Dinkytown not Megatown/Save Dinkytown

[MNdible]

This is a really stupid discussion.

Disagree. Just because you're not going to change somebody's mind doesn't make it a stupid discussion. At some point, we'll good and properly beat the dead horse to smithereens as we're wont to do, but until then...

[Silophant]

This "cabal"'s rhetoric leading up to the final vote was extremely alienating toward us--calling us NIMBYs, accusing us of "scare-tactics" and a "scortched earth policy"

At that point, The Book House and The Podium had already left, and HoH and Duffy's were leaving no matter what. You were fighting to save non-historic, empty buildings, and doing so in part by distributing propaganda with extraordinarily misleading parking statistics, among others. They were accurate accusations.

I won't say that no one on "your side" is thinking critically, because many clearly are, you among them. However, the most prolific posters to the Facebook group clearly are not.

[go4guy]

Drove to Dinkytown today for lunch at Burrito Loco. Even with it being a very busy day on campus, and two large construction projects eliminating a lot of on street parking due to the barricades, I was still able to find parking very easily. And today was one of the busiest I have ever seen Dinkytown during the lunch hour. Going back today for some China Express, so I will see if it is still like that.

[Seve]

.

[Seve]

This is a really stupid discussion, and I wish I hadn't contributed to dragging it down like this.
My hope was that we'd end up with an informed group advocating for good development, but instead it looks like we're going to end up with a group that opposes all development and one that supports good development. Now having a group that always says no is going to make it harder to fight off actual bad development, but I guess that's the price we have to pay.

Ding ding ding. Well said.

[PhilmerPhil]

Be constructive, Seve.

[David Greene]

This discussion is going in the wrong direction. Let's not make accusations, call names and point out who did what when. Let's move *forward* and see if there is a common self-interest in ensuring that Dinkytown develops in a way that works for the most people possible. No, not everyone will agree all the time, but we *can* find points of commonality. Working on the zoning code would be a great project, IMHO.

[Nick]

I think this is the best conversation on this site in aaaaaaages.

[RailBaronYarr]

And, fwiw, the preliminary study of the design of the Dinkytown street-scape that is part of the SAP does not differentiate between 1 and 2-story buildings when they say that the Dinkytown "appears to retain sufficient integrity and significance to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places."

This is where I get really squeamish.. I agree, the buildings are old. And I agree that because of their age, worn-look,materials used (in SOME buildings) that they have character. But I really struggle with the idea of blanketing so many places in our city with historic preservation, particularly when it comes to entire districts. This makes it very difficult for development to come in straight away, more expensive to do so when adhering to guidelines/rules, and certainly limits the changing nature of architecture and design over time. I also struggle because I'm not really sure what makes Dinkytown itself worthy of such designation. Are any of the buildings particularly noteworthy? Any particular events happen here that didn't happen in thousands of commercial nodes across the state/US? Just because the buildings have maintained their integrity doesn't make it worthy of such a designation (obviously, a big my opinion), I'd be curious to see what the survey thinks makes it 'significant.'

Let's also be 100% open and serious and state that the developers who build the existing structures didn't do so because they were design prodigies, they didn't build them magnanimously or out of charity, and they likely participated far less in neighborhood/community discussions regarding design/location/size/layout/etc. They built structures using the latest and most cost-effective materials and design standards of the day. They very likely charged the highest rents compared to other buildings in the area. It's even very possible there were people deriding the design as soul-less and progress for the sake of progress. Yes, some buildings were adorned with great design and details. Many were not. Similarly, this Doran proposal has quite a few nice (IMO) features along the street - the banding of different colored brick, the cornice, etc etc. Is it inconceivable to think that a Matt Hawbaker in 80 years would find the worn, old, Doran building to be attractive? We just need to answer these questions before broad-brush stating new development is soul-less.

This may sound dumb or way too pro-development, but it's frustrating when people claim the new buildings are over-priced and that the developer is only doing this for their own benefit with no one else in mind. I've said it before, but there are plenty of people out there who really like living 4 stories above the ground in an air-conditioned/central heat apartment with SST appliances and in-unit laundry and 2 blocks from the place they likely walk to and from 2+ times a day for 9 months a year. I'm not calling Doran or Opus "job creators" (absolutely hate that term), but their benefit is not just their own selfish desire/greed.. they are in fact providing design, project management, construction jobs, leaseable commercial space, property management jobs, and rental units, all while still turning a profit (with what I would strongly wager comes with some side environmental externality reductions as a big bonus and keeping rents in other, nearby locations lower for the people who wouldn't have been able to afford the new stuff anyway). These are good things. I'm glad you're having the productive conversation with us, and hope that maybe the SD movement can meet in the 33-66% middle in recognizing the benefits, being willing to admit a few positives of development while being able to articulate solutions for the negatives (many of which have been thrown around here). Hopefully the developers follow suit, and if/when they don't it's the city's job to help be the middle ground.

[As an aside, I found the move "Midnight in Paris" very interesting for this exact reason - when Wilson's character went back in time to his nostalgic age, many of the people at the time yearned for an earlier time they deemed to be the golden age; art, music, design, whatever]

[RailBaronYarr]

Also, I plan on attending the meeting next Monday. Thanks for setting it up.

[Didier]

I am appreciating this conversation as well. There were some Save Dinkytown people using bad scare tactics, like suggesting Al's was in imminent danger, and frankly I've found most of the people in the Save Dinkytown group to be really uninformed. But it was clear that there are real, coherent reasons behind the Save Dinkytown movement, and I appreciate mhwbkr presenting that side here.

I also think some UrbanMSP posters miss the forest for the trees in the discussion. As much as Save Dinkytown is characterized as "anti-development," I'd characterize posters like RailBarronYarr as being "development for development's sake." Most objective people who agree that the Opus project will greatly improve 5th Street on that block, but Dinkytown as a whole isn't broken and in need of fixing.

Most would agree that the new developments on Washington Avenue in Stadium Village greatly improved the area. There's little doubt similarly big, mixed-use buildings on 4th Street would be economically successful, but that doesn't necessarily mean they make Dinkytown "better." That's the fundamental point some UrbanMSP posters are missing.

The core of Dinkytown right now, 4th Street and 14th Avenue, is "something" right now. Without careful planning, Dinkytown could easily lose its charm and turn into a generic, albeit more dense, area.

[Didier]

And to be sure, I'm not anti-development. I think the Opus project, given the circumstances, is a huge win for Dinkytown. I just don't think the Doran project is quite the home run and needs to be automatically green-lighted.

[Didier]

One more thing. When I reference RailBarronYarr by name, I'm not suggesting that he is wrong. He clearly has reasoned arguments. But my point is that long, overly wonky posts about the benefits of density miss the fundamental reasons for why people like Dinkytown to begin with.

[mhwbkr]

At that point, The Book House and The Podium had already left, and HoH and Duffy's were leaving no matter what. You were fighting to save non-historic, empty buildings, and doing so in part by distributing propaganda with extraordinarily misleading parking statistics, among others. They were accurate accusations.

I won't say that no one on "your side" is thinking critically, because many clearly are, you among them. However, the most prolific posters to the Facebook group clearly are not.

Book House and Podium did not "leave". We signed a new 3-year lease in November 2012 without knowing they had an offer on the building, and they activated a clause in that lease to force us out. So it was particularly annoying to me to read both that we were telling people the landlords didn't want to sell (as Chris Iverson stated) and that there was no point in stopping the rezoning just because we weren't there anymore. As I've stated here, at the council, and in the press over and over again, SD opposed the project first and foremost due to the rezoning. We were not necessarily trying to save the building, and I don't think that we were ever truly engaged on the issue of rezoning, particularly in the context of the SAP, by the cabal. (can I keep using that term? It makes me giggle).

I'm not sure what parking statistic "propaganda" you're talking about, so maybe you could provide an example. If its the idea that the Opus project will have "more" spots than currently available, the difference is negligible and up to the amount of spots the residents will want (unless this plan changed after they applied, they are building a movable barrier in the underground lot so they can adjust based on demand for spots from residents). Say what you will about surface parking lots, but this was the last lot available to the public in the Dinkytown core. Its former owners said many misleading things to the planning commission and Z&P committee about its usage, particularly on the weekends and about how it changed when they brought in a management company. I say this based on my own observations working most weekend nights at a business that bought into their validation system before and after it changed, as well as conversations with other business owners. And, either way, its a bit misleading to compare the numbers "before Opus" and "after Opus" because if you don't include the 200+ space UTEC lot, you're only talking about the number of spots after the end of 2012.

That being said, we mainly left the parking issue up to the DBA, as this was their main concern. You can see it reflected in the conditions they managed to insert into the MHNA's support for the project. Opus did very little to acknowledge these conditions (savedinkytown.com/why-the-marcy-holmes-neighborhood-assoc-letter-opposes-the-opus-project/), and the DBA has had to scramble to come up with solutions for their customers during and after construction.

I realize the issues inherent in surface lots, but I think in this case, the businesses weren't ready to have the parking infrastructure, problematic as it was, ripped away so quickly. It shouldn't be solely the responsibility of the developer to fix this for them, but I think they owe their new neighbors more than just saying "we won't help you unless you make us".

[mhwbkr]

I think this is the best conversation on this site in aaaaaaages.

Cool.

[mhwbkr]

I am appreciating this conversation as well. There were some Save Dinkytown people using bad scare tactics, like suggesting Al's was in imminent danger, and frankly I've found most of the people in the Save Dinkytown group to be really uninformed. But it was clear that there are real, coherent reasons behind the Save Dinkytown movement, and I appreciate mhwbkr presenting that side here.

I still don't get how putting Al's on a list of Dinkytown businesses that could be affected by a rezoning is a "scare-tactic". Especially after being accused of supporting unsafe housing that led to a house fire and a sexual assault*, it seemed like a particularly weak "scare-tactic". Our opposition singled the mention of Al's out because its probably the most well-known Dinkytown business, but we rarely, if ever, listed them alone. I don't really believe the Green Mill guy when he says he won't touch Al's--a few months before that, he said in the Daily that he didn't have plans for Espresso Royale's building when I knew ER had already been told they'd need to leave in 2014--but I never made that part of our message, and did my best to correct people on that when I was out collecting petition signatures.

That whole scare tactic thing really bugs me because I tried to be as factual and reasoned as possible throughout the campaign. I wrote a longer piece about Al's part in that whole situation but I'm not sure if this is the right venue to post it to.

That being said, thanks for welcoming me here and not being dismissive of my points. I trying to be as open-minded as I can be, but its hard sometimes since this became a little personal for me.

I also think some UrbanMSP posters miss the forest for the trees in the discussion. As much as Save Dinkytown is characterized as "anti-development," I'd characterize posters like RailBarronYarr as being "development for development's sake." Most objective people who agree that the Opus project will greatly improve 5th Street on that block, but Dinkytown as a whole isn't broken and in need of fixing.

Most would agree that the new developments on Washington Avenue in Stadium Village greatly improved the area. There's little doubt similarly big, mixed-use buildings on 4th Street would be economically successful, but that doesn't necessarily mean they make Dinkytown "better." That's the fundamental point some UrbanMSP posters are missing.

The core of Dinkytown right now, 4th Street and 14th Avenue, is "something" right now. Without careful planning, Dinkytown could easily lose its charm and turn into a generic, albeit more dense, area.

I think these are really important points, and a place to start to find common ground, or at least better place than saying Dinkytown is ugly or dumpy or has nothing worth saving. We (i.e. the folks directing SD's messaging and strategy) really just wanted to allow the SAP to happen without big decisions like rezoning being made before it was completed. A consistent theme we repeated was "why the rush to judgement?" Its entirely conceivable a project like Opus' would have happened with the SAP in place, but at least we could say we had a chance to prepare and mitigate the damage done to the stakeholders who've been investing in and using this area for 10, 20, 30, 40 years. I doubt we would have started a campaign against the project if it had come as part of a comprehensive plan that included significant community input.

Opus and Doran have consistently showed that they'd rather operate over the heads of the community they'd like to change. By giving Opus what they asked for, the council gave us few options for influencing projects that may be problematic even to folks in this community (as it seems like Doran's may be), and sent a message that density is the primary value in development decisions.


*yes, this happened, and although the latter didn't make it into the press, the lady saying that sure tried her damnedest to get it in an article after the council vote.

[mhwbkr]

This is where I get really squeamish.. I agree, the buildings are old. And I agree that because of their age, worn-look,materials used (in SOME buildings) that they have character. But I really struggle with the idea of blanketing so many places in our city with historic preservation, particularly when it comes to entire districts. This makes it very difficult for development to come in straight away, more expensive to do so when adhering to guidelines/rules, and certainly limits the changing nature of architecture and design over time. I also struggle because I'm not really sure what makes Dinkytown itself worthy of such designation. Are any of the buildings particularly noteworthy? Any particular events happen here that didn't happen in thousands of commercial nodes across the state/US? Just because the buildings have maintained their integrity doesn't make it worthy of such a designation (obviously, a big my opinion), I'd be curious to see what the survey thinks makes it 'significant.'

I think its a bit of a straw man to say giving Dinkytown some kind of historic preservation status = "blanketing so many places with historic preservation". When you come to the meeting on Monday, you'll see that its a big part of the SAP discussions, but I'm not aware of any other areas pushing for this kind of designation, or of a broader movement to do so.

I think Dinkytown is historic due to primarily to the events of 1950s-70s--its importance to the counter-culture of that time, central role in as a place of anti-war demonstration, the Red Barn protests, the folk scene (Dylan, but also Koerner, Ray and Glover, the Podium, its continued acceptance of street musicians, etc). But many people just have a gut reaction that it is an historic area, which I think is significant. It speaks to our identity as a city when we have places like Dinkytown that immediately register as important, iconic, etc in people's minds. I realize not everyone feels this way, and I'm not saying this is a basis for conservation, but shouldn't be dismissed.

Let's also be 100% open and serious and state that the developers who build the existing structures didn't do so because they were design prodigies, they didn't build them magnanimously or out of charity, and they likely participated far less in neighborhood/community discussions regarding design/location/size/layout/etc. They built structures using the latest and most cost-effective materials and design standards of the day. They very likely charged the highest rents compared to other buildings in the area. It's even very possible there were people deriding the design as soul-less and progress for the sake of progress. Yes, some buildings were adorned with great design and details. Many were not. Similarly, this Doran proposal has quite a few nice (IMO) features along the street - the banding of different colored brick, the cornice, etc etc. Is it inconceivable to think that a Matt Hawbaker in 80 years would find the worn, old, Doran building to be attractive? We just need to answer these questions before broad-brush stating new development is soul-less.

First, I think your focus on the design of projects in my stance on development is misplaced. I worked against the Opus project because it made an important decision (rezoning) outside of the more comprehensive planning efforts like the SAP and whatever proposals came after that, not because I thought it was a bad design. We had plenty of architecture students and graduates in our group who had complaints about the design, but I'm not here to speak to that. I have no idea how my future self will feel about these buildings, or even if they'll will last that long. Most buildings don't have a very long life in this city, I've noticed. I do have the feeling though that many of the oldest buildings here were built by the people who planned to operate businesses in them, so I'm not sure if that's an apt comparison.

Second, this may sound silly, but can people refrain from gratuitously using my full name on here? Its weird and sort of aggressive and, although I know some of your full names from FB, I'm not going to call you out in that way. Obviously my anonymity has already flown out the window here but I've had to have comments removed on other sites (namely startribune.com) because they unfairly criticized my character, and so I know how things can quickly spiral out of control.

This may sound dumb or way too pro-development, but it's frustrating when people claim the new buildings are over-priced and that the developer is only doing this for their own benefit with no one else in mind. I've said it before, but there are plenty of people out there who really like living 4 stories above the ground in an air-conditioned/central heat apartment with SST appliances and in-unit laundry and 2 blocks from the place they likely walk to and from 2+ times a day for 9 months a year. I'm not calling Doran or Opus "job creators" (absolutely hate that term), but their benefit is not just their own selfish desire/greed.. they are in fact providing design, project management, construction jobs, leaseable commercial space, property management jobs, and rental units, all while still turning a profit (with what I would strongly wager comes with some side environmental externality reductions as a big bonus and keeping rents in other, nearby locations lower for the people who wouldn't have been able to afford the new stuff anyway). These are good things. I'm glad you're having the productive conversation with us, and hope that maybe the SD movement can meet in the 33-66% middle in recognizing the benefits, being willing to admit a few positives of development while being able to articulate solutions for the negatives (many of which have been thrown around here). Hopefully the developers follow suit, and if/when they don't it's the city's job to help be the middle ground.

While its easy to measure the benefits a project can bring to an area, its harder to measure the collective benefits of a group of businesses have created by investing in an area over time. This is part of the reason why community input into planning is so important to me. Yes, development does some good things but it can also be devastating to people who's only mistake was assuming that they would at least have a voice in any major changes to the area in which they started a business or bought a home. I'm not saying things shouldn't change but if someone's been running a successful business, as is the case with every business that has been or is about to be displaced in Dinkytown, I think they deserve a forum in which they can seek some kind of help or redress to the issues they'll be facing as a result of new development.

There are lots of areas in Minneapolis that could use more density and a quicker path to good development. The block I live on in Phillips is a perfect example. But I think the changes to the core of Dinkytown should have moved slower (and I only mean about a year or so) and come with a stronger element of community input.

It also may be a mistake to see SD as a movement that will come to a consensus agreement on the issues we've been discussing here. People bring their own points of view and feelings to this issue and I'm not going to try to enforce some kind of dogmatic message as a result of conversations I've been having with a few (knowledgeable, interesting, passionate) urbanists on a message board. I hope its some comfort that the views I'm expressing here are generally the views shared by the people who were crafting SD's message and strategy.

[FISHMANPET]

Just a reminder that tonight is a public form about the Small Area Plan, but on by the Dinkytown Business Assocation, at the Varsity Theater.

Deets: https://www.facebook.com/events/1411180332431880/

Hopefully more people show up than have RSVPed on Facebook.

[mhwbkr]

At least the food will be good!

(PS-I had nothing to do with setting this up and have only been to one SAP meeting. My boss is our representative at that, as this is more in her wheel-house)

[FISHMANPET]

I put my username on my name tag. Also quite the turnout here.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4