Minneapolis Density and Population Growth (500k, etc)

Parks, Minneapolis Public Schools, Density, Zoning, etc.
Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby Wedgeguy » December 26th, 2012, 9:41 pm

FISHMANPET wrote:Probably a good thing I'm never going to run for office, since I'd be pretty unelectable. Plus, nobody holds elections for benevolent dictator.

But still, I have no sympathy for people like Bob Carrick, or the Linden Hills neighborhood, or any other place complaining about development destroying the "character" of a neighborhood. What gives them the right to decide when a neighborhood has reached peak character? Who lobbies for the potential residents?

The way I read that article is that we already have this big comprehensive plan built with citizen input blah blah blah, but if the end result is nothing over 4 stories can be built in an area as valuable as Lake Calhoun because it'll affect the "character" of the neighborhood or make it harder to drive their single occupancy vehicle to work or whatever lame excuse, well then at that point I think the process is intellectually bankrupt.

I'm glad there have been NIMBYs that have stopped freeways, and I have no problem with a neighborhood group negotiating with a developer for better design or things like that, but when it becomes blocking market rate units for the sake of blocking new construction, I start to get angry.

You have several valid point that I agree with. Why can a few vocal few speak for the whole city's tax base! This is a city and NOT Mayberry!

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2438
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby Didier » December 27th, 2012, 3:18 am

Some of the rhetoric on this message board, and particularly within this thread, is a bit much in regards to NIMBYs.

I know this is an urban development message board, so the tendency will always skew toward pro-development, but I think it's somewhat ridiculous that people who don't live in these neighborhoods — or in some cases don't even live in Minneapolis — are talking in absolutes about what actual residents must accept. It's really unreasonable, if you ask me, to blame residents for putting their personal interests ahead of the city's. You'd honestly have to be a pretty big idiot to support "good-for-the-city" investment if it negatively affects your home value.

That's why the system is in place -- to find balance.

There's a very valid reason why local residents have more of a say about development in their neighborhoods than min-chi-bus, but the objections of local residents should not be able to veto a worthwhile project. And there's no doubt that NIMBYs have often prevented reasonable, positive development. But if locals have too much power as the system is set up now, then it should be on the city leaders to correct the problem. They are the people tasked with moving the city forward.

I just think it's crazy to personally attack people as being "selfish" for considering their personal lifestyle and, in many cases, their largest investment, over the "good and future of the city."

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby Wedgeguy » December 27th, 2012, 7:59 am

Didier wrote:Some of the rhetoric on this message board, and particularly within this thread, is a bit much in regards to NIMBYs.

I know this is an urban development message board, so the tendency will always skew toward pro-development, but I think it's somewhat ridiculous that people who don't live in these neighborhoods — or in some cases don't even live in Minneapolis — are talking in absolutes about what actual residents must accept. It's really unreasonable, if you ask me, to blame residents for putting their personal interests ahead of the city's. You'd honestly have to be a pretty big idiot to support "good-for-the-city" investment if it negatively affects your home value.

That's why the system is in place -- to find balance.

There's a very valid reason why local residents have more of a say about development in their neighborhoods than min-chi-bus, but the objections of local residents should not be able to veto a worthwhile project. And there's no doubt that NIMBYs have often prevented reasonable, positive development. But if locals have too much power as the system is set up now, then it should be on the city leaders to correct the problem. They are the people tasked with moving the city forward.

I just think it's crazy to personally attack people as being "selfish" for considering their personal lifestyle and, in many cases, their largest investment, over the "good and future of the city."

As a resident of Minneapolis, who lives within walking distance of 900 new units that are going up in my neighborhood I sure can speak as a concerned citizen. For years the parcels that are now being developed sat as weed patches. The NIMBY's would have had 50 units going in if they had their mentality. This grows the tax base. This is why the Lyn-Lake area is improvong with new restraunts, stores, other amenities.

How much turn over in stores has there been in the Linden Hills area?? Why is it hard for entrepenures to make a go of things. Maybe because they don't have enough people in their neighborhood and the residence don't want others coming in and needing a parking area to help these stores to thrive. People have to start to understand that people are going to be living more in the city, that the spread of the suburbs is not the only answer for the growing population. Again we are a city. Not a little town where things do not change. Just look at the Mc Mansions tear downs if you don't believe me.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7941
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby mattaudio » December 27th, 2012, 8:30 am

Didier, I see your point, but I take a more market-based approach to understanding nimby attitudes. In high demand areas, people are taking advantage of government to constrain supply and make sure the incumbents maintain a higher market share with higher revenues/equity. I don't think it's the proper role of any government, whether the city of Minneapolis or the federal government, to protect incumbents from market realities and people wishing to meet the demands of consumers in the market.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby min-chi-cbus » December 27th, 2012, 8:47 am

Didier wrote:Some of the rhetoric on this message board, and particularly within this thread, is a bit much in regards to NIMBYs.

I know this is an urban development message board, so the tendency will always skew toward pro-development, but I think it's somewhat ridiculous that people who don't live in these neighborhoods — or in some cases don't even live in Minneapolis — are talking in absolutes about what actual residents must accept. It's really unreasonable, if you ask me, to blame residents for putting their personal interests ahead of the city's. You'd honestly have to be a pretty big idiot to support "good-for-the-city" investment if it negatively affects your home value.

That's why the system is in place -- to find balance.

There's a very valid reason why local residents have more of a say about development in their neighborhoods than min-chi-bus, but the objections of local residents should not be able to veto a worthwhile project. And there's no doubt that NIMBYs have often prevented reasonable, positive development. But if locals have too much power as the system is set up now, then it should be on the city leaders to correct the problem. They are the people tasked with moving the city forward.

I just think it's crazy to personally attack people as being "selfish" for considering their personal lifestyle and, in many cases, their largest investment, over the "good and future of the city."
Why are you singling me out in this example (and this thread)?

It's one thing to speak out against a development that does not offer much value to an area or the city, but it's another thing entirely to vote to block a development because you don't want to lose your view, even though you just moved there 2 years ago and knew fair well what the zoning laws were. It's those types of NIMBY's people on this forum tend to lash out against (and perhaps use when generalizing), not the NIMBY who is questioning a 40 story tower in a SFH neighborhood.
Last edited by min-chi-cbus on December 27th, 2012, 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 751
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby ECtransplant » December 27th, 2012, 8:48 am

mattaudio wrote:Didier, I see your point, but I take a more market-based approach to understanding nimby attitudes. In high demand areas, people are taking advantage of government to constrain supply and make sure the incumbents maintain a higher market share with higher revenues/equity. I don't think it's the proper role of any government, whether the city of Minneapolis or the federal government, to protect incumbents from market realities and people wishing to meet the demands of consumers in the market.
This.

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 3007
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Loring Park, Minneapolis

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby Nick » December 27th, 2012, 9:45 am

For what it's worth, a lot of the time when I hear "NIMBY" lately, I hear it in the voice of the 62 year old news anchor calling a YouTube video with 4,000 views a "viral video." Don't ruin the meaning of things!

Just because there's a video on the Internet doesn't mean it has "gone viral." Just because someone is opposed to a development doesn't mean they're knee jerk opposed to everything. Don't be worse than the people in the City Council chambers with the Linden Corner buttons by saying everyone is one of them.

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

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby seanrichardryan » December 27th, 2012, 10:34 am

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

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2438
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby Didier » December 27th, 2012, 11:14 am

My point isn't that NIMBYs are usually right, I'm just saying that there is a reason why we five residents input on the future of their neighborhoods. By the nature of the process, neighbors are usually going to oppose a development that either changes their way of life or potentially lowers their property value.

It's the city's job to make sure that positive, responsible development still takes place.

Again, there are several examples in this thread of NIMBYism gone too far and preventing worthwhile development. I'm not defending that obstructionism. I'm just saying that I find it a bit arrogant that people who don't live in affected communities come onto internet message boards and call people "selfish" for putting their families' interests over the city's.

Individuals are always going to look out for their personal interests first, and rightfully so. That's why the city has to look out for the city, and if individuals are needlessly stopping development, then either the leadership needs to step up or the system needs to be changed. Calling people names in this situation accomplishes nothing.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7941
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby mattaudio » December 27th, 2012, 12:50 pm

Good clarification. Also I'd like to thank previous generations of NIMBYs who opposed a Cedar Ave freeway, a 28th St Freeway, a freeway through Uptown, etc.

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 751
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby ECtransplant » December 27th, 2012, 3:48 pm

Part of the issue too, remember, is that neighborhood groups are often not representative of the views of the people in the neighborhood because of selection bias and other problems. So, giving the neighborhood groups power regarding development issues is not quite the same as giving current residents some input.

User avatar
Andrew_F
Rice Park
Posts: 453
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 10:15 pm
Location: Stevens Square

Re: Minneapolis Density

Postby Andrew_F » January 1st, 2013, 11:56 am

I was going through old Google maps today and came across a map I made last winter with some 2010 cenus data. The red line encircles contiguous census tracts over 3,000 pop/sqmi, the blue encircles tracts over 10,000 pop/sqmi, and the pink over 20,000 pop/sqmi. There were plenty of scattered tracts on the fringe of the metro that exceeded 3,000, but since they were sort of outlying areas separated for the population center by areas of low density, I left them out.

Just figured some others might find this interesting as well.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=20 ... 441c&msa=0

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6208
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Density

Postby twincitizen » January 2nd, 2013, 1:06 pm

Love it. I'm right on the border of the pink line in Whittier. Interesting that much of the density being added around the Twin Cities is happening in places that are already pretty dense, including the first-ring suburbs. Golden Valley sure is an outlier for being so close to the core. Also amazing how little of St. Paul even hits the 10k mark, and none of it close to 20k/sqmi.
Last edited by twincitizen on January 2nd, 2013, 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2802
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: Minneapolis Density

Postby mulad » January 2nd, 2013, 2:22 pm

There is a census tract covering part of Downtown/Lowertown that is just barely under 20k, but yeah, that's about it...

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6208
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Density

Postby twincitizen » January 3rd, 2013, 4:30 am

The comments on this netdensity entry are great...pretty insightful stuff and a couple great analogies: http://netdensity.net/2012/12/18/2947/#comments

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Star Tribune article: Minneapolis Sees High Density Futu

Postby FISHMANPET » January 5th, 2013, 2:25 pm

Didier wrote:My point isn't that NIMBYs are usually right, I'm just saying that there is a reason why we five residents input on the future of their neighborhoods. By the nature of the process, neighbors are usually going to oppose a development that either changes their way of life or potentially lowers their property value.

It's the city's job to make sure that positive, responsible development still takes place.

Again, there are several examples in this thread of NIMBYism gone too far and preventing worthwhile development. I'm not defending that obstructionism. I'm just saying that I find it a bit arrogant that people who don't live in affected communities come onto internet message boards and call people "selfish" for putting their families' interests over the city's.

Individuals are always going to look out for their personal interests first, and rightfully so. That's why the city has to look out for the city, and if individuals are needlessly stopping development, then either the leadership needs to step up or the system needs to be changed. Calling people names in this situation accomplishes nothing.
Your comments seem at least party directed to me, so I'll respond.

I understand why people oppose development, my point is that we've created a system that empowers those with selfish personal views and disenfranchises potential residents, and that's a system that's intellectually bankrupt.

Minneapolisite

Re: Minneapolis Density

Postby Minneapolisite » January 5th, 2013, 5:02 pm

I was surprised to find that the average density of Mpls is on par with Seattle, while it's way higher than Portland (only 4,300 residents per sq mi.!) which is much closer to Cincinnati (just a smidgen less with 4,200).

As for densifying Linden Hills, sure the nimbyism deserves some criticism, but even in its current state as a SFH filled neighborhood I'm pretty sure there is more dense residential development in its business district than other largely residential neighborhoods.

There are other neighborhoods that should be the focus of increased desirability that currently lacking in urban amenities in elation to their population density. Take this "business district" on 60th and Portland in Diamond lake which has two auto shops with suburban parking lots on the north side of 60th and to the south is a suburban gas station, DQ and a little strip mall all complete with parking lots out front: there is no place for such an ugly, highly underutilized area in the city.

Of course, I don't think we have as much a negative view of nimbyism from residents in Diamond Lake or Lind-Bohanon because they are "amenity deserts". Residents in these neighborhoods have to travel (and are most likely car dependent) to another neighborhood or suburb and spend their money there and in the latter case of course that means suburban businesses are getting Mpls residents' money due to lack of options in their corner of the city. I think that's a bigger problem than a Mpls neighborhood that is highly desirable with lots of amenities and does a much better job of getting money spent inside the neighborhood/city from both residents and visitors.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6208
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Density

Postby twincitizen » January 5th, 2013, 6:47 pm

You bring up a good point, but the private market isn't proposing anything at 60th & Portland...yet. I bet residents in that neighborhood would be thrilled with a 3-4 story mixed use building with residential and neighborhood retail/office. Heck, they'd probably get their shovels out and start digging. That goes for several peripheral areas of the city that are "amenity deserts" as you call them. There are nodes like this with 1 or 2 ugly gas/service stations all over the city. My hope is that these areas will get filled in a decade or so as the current residents of Flux, Blue, etc get too old for the Uptown scene. Unlike Boomers & GenX that went straight for Plymouth or Woodbury, hopefully more Millenials (I can't stand the term "Gen Y") like myself will look to other in-city neighborhoods and 1st ring burbs to raise their families and gentrify those neighborhoods.

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 751
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Minneapolis Density

Postby ECtransplant » January 5th, 2013, 7:01 pm

Personally, I'd hope as the Millenials start having families, they raise them in the core city neighborhoods they're already flocking to. There is still a ton of work to do on the core before we start worrying about the periphery

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6208
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Density

Postby twincitizen » July 29th, 2013, 2:13 pm

Strib has covered the pending change in the Minneapolis zoning code to eliminate the "Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit" provision.

Here's the main article, which summarizes the pending change, but mostly focuses on the possibility of smaller units: http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 57301.html

A shorter summary of the issue and map of projects approved in the last 3 years: http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/217412671.html


Return to “Minneapolis - General Topics and Citywide Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest