlovian conditioned response that people can’t help but say otherwise - even when its not true).
Your funding assessment is false, as has been proven so please save the “whiney” accusations. If you want to insult people then at LEAST try to use facts to support your position.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: The decision to built the pedestrian bridge was based on projected usage patterns when the US Bank transit station is pegged to serve as (a hoped for and planned) central release/pick-up point for up to 40% of those attending Viking games (or other large-scaled planned events) through the LR system. That's up to 20,000 people in a constricted location in a reasonably tight period of time. In that scenario, the large movement of people alongside the ongoing movement of LR trains running in both directions at 90 second intervals would cause a substantial disruption in the ability to move both people and trains - all at a time when there will be high volumes of road traffic running in all directions - with large parking ramps emptying out into traffic in the immediate vicinity.
Sounds like you are describing a location with complexity in usage, programs, and development potential that would require comprehensive transit design - too bad that didn’t happen.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: And folks here feign not recognizing the need of such a bridge to take pressure off an easily recognizable choke point? Really? I’m happy for you that forums like this exist where you can pretend that such considerations are confabulations of the mind to at least some who are willing to entertain that view. But to keep from not being laughed out of a room, don’t attend any forums where traffic flow professionals - both government and private sector - attend. (I’m looking out for you)
Please stop “looking out for [me].” Suffice to say that often engineering “solutions” exist that are purely utilitarian in nature that represent no creativity, comprehensive thinking or best outcomes. Exhibit A: This bridge.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Not accounting for such a recognized choke point would undermine the timely movement and flow of people, trains and road traffic. This in turn would undermine the desirability of using the LRT for game purposes.
Again, it sounds like you are making an argument for a comprehensive approach that should have occurred concurrently with the stadium design and DTE development potential - too bad that didn’t happen and we are instead left with this “accounting” solution.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: In situations where you expect to have large volumes of people alongside 90 second to 2 minute intervals wrt to trains, central platforms can cause substantial congestion. [/b]The bridge is not for those days when there is average, distributed and dispersed usage, but for those times when there will be a crush of people alongside a coordinated transit plan to move large volumes of people to and from the game where issues of transferring trains will not be an issue at that node at that time.


Sounds like you are coming around to why this bridge is almost completely unnecessary and only useful for the Vikings. The Vikings should listen to your argument and write the Met Council a check to reimburse their contribution.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote:
The decision to build the pedestrian bridge was based on the findings of transportation studies undertaken in conjunction with traffic flow studies leading to the building of the stadium along with known flow patterns where transportation nodes are effectively co-located with sports facilities. The MTC endorsed those findings. Having said that, the findings are also a “duh” and one suspects the hyper reactive hostility is simply yet another outlet for those who hate the stadium and the Wilf’s - and want yet another place to vent. What type of cheese with that whine?


I’ve already addressed the fact that the narrative that you are choosing regarding the source of my “hostility” is misguided. It sounds like you have special knowledge regarding the timeline of this bridge design though. I’d love to see support for your claim that “…transportation studies [were] undertaken in conjunction with traffic flow studies leading to the building of the stadium…” If you can show evidence that there was indeed comprehensive thought regarding interaction between the LRT and everything else that was proposed in this area and, most importantly, that such thought/study/design led to this “solution” then that would actually counter my arguments that it *appears* that no thought was put into the LRT and that the bridge is an expensive after thought.

If you are able to produce support that is specific to the timeline of the design/consideration for this bridge then I’d be happy to direct my ire at Met Council/transportation planning for this failure. If you just want to insult people without basis then I guess go ahead because freedom but unless you actually support your position with evidence, then you open your argument up to ridicule.

VikingFaninMaryland wrote:
As pedestrian walkways go, it’s mildly above average. As far as it relevance in the scheme of the plan, it is completely defensible.


Wrong. See above.

Mcgizz
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 144
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 11:08 pm

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby Mcgizz » August 2nd, 2016, 12:15 pm

Image

beige_box
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 104
Joined: April 24th, 2015, 6:22 pm

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby beige_box » August 2nd, 2016, 4:50 pm

For those just joining the conversation, TL;DR is as follows:

The design elements of a pedestrian bridge...

(which connects to a stadium wherein men [mostly of color] will be required to give each other traumatic brain injuries as a form of mass entertainment, built to help facilitate the translation of the collective symbolic value of Downtown East into monetizable exchange value in the real estate market, and, eventually, perpetual rent-based wealth extraction that in theory will offer steady ROIs to investors despite providing only negligible tangible increases in overall production or employment levels, as well as due to a lack of viable alternatives for sustaining a construction industry and full employment under the reigning politico-financial system–a politico-financial system which increasingly relies on [displacement-driven] speculative real estate hocus-pocus in order to fulfill its growth imperatives and mitigate its fundamental crisis for a few more years, and which has global environmental catastrophe as its teleological horizon)

...may or may not reflect VERY poor foresight by planners.

Mcgizz
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 144
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 11:08 pm

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby Mcgizz » August 2nd, 2016, 7:00 pm

See my previous post.

User avatar
MN Fats
Union Depot
Posts: 312
Joined: July 23rd, 2014, 2:32 pm
Location: Mill District

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby MN Fats » August 2nd, 2016, 8:44 pm

For major events held at the stadium, the skyway system will be opened for extended hours to ensure all guests get home safely.
Is there anything to stop Wells Fargo from saying "lol, no" and just shutting down their skyway at the normal time?

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3833
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby Silophant » August 2nd, 2016, 10:51 pm

Not unless they've signed some agreement. Hopefully they have, since the Vikings kinda threw away any corporate goodwill they might have had from WF.

But, even WF keeping their skyways open only gets people to the Radisson Red and the city ramps. Getting elsewhere on a Sunday evening also requires cooperation from USBank, and Thrivent, and Centurylink, and Capella... it's almost like having a patchwork of private entities owning a transportation network isn't an ideal situation.

User avatar
mister.shoes
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1287
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby mister.shoes » August 2nd, 2016, 11:52 pm

You know what would be awesome? Street-level routes. Think about THAT for a minute. Whoa.
The problem with being an introvert online is that no one knows you're just hanging out and listening.

VikingFaninMaryland
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 128
Joined: July 24th, 2015, 7:27 pm

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby VikingFaninMaryland » August 3rd, 2016, 12:52 am

Archiapolis wrote:
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Do you want some cheese with that whine? An “abomination”? Really? For such a pedestrian looking bridge (pun intended), that's a little strong don't you think?
Good burn. Added points for implying mental illness is at work with the “dissociation” diagnosis and attributing it to those who don’t agree with you. I don’t know if I can produce such burns but I’ll see if I can meet your level of contempt…

An abomination is a thing that causes disgust or hatred. I’m disgusted by the fact that this project used one penny of public money and thus, I hate it - seems like an apt usage of the word to me.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: The DTE development is an immediate consequence of U.S. Bank Stadium being built. When planning could have been done - long before the planning of the stadium - you were looking at an island of surface parking lots and run down (and soon to be abandoned) buildings - (StarTribune / the Metrodome?). On a good day in the City planning offices, the future of DTE was grim. People then could not be held to account for what was not known that was not on the planning horizon (until the Wilf’s decided to build on the Metrodome - a decision which initiated the DTE boom). [The clinical term associated with those who refuse to attribute the revitalization of DTE to the Wilf's decision is "dissociation".] Those responsible for transportation today had to work with what they had - a site with severe engineering constraints owing to the necessity of doing everything on a parking ramp roof.
Sorry to ruin your narrative but let me just address something right off of the bat: I support/ed the building of the stadium.

I am aware that this is an unpopular position on this thread but it’s been stated somewhere above and I’ll own up to this fact. As all of this is well-trod territory, I’m not going to fully retread it. However, circa 2010 when the stadium was being debated my profession (architecture) was still in deep trouble and I actively advocated for the stadium as I supported ANYTHING that might spur design/construction in this city. Credit to the Wilf’s for recognizing their leverage position with the government agencies and using the sputtering economy to their advantage. We can (and should) question the financing and the public money used for the stadium especially in terms of equity/social justice. Putting aside the terms of the deal and the resultant design (and the design of other recent construction), it can’t be argued that DTE hasn’t seen a massive surge in design/construction work in this city. Sorry to create cognitive dissonance for you but it IS possible to support things in principle and not love EVERY single aspect of that thing. I supported the design/construction of the stadium. I opposed the design/construction of the bridge to nowhere and I adamantly opposed using Met Council money to construct it.

As has been well-established, I’m an idealist and I advocate for BEST outcomes; I’m not so far gone that I can’t *understand* pragmatism (even if I don’t agree with it) . In this case, I’m very frustrated that more comprehensive design thinking was not applied to this station. While the stadium was being proposed, a lot of development plans for DTE were being discussed and proposed concurrently. It didn’t take extraordinary understanding to see that this station should have been rethought given the possible (likely) outcomes.

As soon as stadium design and development plans started to emerge in downtown east, Met Council should have done preliminary design/cost estimating etc to put the train in a tunnel or to put people in a tunnel. I understand the Wilf’s had the city/county/state over a barrel on the financing but the public entities should have been looking for ANY negotiating points and this station/line was a missed opportunity. Imagine if every Wilf penny put into the bridge had been applied to alterations to this line/station and Met Council money had been used (sparingly if needed) to augment it?

As FISHMANPET has pointed out, everything that has happened at this station as a result of poor planning solidifies the status quo which only locks this “design” in further.

As for the existing building, your assertion that designers had to “do everything on a parking ramp roof” is patented false. Are you an engineer? Are you an architect? Have you seen the drawings of the existing building? I worked on a proposal for the parking ramp site back when the public was being led to believe the stadium was being pursued in Arden Hills. I had preliminary drawings for the downtown Vikings stadium in my hand/on our server as well as existing drawings for the parking ramp while the Vikings were still “negotiating”. I modeled a proposed building on this site, including plaza work etc that accounted for the train station so I’m very aware of what is there. I understand what it would take to alter the existing building (which I mentioned way up thread) - it would have been expensive/not easy but given the outcome that we currently have, I would rather have spent more money to tunnel the train or tunnel the humans and I would have preferred that the Vikings would have paid for the alterations required to do so, or that the government agencies would have negotiated a deal befitting an investment in the city/region, not just the Vikings.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Unless it ends up being too small, the pedestrian bridge is appropriate for its intended use and properly scaled for its known purpose. And the Vikings paid for the pedestrian bridge (the whiney narrative on waisted taxpayer dollars has become such a Pavlovian conditioned response that people can’t help but say otherwise - even when its not true).
Your funding assessment is false, as has been proven so please save the “whiney” accusations. If you want to insult people then at LEAST try to use facts to support your position.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: The decision to built the pedestrian bridge was based on projected usage patterns when the US Bank transit station is pegged to serve as (a hoped for and planned) central release/pick-up point for up to 40% of those attending Viking games (or other large-scaled planned events) through the LR system. That's up to 20,000 people in a constricted location in a reasonably tight period of time. In that scenario, the large movement of people alongside the ongoing movement of LR trains running in both directions at 90 second intervals would cause a substantial disruption in the ability to move both people and trains - all at a time when there will be high volumes of road traffic running in all directions - with large parking ramps emptying out into traffic in the immediate vicinity.
Sounds like you are describing a location with complexity in usage, programs, and development potential that would require comprehensive transit design - too bad that didn’t happen.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: And folks here feign not recognizing the need of such a bridge to take pressure off an easily recognizable choke point? Really? I’m happy for you that forums like this exist where you can pretend that such considerations are confabulations of the mind to at least some who are willing to entertain that view. But to keep from not being laughed out of a room, don’t attend any forums where traffic flow professionals - both government and private sector - attend. (I’m looking out for you)
Please stop “looking out for [me].” Suffice to say that often engineering “solutions” exist that are purely utilitarian in nature that represent no creativity, comprehensive thinking or best outcomes. Exhibit A: This bridge.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Not accounting for such a recognized choke point would undermine the timely movement and flow of people, trains and road traffic. This in turn would undermine the desirability of using the LRT for game purposes.
Again, it sounds like you are making an argument for a comprehensive approach that should have occurred concurrently with the stadium design and DTE development potential - too bad that didn’t happen and we are instead left with this “accounting” solution.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: In situations where you expect to have large volumes of people alongside 90 second to 2 minute intervals wrt to trains, central platforms can cause substantial congestion. [/b]The bridge is not for those days when there is average, distributed and dispersed usage, but for those times when there will be a crush of people alongside a coordinated transit plan to move large volumes of people to and from the game where issues of transferring trains will not be an issue at that node at that time.


Sounds like you are coming around to why this bridge is almost completely unnecessary and only useful for the Vikings. The Vikings should listen to your argument and write the Met Council a check to reimburse their contribution.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote:
The decision to build the pedestrian bridge was based on the findings of transportation studies undertaken in conjunction with traffic flow studies leading to the building of the stadium along with known flow patterns where transportation nodes are effectively co-located with sports facilities. The MTC endorsed those findings. Having said that, the findings are also a “duh” and one suspects the hyper reactive hostility is simply yet another outlet for those who hate the stadium and the Wilf’s - and want yet another place to vent. What type of cheese with that whine?


I’ve already addressed the fact that the narrative that you are choosing regarding the source of my “hostility” is misguided. It sounds like you have special knowledge regarding the timeline of this bridge design though. I’d love to see support for your claim that “…transportation studies [were] undertaken in conjunction with traffic flow studies leading to the building of the stadium…” If you can show evidence that there was indeed comprehensive thought regarding interaction between the LRT and everything else that was proposed in this area and, most importantly, that such thought/study/design led to this “solution” then that would actually counter my arguments that it *appears* that no thought was put into the LRT and that the bridge is an expensive after thought.

If you are able to produce support that is specific to the timeline of the design/consideration for this bridge then I’d be happy to direct my ire at Met Council/transportation planning for this failure. If you just want to insult people without basis then I guess go ahead because freedom but unless you actually support your position with evidence, then you open your argument up to ridicule.

VikingFaninMaryland wrote:
As pedestrian walkways go, it’s mildly above average. As far as it relevance in the scheme of the plan, it is completely defensible.


Wrong. See above.


With the exceptions that 1) the Vikings paid for over 60% (and not all) and 2) that you were in favor of the stadium, I stand by my comments.

The bridge was built to service very large events at the stadium which generally will be Viking games but will also include other events for a facility that is owned by a government entity with a mandate to bring in large events to a downtown area. The bridge will meet that requirement. The idea that the MSFA and Vikings should have to completely re-engineer an existing functional facility at substantial costs amounting to multiples of what the bridge alone costs in order to meet an idealized "perfect world" vision is interesting. I agree that the the area looks cluttered but I also think the main culprit is uncommonly ugly transit arched structure.

Had the land been undeveloped and the designers been given a clean palette to work with, I think there would have been many better options. But they had to work with what they were given and they came up with a serviceable solution.

I've seen some pretty ugly pedestrian bridges. As they go, this one is is okay. But your comments on it being an "abomination" are not based on its looks but rather on your feelings about it [". . . causes disgust or hatred. I’m disgusted by the fact that this project used one penny of public money and thus, I hate it . . ."]. I get it. That's why I think you should have some cheese . . .

Also, do your own research on the planning studies.

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2436
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby Didier » August 3rd, 2016, 6:58 am

VikingFaninMaryland wrote:
Archiapolis wrote:
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Do you want some cheese with that whine? An “abomination”? Really? For such a pedestrian looking bridge (pun intended), that's a little strong don't you think?
Good burn. Added points for implying mental illness is at work with the “dissociation” diagnosis and attributing it to those who don’t agree with you. I don’t know if I can produce such burns but I’ll see if I can meet your level of contempt…

An abomination is a thing that causes disgust or hatred. I’m disgusted by the fact that this project used one penny of public money and thus, I hate it - seems like an apt usage of the word to me.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: The DTE development is an immediate consequence of U.S. Bank Stadium being built. When planning could have been done - long before the planning of the stadium - you were looking at an island of surface parking lots and run down (and soon to be abandoned) buildings - (StarTribune / the Metrodome?). On a good day in the City planning offices, the future of DTE was grim. People then could not be held to account for what was not known that was not on the planning horizon (until the Wilf’s decided to build on the Metrodome - a decision which initiated the DTE boom). [The clinical term associated with those who refuse to attribute the revitalization of DTE to the Wilf's decision is "dissociation".] Those responsible for transportation today had to work with what they had - a site with severe engineering constraints owing to the necessity of doing everything on a parking ramp roof.
Sorry to ruin your narrative but let me just address something right off of the bat: I support/ed the building of the stadium.

I am aware that this is an unpopular position on this thread but it’s been stated somewhere above and I’ll own up to this fact. As all of this is well-trod territory, I’m not going to fully retread it. However, circa 2010 when the stadium was being debated my profession (architecture) was still in deep trouble and I actively advocated for the stadium as I supported ANYTHING that might spur design/construction in this city. Credit to the Wilf’s for recognizing their leverage position with the government agencies and using the sputtering economy to their advantage. We can (and should) question the financing and the public money used for the stadium especially in terms of equity/social justice. Putting aside the terms of the deal and the resultant design (and the design of other recent construction), it can’t be argued that DTE hasn’t seen a massive surge in design/construction work in this city. Sorry to create cognitive dissonance for you but it IS possible to support things in principle and not love EVERY single aspect of that thing. I supported the design/construction of the stadium. I opposed the design/construction of the bridge to nowhere and I adamantly opposed using Met Council money to construct it.

As has been well-established, I’m an idealist and I advocate for BEST outcomes; I’m not so far gone that I can’t *understand* pragmatism (even if I don’t agree with it) . In this case, I’m very frustrated that more comprehensive design thinking was not applied to this station. While the stadium was being proposed, a lot of development plans for DTE were being discussed and proposed concurrently. It didn’t take extraordinary understanding to see that this station should have been rethought given the possible (likely) outcomes.

As soon as stadium design and development plans started to emerge in downtown east, Met Council should have done preliminary design/cost estimating etc to put the train in a tunnel or to put people in a tunnel. I understand the Wilf’s had the city/county/state over a barrel on the financing but the public entities should have been looking for ANY negotiating points and this station/line was a missed opportunity. Imagine if every Wilf penny put into the bridge had been applied to alterations to this line/station and Met Council money had been used (sparingly if needed) to augment it?

As FISHMANPET has pointed out, everything that has happened at this station as a result of poor planning solidifies the status quo which only locks this “design” in further.

As for the existing building, your assertion that designers had to “do everything on a parking ramp roof” is patented false. Are you an engineer? Are you an architect? Have you seen the drawings of the existing building? I worked on a proposal for the parking ramp site back when the public was being led to believe the stadium was being pursued in Arden Hills. I had preliminary drawings for the downtown Vikings stadium in my hand/on our server as well as existing drawings for the parking ramp while the Vikings were still “negotiating”. I modeled a proposed building on this site, including plaza work etc that accounted for the train station so I’m very aware of what is there. I understand what it would take to alter the existing building (which I mentioned way up thread) - it would have been expensive/not easy but given the outcome that we currently have, I would rather have spent more money to tunnel the train or tunnel the humans and I would have preferred that the Vikings would have paid for the alterations required to do so, or that the government agencies would have negotiated a deal befitting an investment in the city/region, not just the Vikings.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Unless it ends up being too small, the pedestrian bridge is appropriate for its intended use and properly scaled for its known purpose. And the Vikings paid for the pedestrian bridge (the whiney narrative on waisted taxpayer dollars has become such a Pavlovian conditioned response that people can’t help but say otherwise - even when its not true).
Your funding assessment is false, as has been proven so please save the “whiney” accusations. If you want to insult people then at LEAST try to use facts to support your position.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: The decision to built the pedestrian bridge was based on projected usage patterns when the US Bank transit station is pegged to serve as (a hoped for and planned) central release/pick-up point for up to 40% of those attending Viking games (or other large-scaled planned events) through the LR system. That's up to 20,000 people in a constricted location in a reasonably tight period of time. In that scenario, the large movement of people alongside the ongoing movement of LR trains running in both directions at 90 second intervals would cause a substantial disruption in the ability to move both people and trains - all at a time when there will be high volumes of road traffic running in all directions - with large parking ramps emptying out into traffic in the immediate vicinity.
Sounds like you are describing a location with complexity in usage, programs, and development potential that would require comprehensive transit design - too bad that didn’t happen.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: And folks here feign not recognizing the need of such a bridge to take pressure off an easily recognizable choke point? Really? I’m happy for you that forums like this exist where you can pretend that such considerations are confabulations of the mind to at least some who are willing to entertain that view. But to keep from not being laughed out of a room, don’t attend any forums where traffic flow professionals - both government and private sector - attend. (I’m looking out for you)
Please stop “looking out for [me].” Suffice to say that often engineering “solutions” exist that are purely utilitarian in nature that represent no creativity, comprehensive thinking or best outcomes. Exhibit A: This bridge.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Not accounting for such a recognized choke point would undermine the timely movement and flow of people, trains and road traffic. This in turn would undermine the desirability of using the LRT for game purposes.
Again, it sounds like you are making an argument for a comprehensive approach that should have occurred concurrently with the stadium design and DTE development potential - too bad that didn’t happen and we are instead left with this “accounting” solution.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: In situations where you expect to have large volumes of people alongside 90 second to 2 minute intervals wrt to trains, central platforms can cause substantial congestion. [/b]The bridge is not for those days when there is average, distributed and dispersed usage, but for those times when there will be a crush of people alongside a coordinated transit plan to move large volumes of people to and from the game where issues of transferring trains will not be an issue at that node at that time.


Sounds like you are coming around to why this bridge is almost completely unnecessary and only useful for the Vikings. The Vikings should listen to your argument and write the Met Council a check to reimburse their contribution.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote:
The decision to build the pedestrian bridge was based on the findings of transportation studies undertaken in conjunction with traffic flow studies leading to the building of the stadium along with known flow patterns where transportation nodes are effectively co-located with sports facilities. The MTC endorsed those findings. Having said that, the findings are also a “duh” and one suspects the hyper reactive hostility is simply yet another outlet for those who hate the stadium and the Wilf’s - and want yet another place to vent. What type of cheese with that whine?


I’ve already addressed the fact that the narrative that you are choosing regarding the source of my “hostility” is misguided. It sounds like you have special knowledge regarding the timeline of this bridge design though. I’d love to see support for your claim that “…transportation studies [were] undertaken in conjunction with traffic flow studies leading to the building of the stadium…” If you can show evidence that there was indeed comprehensive thought regarding interaction between the LRT and everything else that was proposed in this area and, most importantly, that such thought/study/design led to this “solution” then that would actually counter my arguments that it *appears* that no thought was put into the LRT and that the bridge is an expensive after thought.

If you are able to produce support that is specific to the timeline of the design/consideration for this bridge then I’d be happy to direct my ire at Met Council/transportation planning for this failure. If you just want to insult people without basis then I guess go ahead because freedom but unless you actually support your position with evidence, then you open your argument up to ridicule.

VikingFaninMaryland wrote:
As pedestrian walkways go, it’s mildly above average. As far as it relevance in the scheme of the plan, it is completely defensible.


Wrong. See above.


With the exceptions that 1) the Vikings paid for over 60% (and not all) and 2) that you were in favor of the stadium, I stand by my comments.

The bridge was built to service very large events at the stadium which generally will be Viking games but will also include other events for a facility that is owned by a government entity with a mandate to bring in large events to a downtown area. The bridge will meet that requirement. The idea that the MSFA and Vikings should have to completely re-engineer an existing functional facility at substantial costs amounting to multiples of what the bridge alone costs in order to meet an idealized "perfect world" vision is interesting. I agree that the the area looks cluttered but I also think the main culprit is uncommonly ugly transit arched structure.

Had the land been undeveloped and the designers been given a clean palette to work with, I think there would have been many better options. But they had to work with what they were given and they came up with a serviceable solution.

I've seen some pretty ugly pedestrian bridges. As they go, this one is is okay. But your comments on it being an "abomination" are not based on its looks but rather on your feelings about it [". . . causes disgust or hatred. I’m disgusted by the fact that this project used one penny of public money and thus, I hate it . . ."]. I get it. That's why I think you should have some cheese . . .

Also, do your own research on the planning studies.


+/- 1

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3940
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Stadium LRT Station, Ped Bridge & Plaza (MSFA block)

Postby seanrichardryan » August 3rd, 2016, 7:08 am

VikingFaninMaryland wrote:
Archiapolis wrote:
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Do you want some cheese with that whine? An “abomination”? Really? For such a pedestrian looking bridge (pun intended), that's a little strong don't you think?
Good burn. Added points for implying mental illness is at work with the “dissociation” diagnosis and attributing it to those who don’t agree with you. I don’t know if I can produce such burns but I’ll see if I can meet your level of contempt…

An abomination is a thing that causes disgust or hatred. I’m disgusted by the fact that this project used one penny of public money and thus, I hate it - seems like an apt usage of the word to me.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: The DTE development is an immediate consequence of U.S. Bank Stadium being built. When planning could have been done - long before the planning of the stadium - you were looking at an island of surface parking lots and run down (and soon to be abandoned) buildings - (StarTribune / the Metrodome?). On a good day in the City planning offices, the future of DTE was grim. People then could not be held to account for what was not known that was not on the planning horizon (until the Wilf’s decided to build on the Metrodome - a decision which initiated the DTE boom). [The clinical term associated with those who refuse to attribute the revitalization of DTE to the Wilf's decision is "dissociation".] Those responsible for transportation today had to work with what they had - a site with severe engineering constraints owing to the necessity of doing everything on a parking ramp roof.
Sorry to ruin your narrative but let me just address something right off of the bat: I support/ed the building of the stadium.

I am aware that this is an unpopular position on this thread but it’s been stated somewhere above and I’ll own up to this fact. As all of this is well-trod territory, I’m not going to fully retread it. However, circa 2010 when the stadium was being debated my profession (architecture) was still in deep trouble and I actively advocated for the stadium as I supported ANYTHING that might spur design/construction in this city. Credit to the Wilf’s for recognizing their leverage position with the government agencies and using the sputtering economy to their advantage. We can (and should) question the financing and the public money used for the stadium especially in terms of equity/social justice. Putting aside the terms of the deal and the resultant design (and the design of other recent construction), it can’t be argued that DTE hasn’t seen a massive surge in design/construction work in this city. Sorry to create cognitive dissonance for you but it IS possible to support things in principle and not love EVERY single aspect of that thing. I supported the design/construction of the stadium. I opposed the design/construction of the bridge to nowhere and I adamantly opposed using Met Council money to construct it.

As has been well-established, I’m an idealist and I advocate for BEST outcomes; I’m not so far gone that I can’t *understand* pragmatism (even if I don’t agree with it) . In this case, I’m very frustrated that more comprehensive design thinking was not applied to this station. While the stadium was being proposed, a lot of development plans for DTE were being discussed and proposed concurrently. It didn’t take extraordinary understanding to see that this station should have been rethought given the possible (likely) outcomes.

As soon as stadium design and development plans started to emerge in downtown east, Met Council should have done preliminary design/cost estimating etc to put the train in a tunnel or to put people in a tunnel. I understand the Wilf’s had the city/county/state over a barrel on the financing but the public entities should have been looking for ANY negotiating points and this station/line was a missed opportunity. Imagine if every Wilf penny put into the bridge had been applied to alterations to this line/station and Met Council money had been used (sparingly if needed) to augment it?

As FISHMANPET has pointed out, everything that has happened at this station as a result of poor planning solidifies the status quo which only locks this “design” in further.

As for the existing building, your assertion that designers had to “do everything on a parking ramp roof” is patented false. Are you an engineer? Are you an architect? Have you seen the drawings of the existing building? I worked on a proposal for the parking ramp site back when the public was being led to believe the stadium was being pursued in Arden Hills. I had preliminary drawings for the downtown Vikings stadium in my hand/on our server as well as existing drawings for the parking ramp while the Vikings were still “negotiating”. I modeled a proposed building on this site, including plaza work etc that accounted for the train station so I’m very aware of what is there. I understand what it would take to alter the existing building (which I mentioned way up thread) - it would have been expensive/not easy but given the outcome that we currently have, I would rather have spent more money to tunnel the train or tunnel the humans and I would have preferred that the Vikings would have paid for the alterations required to do so, or that the government agencies would have negotiated a deal befitting an investment in the city/region, not just the Vikings.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Unless it ends up being too small, the pedestrian bridge is appropriate for its intended use and properly scaled for its known purpose. And the Vikings paid for the pedestrian bridge (the whiney narrative on waisted taxpayer dollars has become such a Pavlovian conditioned response that people can’t help but say otherwise - even when its not true).
Your funding assessment is false, as has been proven so please save the “whiney” accusations. If you want to insult people then at LEAST try to use facts to support your position.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: The decision to built the pedestrian bridge was based on projected usage patterns when the US Bank transit station is pegged to serve as (a hoped for and planned) central release/pick-up point for up to 40% of those attending Viking games (or other large-scaled planned events) through the LR system. That's up to 20,000 people in a constricted location in a reasonably tight period of time. In that scenario, the large movement of people alongside the ongoing movement of LR trains running in both directions at 90 second intervals would cause a substantial disruption in the ability to move both people and trains - all at a time when there will be high volumes of road traffic running in all directions - with large parking ramps emptying out into traffic in the immediate vicinity.
Sounds like you are describing a location with complexity in usage, programs, and development potential that would require comprehensive transit design - too bad that didn’t happen.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: And folks here feign not recognizing the need of such a bridge to take pressure off an easily recognizable choke point? Really? I’m happy for you that forums like this exist where you can pretend that such considerations are confabulations of the mind to at least some who are willing to entertain that view. But to keep from not being laughed out of a room, don’t attend any forums where traffic flow professionals - both government and private sector - attend. (I’m looking out for you)
Please stop “looking out for [me].” Suffice to say that often engineering “solutions” exist that are purely utilitarian in nature that represent no creativity, comprehensive thinking or best outcomes. Exhibit A: This bridge.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: Not accounting for such a recognized choke point would undermine the timely movement and flow of people, trains and road traffic. This in turn would undermine the desirability of using the LRT for game purposes.
Again, it sounds like you are making an argument for a comprehensive approach that should have occurred concurrently with the stadium design and DTE development potential - too bad that didn’t happen and we are instead left with this “accounting” solution.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote: In situations where you expect to have large volumes of people alongside 90 second to 2 minute intervals wrt to trains, central platforms can cause substantial congestion. [/b]The bridge is not for those days when there is average, distributed and dispersed usage, but for those times when there will be a crush of people alongside a coordinated transit plan to move large volumes of people to and from the game where issues of transferring trains will not be an issue at that node at that time.


Sounds like you are coming around to why this bridge is almost completely unnecessary and only useful for the Vikings. The Vikings should listen to your argument and write the Met Council a check to reimburse their contribution.
VikingFaninMaryland wrote:
The decision to build the pedestrian bridge was based on the findings of transportation studies undertaken in conjunction with traffic flow studies leading to the building of the stadium along with known flow patterns where transportation nodes are effectively co-located with sports facilities. The MTC endorsed those findings. Having said that, the findings are also a “duh” and one suspects the hyper reactive hostility is simply yet another outlet for those who hate the stadium and the Wilf’s - and want yet another place to vent. What type of cheese with that whine?


I’ve already addressed the fact that the narrative that you are choosing regarding the source of my “hostility” is misguided. It sounds like you have special knowledge regarding the timeline of this bridge design though. I’d love to see support for your claim that “…transportation studies [were] undertaken in conjunction with traffic flow studies leading to the building of the stadium…” If you can show evidence that there was indeed comprehensive thought regarding interaction between the LRT and everything else that was proposed in this area and, most importantly, that such thought/study/design led to this “solution” then that would actually counter my arguments that it *appears* that no thought was put into the LRT and that the bridge is an expensive after thought.

If you are able to produce support that is specific to the timeline of the design/consideration for this bridge then I’d be happy to direct my ire at Met Council/transportation planning for this failure. If you just want to insult people without basis then I guess go ahead because freedom but unless you actually support your position with evidence, then you open your argument up to ridicule.

VikingFaninMaryland wrote:
As pedestrian walkways go, it’s mildly above average. As far as it relevance in the scheme of the plan, it is completely defensible.


Wrong. See above.


With the exceptions that 1) the Vikings paid for over 60% (and not all) and 2) that you were in favor of the stadium, I stand by my comments.

The bridge was built to service very large events at the stadium which generally will be Viking games but will also include other events for a facility that is owned by a government entity with a mandate to bring in large events to a downtown area. The bridge will meet that requirement. The idea that the MSFA and Vikings should have to completely re-engineer an existing functional facility at substantial costs amounting to multiples of what the bridge alone costs in order to meet an idealized "perfect world" vision is interesting. I agree that the the area looks cluttered but I also think the main culprit is uncommonly ugly transit arched structure.

Had the land been undeveloped and the designers been given a clean palette to work with, I think there would have been many better options. But they had to work with what they were given and they came up with a serviceable solution.

I've seen some pretty ugly pedestrian bridges. As they go, this one is is okay. But your comments on it being an "abomination" are not based on its looks but rather on your feelings about it [". . . causes disgust or hatred. I’m disgusted by the fact that this project used one penny of public money and thus, I hate it . . ."]. I get it. That's why I think you should have some cheese . . .

Also, do your own research on the planning studies.


QFTruthiness
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests