urbanMSP

I just wrote a piece on Streets.MN about this Building Proposal:

https://streets.mn/2014/01/13/demand ... -building/

I mentioned this before, and I wanted to say it again. I don't mean to have this be some type of self-promotion, but wanted to share the conversation here so UrbanMSP doesn't miss it. I argue the following:

1. The Planning is Bad.
2. The Urban Design is Bad.
3. The Parking is Bad.
4. The Architecture is Bad.
5. We Need to Stop Being Incompetent at Building Stuff that has Bad Urbanism.

I'm sure there could be some shuffling of the office space in the Capitol area to accommodate those who have a real need to be near the capitol, and those who work for the government but don't truly need to be quite as close to the capitol. There is no way that all the staff who work in the area actually have need of being that physically close to the Capitol.

Heck, Wells Fargo and Target have offices scattered all throughout downtown Minneapolis. When I worked for them we would walk through the skyways to go to meetings with different departments. The LRT would certainly be quicker than that.

If they truly need more space, I would rather see them use the taxpayer dollars more wisely. Reclad the Macy's building, build out the mostly empty space, and keep the individual offices on the interior of the building so that if windows are punched in the walls, the workers can actually see the light of day. Plus, the building already has a parking garage attached and a restaurant/kitchen area within that could be reused for the people who would work there.

Win-win.

Streets.mn would benefit if they could turn down the righteous indignation dial just a little bit.

Streets.mn would benefit if they could turn down the righteous indignation dial just a little bit.

It'd be easier to do if we weren't right so often, and then just thoroughly ignored.

Streets.mn would benefit if they could turn down the righteous indignation dial just a little bit.

It'd be easier to do if we weren't right so often, and then just thoroughly ignored.

Myopic.

People DO realize that they're free to write something that they feel is less righteously indignant and submit it to StreetsMN... I bet it will get posted.

Streets.mn would benefit if they could turn down the righteous indignation dial just a little bit.

I don't really get this statement. If the analysis is wrong, then point out the flaws. Otherwise it sounds like the same crap the media feeds us when there are two sides to an issue, that the correct answer is always in the middle. Sometimes something is wrong, and it needs to be pointed out.

Streets.mn would benefit if they could turn down the righteous indignation dial just a little bit.

It'd be easier to do if we weren't right so often, and then just thoroughly ignored.

And to be fair, I think you're right about most everything in the article.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 34051.html

Looks like it's moving forward.

In a bit of good news, I've spoken to a few decision-makers on this project. The Board has read the article, and private conversation on the topic has been encouraging, and I may present in front of them during their February meeting. Anyway, myopic.

Looks like this project is a go. Anyone know how to findout who voted which way?

DFL for, Republicans against. Although they managed to cut the cost by about $20 million with one of the more noble features, the green roof, falling to that budgetary ax... http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... e-building

But the "free" parking ramps remain....

How will people and organizations make efficient car storage choices without paying for the cost of their decisions?

The plan cuts out a big chunk of the structured parking -- that's mostly how they're able to add offices at the same time they're reducing cost. Green roofs and reflecting pools aren't that expensive. As I understand it, they're also making the remaining parking "user financed".

Sorry for ruining your narrative, though.

If parking was truly user financed, the state legislature wouldn't have needed to be a part of it. It's a private good. It can be privately developed and financed on the private bond/credit markets.

I don't understand why the state doesn't partner with a developer to build something better. They need office space and a few extra parking spots, but this area needs a development that actually offers something to the community. Why not a mixed use development for the entire block with housing and more and a portion of it is office space. What's so hard about that?

I don't understand why the state doesn't partner with a developer to build something better. They need office space and a few extra parking spots, but this area needs a development that actually offers something to the community. Why not a mixed use development for the entire block with housing and more and a portion of it is office space. What's so hard about that?

The Capitol grounds planning board.

I don't understand why the state doesn't partner with a developer to build something better. They need office space and a few extra parking spots, but this area needs a development that actually offers something to the community. Why not a mixed use development for the entire block with housing and more and a portion of it is office space. What's so hard about that?

Also security. I don't think post Oklahoma city government buildings are likely to be designed a mixed use when they can be more fully secured as single use facilities.

I doubt security has anything to do with their decision. Most government buildings are intended for easy in and out access for the public. Adding retail, a coffee shop or anything else would not change the security constraints they would have.

Post Oklahoma City government security became about keeping people away from building that didn't belong there, which is why the Fort Snelling government building is so far away from the station (it was supposed to drop off at the front door, either by moving the building or moving the station) but I think security is a little more nuanced now.