Uptown, Minneapolis - Past, Present, and Future

Lake of the Isles Grapefruit

2010-04-07T23:02:00.005-05:00

Yes, I have fallen behind -- waaaay behind -- on posts lately. I'd like to pretend it's because I've been so busy living the good life, hanging out outside in the warm spring weather, grilling up a storm. It's not, alas, but if you, too, are antsy for getting on with the summer, here's a local recipe to add to your collection. It comes to you from Betty Crocker's Outdoor Cook Book, published in 1961. Betty Crocker is General Mills, but you don't typically come across Minneapolis references in their cookbooks. It was a pleasant surprise to come across, then, this recipe for "Lake of the Isles Grapefruit":

Lake of the Isles Grapefruit

Remove seeds from grapefruit halves. Cut around sections, remove center. Place each half on single or double thickness of heavy-duty aluminum foil depending on method used for cooking. (Cooking on briquets requires double thickness; cooking on grill requires only single thickness.) Pour over grapefruit a mixture of 1 tsp. honey and 1 tsp. sherry flavoring. Sprinkle with 1/4 tsp. nutmeg. Wrap foil securely around fruit. Cook on briquets 5 to 8 min. or on grill 15 to 18 min., turning once. Serve one-half grapefruit per person.

I haven't tried this yet, so would be curious to hear from anyone who has/does make it. If you'd like to expand the menu and enjoy what the authors named the "Midwest Special", it's a breakfast meal consisting of orange juice, blueberry pancakes with syrup, grilled pork chops, scrambled eggs, toasted English muffins, and coffee. Or, in what I think sounds like it is, or should be, a Midwestern recipe, fry up some "Darn Goods," (page 152), which are "crisp-fried doughnut-like crips coated with cinnamon and sugar." Yum.

Fun fact: on the same shopping trip that netted me this cookbook I also picked up one of Amanda Arnold's former books. (her name was on the inside) Small world. Well, not that small; this was, after all, the Richfield Value Village, and it was a city-related book. But still...

"Super Green" Lake of the Isles Bungalow

2010-02-21T15:48:00.004-06:00

Today's Star Tribune has an interesting article about a Lake of the Isles LEED Platinum home. It's an interesting story, and it's an attractive house, but the more I read the more I started to wonder about how "green" we can really consider a project of this sort. First, let me admit that I don't know the details. As of right now all of my information is coming from the Star Tribune article. So please, if you have updates, go ahead and post them. All that said, let's get into the issue. First, some basic points drawn from the article:

This is a new home. And more significantly, it's not just a new home: it's a new home sitting on a lot that was, until recently, housing its original 1926 bungalow.
Hicks is quoted as saying she had intended to "fix" the original house, but "when she discovered how much it would cost to fix what needed to be fixed, including the foundation, the electricity, the plumbing, and the outdated 6-by 12-foot kitchen with three doorways, Hicks decided it made more sense to build a new house -- one that didn't look new."
The original house was "just under" 2000 square feet; the new home is 3,300 square feet, including the finished basement. The new space does, however, cost only one quarter of what the original did to heat.
Final quote from the architect: "you should be able to take any style house and make it green."

I tend to be firmly on the side of historic preservation, but at the same time readily acknowledge that not every house can or should be saved. But this article really has me wondering: did the original house REALLY need to be destroyed? Maybe it did; I don't know the extent of what needed to be fixed. And I know it's not fair to start questioning without having all the details. But I'm always wary whenever people start throwing around things like "fixing" a small kitchen. A dangerous foundation or broken plumbing or other serious issues might indeed need fixing, but throw in mention of a small kitchen and my skepticism radar starts going up. Did all of those things really need to be fixed? Was the house in such bad shape that it required demolition? Sometimes houses do, and that's part of a neighborhood's evolution. But it's also true that there's a history of wealthy homeowners out there who want a house that looks old, but they don't really want the older house. They want the big kitchen, the enlarged square footage, and yes, the added energy efficiency and other similar perks. I don't have a problem with that, as long as they're not tearing down existing homes that don't need to be torn down. And by "need" I don't just mean they need to have a kitchen with an island. And if they do unnecessarily tear something down because they want a new house, then they'd better not call label themselves green. (Again, apologies to Jennifer Hicks, as I don't know if this applies to her situation or not.)

This isn't an attack on Jennifer Hicks or her architect; they did a nice job with the house, and it fits in well (although I'd be equally fine with a well-designed modern house, too) and shows that new construction doesn't have to look like a McMansion in Eden Prairie. I would, however, be curious to know just how uninhabitable the previous home was when she bought it. Mostly, I'm tired of reading all of the rah-rah puff pieces on LEED certified buildings and "green" consumerism. Again, not Hicks' fault, but where's the story of the many, many other people who buy existing homes? (rhetorical question: yes, I know, that doesn't make a good story. It's old news.) That's more environmentally friendly than ripping something down and building new, even if the old house was in terrible shape and the new house built to LEED platinum standards. Modern society seems to think that we can all just buy our way into "greenness;" just put up some low-VOC paint, an Energy Star refrigerator, and some bamboo flooring. All of this is great, of course, and new construction should absolutely seek to be as environmentally-friendly as possible. But all this attention on the new stuff distracts from the bigger issues. At risk of looking really grumpy, the article makes me ask: does it really make sense for one person to live in 3,300 square feet of space in the city, for one? (I wouldn't typically bring that up, but it seems a relevant question in the context of an article about a "super-green" project)

Or, when the architect says "you should be able to take any style house and make it green," I'm really not all that interested in how that works for new construction. That's fine, and someone has to be concerned about it, but the environment would be far worse off if everyone in Minneapolis rushed out to demolish their homes and build new "green" historic-looking homes in their places. It would be nice to see a bit more attention paid to existing houses retrofitted to make them as energy efficient as possible, as well as some debate or guidance over which environmental upgrades to existing properties are worth it (from a green perspective -- both the cash and the environmental kind of green) and which ones aren't. Because really, with the large number of houses already standing -- just take a look at all the empty foreclosures around (although admittedly not by Lake of the Isles) -- it's hard to get really excited about the environmental credentials of someone knocking down something old and putting up something new.

Dupont Residents Protest Street Paving

2010-02-20T22:50:00.008-06:00

Paved roads: the curse of CARAG? An old photo, obviously (as in: pre-snowbanks), but just imagine what it looked like in 1915!

Did that headline catch your eye? Yes, I know I've fallen behind on posting, but I haven't fallen THAT far behind, "that far" being the year 1915. Still, given that the odds are slim to none that anyone reading this blog was around to remember the debate back the first time around, I thought it would be interesting to give it some second life in 2010.

Highlights from an article in the December 29, 1915 Minneapolis Journal ("Citizens Unite to Fight Dupont Paving"):

"Concerted opposition to the plan to pave Dupont Avenue from Lake Street to Thirty-Sixth Street South was voiced last night at a meeting of about a hundred residents of the Eighth Ward at the Calhoun Commercial Club. They oppose the plan on the ground that the paving of Dupont, which is strictly a residential street, would divert to it most of the traffic which now reaches the Lynnhurst district by way of Lyndale and Hennepin Avenue and parallel avenues, giving Dupont more traffic than should traverse it."

A committee was appointed to report back to the city.

Sort of puts things in perspective, doesn't it? People were complaining about traffic one hundred years ago, and unless things dramatically change they'll still be complaining about it next century. The modern solution of paved roads and regular stop signs seems to work pretty well. I'm not concerned about traffic volume, but definitely don't like the speeders. For more recent Dupont history, the neighborhood fought to put in a stop sign at 34th and Dupont back in the late '70s and early '80s to cut down on the speeding problem. I only remember life post-stop sign, but I do recall a few years ago (2006? 2007?) when the city temporarily removed it. It is now, thank goodness, back in place, and traffic along Dupont moves along at a reasonable speed.

Hmm... do you think we'd be restoring "character" to the neighborhood if we ripped out all the pavement and replaced it with dirt? My son would LOVE it... (or we could just flood it, let it freeze, and strap on skates to get around. Now that's an idea I could get behind...)

Save Lake Calhoun!

2010-02-09T22:55:00.003-06:00

No, not from the dangers of tall buildings or even milfoil. Here's a taste of some of the big issues facing local residents in the winter of 1901. From the Minneapolis Journal, January 4, 1901:

"'Save Lake Calhoun' is the watchword of a movement inaugurated this morning.

Residents of the growing community on the east shore of Calhoun have awakened to the fact that two-thirds of the expanse of the lake has been staked off by the ice companies, and ice fifteen inches thick will be cut off in this whole area. The lake is fed only by subterranean springs, and is now sixteen inches than it was ten years ago. Two companies, the Boston Ice Company and the Cedar Lake Ice Company, have been cutting there for several years, but this winter, it is announced, will cut ice on the lake for commercial purposes. They have already staked off more than twice the area taken any previous winter, and the situation is getting serious. Ice boating is practically ruined for this winter, in itself sufficient grievance, but the danger of reducing the city's beauty spot to a marshy pond has aroused the neighborhood."

"Put a stop to the evil."

Outraged residents circulated a petition to put a stop to the excesses. According to Secretary Ridgeway of the Park Board, the ice companies owned property on the shore, and were thus entitled to do as they liked out on the ice. "Our jurisdiction extends only to the shore," he told the Journal, "and we have no rights on the lake."

The scene is set

What did the lake look like when carved up by so many ice cutters? It was quite a different scene than today, certainly. According to the Journal, "each ice company has staked off a tract of ice, planting small evergreens about thirty feet apart to make the limits plain. Then, to prevent ice boats and skaters from crossing, the tract is fenced in with blocks of ice."

Frosty Relations

Approximately fifty ice boats were kept docked up at Ewing's dock; the paper notes that the owners used to "tie them up on the bank wherever they pleased," but ice workers allegedly began to cut their ropes and even "used some of the boats roughly." Meanwhile, the employees of the ice companies depended on their access to the lake for their livelihoods, and presumably weren't always sympathetic to the recreational needs of those lucky enough to own ice boats.

Civil Discourse

One of the things that impresses me most about this story isn't the sheer magnitude of the ice cutting operations, although obviously that's significant. From a more modern perspective, I appreciate that the opponents of the ice cutters generally seemed to be taking the high road when it came to voicing their opposition. A sample quote from one of the local petitioners, Dr. J.W. Penberthy of Calhoun Boulevard:

"It is a downright shame to see one of the beauty spots of Minneapolis so despoiled. It is of the interest of every one in Minneapolis to see that it is preserved. I do not want to see a hardship inflicted on any one, and as the companies have begun their winter's work and have money invested in their plants, it might not be just to stop the work this winter. But eventually the work must come to a stop. The sentiment of the whole community must be aroused against it."

I like this. Short, to the point, doesn't resort to talking about evil outsiders out to destroy the community in the name of commercial gain. It seems a legitimate attempt to balance, or at least acknowledge, the varied needs of the community (the article also cites the many jobs created by the ice cutters), while still standing firm on the proposed ultimate solution. The ability to look at the issue as a whole, and to at least consider the various implications of action, is something that today's residents can take to heart. We might not agree on final solutions (and today's aren't as pressing -- and uncontreversial -- as the obvious dangers of draining a lake), but we should be able to find at least some common ground when talking about the pros and cons of current issues.

Are YOU Happy? CARAG Residents Speak Out

2010-01-18T23:03:00.004-06:00

You may remember last August when CARAG gathered community input for use in making NRP funding decisions. You may have even filled out one of the surveys yourself. The final results have been tallied and are being discussed; check out the full report for yourself on the CARAG website. While voluntary and therefore not fully representative, a respectable 409 respondents filled out the surveys, including a decent number of traditionally underrepresented younger people and renters. You can read the details for yourselves, but some highlights that I found interesting:

Nearly everyone (98.5%, to be exact) said they were somewhat or very satisfied with the neighborhood. The numbers did vary a bit with age, with younger people (18-34) more satisfied than the 55+ crowd.
Crime was the number one issue. No surprise there, I don't think. While I think some people's perception is off ("crime is high"), obviously while CARAG isn't a high-crime neighborhood it's also not without its problems.
Transportation was cited as important by three quarters of respondents, but the written comments made it clear that people defined "transportation" in very different ways. Some took it to mean light rail or public transportation, others read it to mean parking, while others focused on speeding on residential streets.

And now to the good, or at least interesting part... the comments. I love reading these, as it's interesting to see how drastically opinions can vary. Most of them were reasonable or straight-forward (i.e. petty crime is a problem, street lights are out, etc.), but there were a few that deserve to be pulled out for special consideration.

"Gang graffiti is everywhere." I'm not criticizing this one; I just have a question. I've been meaning to look more into this myself, but is gang graffiti really everywhere? Graffiti does seem to be an increased problem and while the weather was still warm and sunny I wandered the streets and took what seemed like hundreds of photos of examples in CARAG and other Uptown neighborhoods. But is it gang-related? Any gang experts out there? I know there's gang activity in neighborhoods like Lyndale, but how far over does it reach? Is CARAG's graffiti problem gang-related in nature? If so, what gangs are most active in the area? I'll have to do some more research into this, as I have some major gaps in my knowledge here.

"Neighborhoods look old and run down." There are some individual properties that look run down, but I think that as a whole the neighborhood looks pretty good. Then again, I'm happy with places looking "old," although not "run down." (would be worse to be new and run down, though!)

“The increased density may lead to crime issues and transportation issues which may cause long time residents to relocate.” Ah, the old density equals crime argument. Facts need not apply. As far as transportation issues, I'm guessing the person means parking. My honest opinion? If long time residents don't like increased density then maybe they should leave. Uptown has been busier in years past, so it's not like this was every some quiet little village (at least not in most of our lifetime) that suddenly exploded in population; why would anyone move to an urban neighborhood and then complain about still relatively population density levels? I know I've said it before, but I just don't get it.

“Too many rental buildings being built. Buildings too tall now. Utter disregard for home owners.” Not to be negative or mean-spirited, and kudos to this respondent for being totally honest, but this attitude needs to be singled out as a problem in the neighborhood. "Utter disregard for home owners"? HA! Because CARAG's homeowners are oh-so-underrepresented in local politics.... Seriously, what could they possibly mean by this? Home owners are the kings of the CARAG castle. They have nothing to complain about in that regard. I'm crossing my fingers that one day (soon, I hope!) I'll be one of those poor CARAG homeowners who are so disregarded. As to the rest of it: typical. Another anti-height person. Because a five story building on Lake Street is going to bring down the neighborhood, as we all know. And rental buildings... god forbid we provide opportunities for more people to live in Uptown, including those who can't or don't want to buy. What an elitist.

In general, though, anti-renter, anti-density, anti-renter respondents aside, the results were quite interesting and useful. Everyone seems to have a shared concern for making the streets and alleys safer, so maybe we can focus more attention to addressing those issues and less time zeroing in on building height. It's also great news to see that so many people are happy with the neighborhood, despite having some legitimate concerns about livability issues. It's clearly a neighborhood worth fighting for, and this survey does its job in identifying some common ground for how to move forward in the years ahead.

Updated 3005 Emerson Renderings

2010-01-04T22:42:00.003-06:00

Hoyt Properties has provided an updated rendering of the proposed 3005 Emerson site, although they note that this, too, is subject to change. While I still can't say I like the design itself, I will concede that this rendering is far more attractive than the previous version. Clark Gassen noted that these were intended to demonstrate scale of the building more than final design details, so I'm still hopeful that whatever goes into this location will be a valuable asset to the neighborhood, both in terms of aesthetics and function.

3005 Emerson: CARAG's Next Controversial Building

2010-01-01T23:15:00.007-06:00

Image from OurUptown.com (additional renderings and specifics can be found there as well)

What's a neighborhood to do without a good building controversy to keep things interesting? Some CARAG residents certainly seem to follow that train of thought. I'm not criticizing, by the way; I might not agree very often with the Aaron Rubensteins and Howard Versons of the world, but I have as strong opinions as anyone else when it comes to discussing the built environment of Uptown's neighborhoods. The latest controversial project seems to be the proposed building at 3005 Emerson. Developer Clark Gassen and local firm BKV Group envision the site as a restaurant, and some preliminary renderings also show a rooftop deck in the back.

Neighbors are not, as you can imagine, happy. There's a petition going around; I haven't seen it and am not sure what is being protested, but since the site is zoned commercial I can only assume that the neighbors are protesting the requested parking variance (they're asking for only six parking spots, not eight), and probably the roof patio.

I have mixed feelings on this, and can see the pros and the cons. Let's address the negatives first:

Hideous architecture. Yeah, I know not everyone agrees with me; I know some people actually like this, and some people think while it's not exactly beautiful, it's not atrocious, either. I think it's absolutely terrible, and looks like an architecture clip art book vomited up its contents onto the rendering page. It's going to look dated in about a year, and has absolutely zero architectural charm. I know it's subject to change, but that horrible blend of brick coupled with that dark siding (or is it metal sheeting?) on top, plus those weird jutting outcroppings just scream dated-upon-arrival. Please, please, BKV Group, don't make us live with this atrocity in our neighborhood.

Do we really need another restaurant? I love restaurants, and wish I could afford to eat out more often. I don't have a problem with restaurants, necessarily, but enough already. What Uptown really needs is more daytime uses; what about an office, or maybe a medical building? Useful retail space would be okay, too. A daytime-focused use would bring more workers to Uptown during the day, while a restaurant would inevitably contribute to making Uptown and Lyn-Lake even more of an entertainment/nighttime destination. I have no problem with plentiful evening options, including restaurants and bars, but I'd really prefer not to have one on this specific site.

On to the positives:

Filling in the parking lots is a good thing. More businesses closer to housing is a good thing. It's not really a corner store, and it's not in the heart of the residential areas, but I like to have lots of businesses within walking distance. I also am happy to see surface parking lots disappear.

Potential. I hate the building, but admit it could be worse. At least it's not a drive-through credit union or a strip mall-like building with parking in front. Even an ugly building is better than a parking lot. It's also exciting to think about what new business might move in to the location, and hope it's something good.

Some final thoughts:

Parking. This is always a big one. Permit parking is the name of the game in that section of CARAG, and I'm sure parking is going to be one of the big reasons many of the critics oppose the project. I admit that I don't care much about parking, other than to admit that parking issues are important to the economic viability of most local businesses. Maybe I should say that I don't care about the parking issues for residents. If you want guaranteed parking then buy or rent a place that comes with a garage or parking spot, otherwise join the rest of us and look for street parking, take the bus, walk, or bike. Free parking shouldn't be considered a right, and parking problems for people who choose to live so close to Lake (their location certainly comes with plenty of other perks) shouldn't be something that concerns any of us. That's another topic, though. Still, parking remains an issue in Uptown and will undoubtedly continue to be a hot topic for years to come, so at least a daytime-focused business would help spread the parking needs throughout the day.

Height. Height is, of course, always another hot topic. This project is short, so the usual cries of "it's too tall!" aren't going to be heard. My complaint is that it's too short. As currently proposed, it's a one-story building with a rooftop patio. Let's skip the patio (I can see why neighbors aren't thrilled with that, and I think they have a legitimate complaint there) and put apartments or additional small office space on the second floor. A one-story (even one-story with rooftop additions) single-use property is a wasted opportunity.

So, what do you think?

"Historic" Photos

2009-12-15T23:45:00.007-06:00

I was going through some loose photos when I came across a handful of old photos ("old" as in mid- to late-1990s or early '00s), probably all taken as I tried to finish up a roll of film before dropping it off for developing. Nothing of any quality, unfortunately, but I'm posting them as both a glimpse back at those not-so-distant days, as well as a reminder to myself and encouragement to others to go out there and photograph not just the people, but also the places, that make up your lives. I wish I had taken more pictures, and had spent a bit more time thinking about the images.

I have an actual date on this one: July 1997, taken from the roof of the Calhoun Square parking garage.

I've done the classic "don't" bar across the subject's face here, as I don't have his permission to publish this photo, and he might not like being splashed across the internet sporting both a Hypercolor shirt and a Yankees cap.

Same intersection, different year, different season.

So there you have it; a sampling of some "historic" photos from relatively recent times. Thank goodness for digital cameras; I have a nice new one now, complete with vast amounts of memory, so I can wander the neighborhood taking hundreds of images so that in ten or twenty years I won't be limited to looking at a handful of random filler photo from the late 2000s.

How to Give a Servantless Dinner

2009-12-14T10:14:00.001-06:00

December is a busy time for many of us, and I'm guessing that at least some of you will be doing some entertaining over the next several weeks. I think it's also a safe bet that most of Uptown residents don't have servants. If that describes you, you might enjoy some tips from the former Uptown-based Buzza Company, the one-time second largest greeting card company in the United States. With that in mind, here are their top eight tips for a smooth do-it-yourself dinner party:

Do not attempt to serve more than eight persons until you are sure you can do it successfully.

Invite guests who are congenial.

Avoid serving things that are too elaborate and fussy.

Eliminate the necessity of passing things to your guests -- if they are good sports they will enjoy the informality and want to be of assistance.

Have everything piping hot that is supposed to be hot. The same applies to cold dishes.

Iced drinking water, rolls, and butter should be conveniently near at hand.

Never attempt more than three courses, the salad to be served with the dinner.

Table should be faultlessly set, according to directions for the informal dinner. Decorations very simple.

Sounds easy, right? Time to move on to the big decision: what to serve for dinner. Never fear, the party planners at Buzza have advice for that, too. Their suggested menu:

Cream of minced clam soup, garnished with wafers, celery, olives, and radishes

Crown roast of lamb

Peas, sweet potatoes en casserole, pickles, relish, jelly, rolls

Asparagus tip salad, mayonnaise

Chocolate ice-box pudding, whipped cream

Coffee, salted nuts, candy

Worried? Don't be: "There is no reason in the world why the independent women of today [1927]," reassures the author, "young brides and housekeepers (provided they know anything at all about cooking), should hire some Martha-by-the-day to do what they themselves can do with such a degree of satisfaction -- (and incidentally save five dollars or more) !

Just don't forget the place cards.

Green Metropolis, Part II (Chapters 2 and 3)

2009-12-13T12:34:00.004-06:00

Chapter two of Green Metropolis ("Liquid Civilization") isn't as directly relevant to Uptown as most of the other chapters, but there's still some good topics for discussion. In short, Owen argues that oil is a, if not the, primary environmental issue today. Even those issues not directly caused by oil are created, or at least enabled, by the existence of oil and its use in modern technology and the ways in which it has shaped the modern world. "Driving is driving," writes Owen, and he argues that if society is really going to tackle the tough environmental problems it's going to take a lot more than just switching over to hybrid cars. More fuel-efficient cars (or use of alternative energy sources) are part of the solution, but an auto-centric society leads to increased sprawl, as well as less incentive for public transportation or communities compact enough for easy walking or biking.

It was in this chapter that I once again started thinking about HOURCAR's role in Uptown. I think HOURCAR is a great program; car sharing does help more people live without a car, yet still have easy and affordable access to one when they do need it. I think that makes both economic and environmental sense. Still, HOURCAR has at times seemed to be too focused on the use of hybrids at the expense of seeing the big picture (although that does seem to have shifted a bit). As recently as May 2009, for example, HOURCAR was saying that they were not going to purchase a pickup truck because hybrid trucks were too expensive. I can understand why they might choose to focus their money elsewhere, but at the same time the most important thing is not that the cars themselves are hybrid (although that's certainly a bonus), but that these cars help more people live without a car. They're obviously still driving, but are probably doing far, far less of if than they would if they had a car of their own. There's a blend to be struck between quality and quantity, and I think at this point the priority of car share organizations should be to blanket the city with these cars. If more cars means going with a non-hybrid then so be it. (In defense of HOURCAR, I should note that their current fleet of cars has expanded, and now includes a wider range of options than in the past. They seem to be trying to find that balance, and given their recent expansion it seems to be somewhat successful.)

Moving on to chapter three, "There and Back," there's a lot good stuff that fits in well with discussions about the greater Uptown area. Some of the chapter focuses on more suburban-style zoning, new sprawl, and long commutes, but Owen also makes some arguments that are more immediately relevant to the city and neighborhood. Some interesting bits from this chapter that caught my eye:

There can be contradictions in what a neighborhood or city says it wants and what the actual regulations allow. This is obvious, of course, but among other things Owen asks why "restrictive" regulations are often considered protective, when in fact they often restrict the very features they're intended to protect. This seems to be at the core of many, many discussions about Uptown and any future development. Locals want an urban neighborhood filled with lots of local businesses and services, walkable, great public transportation, safe, and all the rest, yet frequently turn around and in the next breath talk about concerns about too much traffic and a dislike of density, among other topics. To support all those local independent businesses, for example, we either need to have a big enough local resident customer base (which translates into a need for increased density), or we have to bring in a lot of customers from elsewhere, and realistically they're not all going to arrive by bus, bike, or foot. There are ways to balance these various issues, but that means going beyond simply focusing on vague terms like "character" or "green" and instead defining what exactly it is that we want, and what we're willing to compromise or change in order to get it. Recent discussions about some local zoning changes (like the upzoning along the Greenway and along Hennepin and Lyndale) highlight some of these issues.
Difficult parking and bad traffic can be a good thing. Tough to find or expensive parking or frustrating traffic jams are a strong incentive to choose alternative methods of commuting. In New York City, Owen writes, reducing congestion "would be a loss for the environment, not a gain." In Uptown, things get a bit more complicated. Uptowners can't hop on a subway (or LRT line) and skip the traffic jams; we sit in buses that get stuck in that same traffic. Traffic congestion might increase the appeal of walking or biking, but it doesn't necessarily help with the bus. On the other hand, I'd rather be sitting on a bus and reading (assuming I can get a seat) than behind a wheel, but that's not the case for many people. So, while bad traffic might increase the incentives for people to choose to live closer to their work, or to stop commuting to Minneapolis from Lakeville, I don't think it has a great impact on Uptown specifically. The parking situation, however, could be a different story. I have no problems with Uptown having increasingly tight parking in the residential neighborhoods. I think the commercial areas need to have appropriate parking available (although not free), but as far as residential parking goes, locals can either rent or buy a place with a garage, deal with street parking, rent a garage space from someone else, or go without a car. Increasingly inconvenient parking coupled with increases in availability of options such as HOURCAR, as well as improved public transportation, could provide the incentive for more local residents to either live without a car, cut down numbers of cars within a family, or otherwise reduce the numbers of trips taken by car. That would be good for both the neighborhood and for the environment.
"Public transit itself can be bad for the environment if it facilitates rather than discourages sprawl." This isn't Uptown-specific, but I think it's worth discussing. The Southwest LRT line does exactly that; it bypasses dense urban areas and encourages yet more development in places like Eden Prairie. Another Owen quote: commuter lines (which is what the proposed SW line will essentially be) enables sprawl at the end of the line and does "almost nothing to reduce car use in the central city." LRT might not be coming to Uptown, but I hope we can actually see some movement towards getting real transportation solutions in the city itself. It's also not as if there isn't room for significant transit ridership increases in Uptown and Lyn-Lake; despite the plentiful existing public transportation options the majority of residents are still making most of their trips by car. There is a lot of room for improvement.
Free-flowing traffic should not be considered a public entitlement. I like this one. Unfortunately, Uptown once again runs up against the bus problem: slow traffic means buses sit in traffic, too, so slow traffic in the city isn't doing much to encourage switching to other forms of transportation. Still, I think it's an interesting point. Keeping traffic moving should be a consideration when it comes to urban planning, but putting it first and foremost in development concerns (which seems to often be the case) is putting the needs of cars before the needs of people. It would be ironic if it became faster for someone from a more suburban (and less walkable) neighborhood or city along the Southwest Corridor or the Northstar Line and commute into downtown than for someone to live in Uptown and commute downtown. And that brings me to my final thought: commuting to and from work is not everything. Reducing commuting trips by car is important, and does have environmental benefits, but it's only one (relatively small) part of the larger environmental puzzle.

Green Metropolis, Part I

2009-12-06T01:58:00.007-06:00

David Owen’s Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability, suggests that the best American model for urban environmentalism is New York City. “Green” living, argues Owen, is not best served by open space, solar panels, or hybrid cars, but is instead achieved through dense urban living. It’s an interesting concept, and one that I, for the most part, agree with. The book is worth reading in its entirety, but in the interest of being able to pick out specific topics to highlight for discussion I’ll post individual entries about each chapter (starting now, with chapter one). While some of the issues are more relevant when discussing larger city or regional planning, much of Owen’s ideas are directly relevant to debates over Uptown and its future. Many Uptowners like to consider themselves environmentalists, and as such, should give Green Metropolis and its argument careful consideration.

Owen’s argument can be summed up as follows:

Live Smaller. Americans live large. Big houses and their trappings are wasteful. New Yorkers live in smaller homes, and use a lot less energy than the average American.

Live Closer. New Yorkers often live close to where they live, work, shop, and play; Americans in general need to embrace this if we are going to make significant positive progress on environmental issues. High density mixed-use buildings and neighborhoods can and should be discussed as an environmentally-friendly housing and planning option.

Drive Less. “Miles matter than miles per gallon.” Owen spends a lot of time on this point. Driving is driving, and from an environmental standpoint focusing on fuel efficiency or form of power isn’t addressing the other major environmental problems contributed to or created by cars, including the many issues relating to sprawl.

In short, high-density urban living is ideal from an environmental standpoint. More people living in dense urban neighborhoods means less sprawl and an overall reduced environmental footprint. It means less driving. Environmentalists need to stop considering getting “back” to nature as the environmental ideal, and start looking at cities as the model for a truly green future.

So how does Uptown fit into all of this? While I don’t doubt the environmental good intentions of some of my fellow Uptown supporters, anyone who has followed local neighborhood issues knows that there’s a great deal of lip service paid to “green” issues like open space, trees, native grasses, organics recycling, and parks. I certainly approve of some of these issues, but I agree with Owen that they cloud the bigger environmental issue. Given the vocal nature of some of the anti-density but self-proclaimed eco-minded crowd, such as former City Planning Commissioner Lara Norkus-Crampton, it’s time that we start to discuss issues like density as an environmental framework. Green living is not just about seeing eagles on the lake or looking at the sky. Adding density doesn’t have to give up livability or “character” or look like Manhattan.

I do appreciate Uptown’s character, meaning its blend of uses, its historic architecture (commercial, industrial, residential, and civic), and its tree-lined streets (less so following years of Dutch Elm disease, unfortunately). I don’t want to see the area’s homes all destroyed and replaced by high-rise apartments. But, despite the “sky is falling” opponents who would suggest otherwise, high density (and yes, high buildings) can and should be integrated into the greater Uptown area. The feeling of the neighborhood may change in parts, but it’s unrealistic to think that Uptown’s “character” will always remain the same. The area has changed dramatically over the years, and despite even the most stringent zoning and area plans will continue to do so, like it or not. We might as well embrace change, encourage it in appropriate areas, and allow Uptown to become, if demand allows, a truly urban neighborhood. While I believe increased density to lead to more livable communities, it’s also the environmentally-correct thing to do. How can we in good conscience call ourselves environmentalists yet not advocate for increased density in Uptown and in the city?

Or, to put it bluntly, why can’t more people (ahem, certain local board members and former planning commissioners) understand that density, including mid-rise buildings on busy streets, has positive environmental implications? (or, conversely, that lack of density can have a negative impact?)

I, for one, find Green Metropolis to be energizing. I’m going to do my part to take back the urban environmental message. “Green” should not just mean support of parks, bike trails, solar panels, composting, or other such endeavors (however worthy); it should also mean something substantial. If someone wants to wear the mantle of “environmentalist” yet oppose projects such as the proposed Mozaic (the controversial proposed mixed-use building behind the Lagoon Theater), for example, then they need to be able to fully explain their reasoning. Everything has its positives and negatives and not all neighborhood goals are compatible, but it’s our responsibility to at least be aware of the implications of our decisions.

What do you think? Can Uptown handle more density? Should Uptown become more dense? Where does increasing urban density fall in Uptown’s list of priorities, environmental or others?

David Owen. Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability. New York: Riverhead Books, 2009.

Up next: Chapter Two, "Liquid Civilization," or "Driving is Driving."

Coming Soon: Green Metropolis Virtual Book Club Posts

2009-12-04T11:03:00.002-06:00

I've been missing in action lately, but am now fully caught up from "real world" issues, and eager to get back to discussing life in the greater Uptown area. For those of you who are reading along with the Uptown Urban Studies Virtual Book Club, I'll be posting something on David Owen's Green Metropolis in the very near future. He has a lot of interesting points that are very relevant to Uptown/Lyn-Lake/Minneapolis, so there should be lots of good issues to ponder.

I was unable to check my email for a few weeks, so I apologize to anyone who has emailed me and has not yet received a response. I'm catching up on all of that, too.

Chains in Uptown?

2009-11-01T10:58:00.002-06:00

Penzeys Spices: A chain, yes, but not exactly a Walmart, either. What is the role of chains in Uptown? Are there "good" and "bad" chains?

A lot of locals (both those who live in Uptown, as well as those who like to visit) like to bash Uptown for its "corporate culture" and "suburban" design. Yeah, I know, I complain about chains plenty myself. Still, I think we could all use a little more time spent in thoughtful debate about the role of chains in Uptown (and Lyn-Lake).

Here's a representative comment from the anti-chain crowd, or what I think of as the "I hate suburbanites" subsection of anti-chain people, written by "Lisa" on the City Pages' blog posting about the Uptown Bar's closure:

"This is the further suburbanization of Uptown, bringing in suburban-style chain retail designed for suburbanites. Destined to fail, as most have: Gap, Limited, Garden of Eden, TCBY, etc. Maybe the city planners should think about THAT. People who live in the city do not want to patronize suburban-style chain retail. If there is no character or history left in the city, forget it.

This is also a consequence of all these big, stupid festivals taking place at Henn/Lake, like that Loppet, that bike race, etc., designed to bring the greater Twin Cities into town with their generic mentality. You get that going in the neighborhood, then it is marketed to these chain retailers as a place to capture that business. This is NOT progress."

This is a pretty typical rant. They tend to incorporate the same basic themes: "Uptown is suburban. All the cool people left. It's just a big mall. People from outside of city limits are inherently bland or have no taste." I don't want to patronize suburban-style chain retail, either. But a lot of this is rather uninformed, pointless, and doesn't move us forward to what we DO want, or how to go about getting it.

Lisa throws out a list of "chains" she doesn't like, so let's start with that. First, I'm pretty sure Garden of Eden isn't/wasn't a chain. My memory is a little fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure it's the same store that is now located on Grand in St. Paul; if that's true, then they are Twin Cities-based, currently have only one location, and proudly sport the 3/50 project's logo on their website), and given that it lasted so long in its location I wouldn't say it's a failure, either. I don't bring this up to argue the specifics with someone who probably will never read this post, but rather to question why one would list Garden of Eden as suburban-style chain retail. Is it because bath products and lotions are seen somehow as suburban? Do city-dwellers not take baths? Granted, I never could afford to buy much of any substance at Garden of Eden, but they filled a niche, and I think they were a nice addition to the neighborhood. Fancy oils and lotions aren't exactly a necessity in life, but there's nothing about them or the store that is inherently "suburban" or "generic" in style or function. My translation of this is to mean that it's not hip enough, perhaps because Garden of Eden lacked irony.

Let's go on to the rest of the list: Gap, Limited, and TCBY. Was there ever a Limited? I don't think so, although my memory may be failing. I assume she means the Express (part of Limited Brands, so she's not so far off). I never loved having an Express there, but did appreciate the opportunity to buy some basic women's clothing in Uptown. The store itself opened out both the street and into Calhoun Square, which isn't exactly traditional mall-style, either. And finally, the company as a whole has had problems, so I don't know if Express's ups and downs in Uptown reflect at all on the neighborhood, either. In sum, I didn't love Express, but do think that variety in clothing options in Uptown (in both style and cost) are a good thing. I would agree that I would prefer to have those options be independently-owned. Gap... well, the Uptown store was its first non-mall store in Minnesota, and it did last for much of a decade. I can't say that I love the Gap, but I prefer it to the Victoria's Secret. On the other hand, I think it's better to have a chain than a vacant storefront. I can think of many ways I'd rather see in that prime corner location, though. Finally, TCBY. Yes, I think of this as being a mall-store, but thought that it was a good use of its corner location. I doubt it went out because neighborhood residents avoided it because it was "suburban" in nature.

Again, I'm not picking on Lisa in particular, but rather attempting to figure out what people think of as acceptable versus non-acceptable chain stores in Uptown. Why does she list these stores, and not others? There are, after all, chains in Uptown that I think a lot of people don't even realize are chains; Paper-Source and Penzeys Spices come to mind as prime examples. I prefer my stores to be locally-owned and operated, but as far as chains go I think both are a far cry from "suburban-style chain retail," and demonstrate that chain stores can adapt to fit their surroundings.

The other thing that the anti-suburban crowd (as in: anti-suburban residents) forgets is that local people are also often frequenting the chain stores, the bland bars, and the other places that get so often derided for being geared only to those dreaded interlopers from Eden Prairie. One of the issues that Uptown faces is that it IS both a regional and a neighborhood destination. Overall, I think that's a good thing. Uptown's residents aren't enough to support the number of stores, restaurants, and other businesses that most of us want in the neighborhood. Maybe that could change if Uptown's density were to increase, and if more of us were to actively concentrate on keeping our spending in the neighborhood, but for now, if we want diversity and quantity then we've got to encourage visitors from across the metro area. That does NOT mean that we need to embrace chains or "suburban-style chain retail." In an ideal world, Uptown would be able to serve both residents and visitors with its innovative mix of local businesses and let the chains go elsewhere.

I try to avoid chains, I don't like shopping at malls (although find them oddly fascinating in their way), and I prefer my neighborhoods unique and mostly chain-free, but I also disagree with the anti-suburban advocates as to their characterization of suburban residents. There's often a smugness, an air of superiority, a feeling that "I'm better than you because I live in Minneapolis and you live in Eagan." I hate Eden Prairie, and think it would be an absolutely terrible place to live. I also think that many suburban lifestyles ARE damaging, unsustainable from an environmental viewpoint, and destructive to the fabric of society. I think city living IS better. That doesn't mean that the residents of those suburbs deserve to be bashed, though, or even if they actively prefer to live in a modern subdivision in exurbia that doesn't mean that they can't enjoy a visit to Uptown, too. On that note, take a look at the number of Uptown residents who think nothing of a trip out to Southdale and the Mall of America, or the city residents who live lives virtually indistinguishable from those living outside of city limits. It's not so simple as city residents are unique and individual, while suburban residents are "generic." Kind of ironic, given that I'm guessing many of the same people who profess horror when someone from the 'burbs drives in to get dinner at Figlio are the same people who tout diversity as one of the reasons to live in the city. That doesn't mean we have to make Uptown mall-like in function or appearance, of course, or accommodate every visitor's wishes and desires (including on things like parking), but it does mean that we as a collective whole need to stop complaining if people from outside of city or neighborhoods limits drive (or, ideally, bus) in to do some shopping.

In the end, I would prefer that Uptown have few or no national chains, but realize that that's probably unlikely to happen. I don't think all chains are bad for Uptown, and think that there are already existing examples of chains that have made a positive impact on the neighborhood. Paper-Source and Penzeys are both great fits; Urban Outfitters, too, seems to be an overall positive influence on the neighborhood. I'd prefer to see Victoria's Secret leave, or at least see it move indoors to Calhoun Square. I don't think chains (or franchises) automatically translate into "suburban" style development, and in some cases they are filling a niche that has otherwise been left empty. I like to be able to shop in the neighborhood, and if a chain is the only locally-located business filling a need then I will probably go there to do my shopping. When I have a choice, though, I will always make the attempt to go with the local option first, and believe that we do need to take a greater active role in helping support new and existing independent businesses.

And finally, I think there are good and bad chain stores. Some fit in well and are good neighbors; others, not so much. Admittedly the same could be said of independent stores, although with less financial resources than the big places they have limited power to create as much havoc. Ultimately, though, those people who complain about chains need to actually do something to support the alternatives. I'm trying to be good about this; whenever possible I'll spend the extra couple of bucks to buy local, and if I can't afford the extra then I'll try to hold off on the purchase until I can. That doesn't work for everything (there are definitely some gaps we need to fill...) but after reading Big-Box Swindle I do find myself increasingly thinking about every purchase I make.

Big-Box Swindle - Part I

2009-10-31T14:42:00.000-05:00

Happy Halloween! How appropriate that this is also the day of the first post in the official Uptown Urban Studies Virtual Book Club. Because in many ways, Big-Box Swindles: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America's Independent Businesses is a scary read. Forget about ghosts and goblins and devils: my vote for scariest Halloween costume would be someone in a Walmart costume (come to think of it, that would be a really easy costume to make....). While much of the book focuses on suburban sprawl and the impact of big-box retail on smaller communities, there's a great deal of content that is relevant to Uptown and surrounding neighborhoods. We can work out the kinks of organizing this sort of discussion as we move forward, but for now my plan is to throw out some initial thoughts based on (or simply inspired by) the book, invite your comments, and in the next week follow up with some more in-depth postings on some of the specific topics.

What should the role of chain stores be in Uptown (and Lyn-Lake, or in other surrounding neighborhoods)? Are some chain stores better than others? Are they appropriate in some areas but not in others?
What is the thought on big-box development? One negative of Big-Box Swindle was the author's tendency to equate "chains" with "big-box stores," although that's not always the case. What if the big-box store is not a chain? How about Target? It's local; do we want a Target (even if an urban model without the sprawling parking lot) in Uptown?
How does Calhoun Square fit into this discussion? Is it part of "Main Street," or is it a mall? Does it matter?
How can we, whether at the city, neighborhood, or individual level, support independent businesses? In the grand scheme of Uptown (and Uptown area) priorities, where does this fall as a priority?
What current regulations are in place to support independent businesses in Minneapolis? Are there any ordinances on the books that restrict chains ("formula businesses"), and, if not, should there be?
How do we bring affordable commercial real estate to the Uptown area?
Is there room for a community-owned store in the neighborhood? What about a business incubator space?
What sorts of stores or businesses is the Uptown area currently lacking? What gaps do we want filled?

I'm going to come back to this list over the next several days and will write up my own thoughts on specific topics in more depth, as well as try to gather some relevant links and resources. In the meantime, what struck you as worthy of discussion while reading Big-Box Swindle?

Kids and the City, Part II (Or, Could Family-Oriented Apartments/Condos Work in Uptown and Lyn-Lake?)

2009-10-18T12:44:00.005-05:00

I recently wrote about how frustrating it can be to have larger society try to peg me and my fellow parents into very specific neighborhoods or living situations due to the simple fact that we have kids. Kids live in the city, families choose to live in the city, and city living with kids is perfectly normal.

All of that got me thinking. I know there's not a lot of new housing development going on right now, so some of this is currently a moot point, but how come all the new upscale condo and apartment developments in Uptown and Lyn-Lake are oriented to young single people or empty nesters? Why NOT families? The current developments don't exactly scream "family friendly." I've been busy dreaming up my vision of an ideal family-friendly building, ideally situated somewhere along the Greenway, and while I know reality gets in the way (developers need to want to build it, bankers need to be willing to finance it, and people need to be willing to rent or buy the units), I think there's some potential.

The Premise: Not all families want to live in single family houses. Many do, of course, but others either prefer not to for the same reasons as other condo-dwellers: no need to shovel, someone else handles the maintenance, perhaps shared amenities otherwise available, etc. Others would prefer the single family house, but will give it up in exchange for enough other benefits.

New Construction. I prefer older homes with a sense of history (and hate, hate, hate stainless steel appliances, granite countertops, open floorplans, and double sinks in bathrooms), but obviously a lot of people out there like new construction and modern architecture. They also like living in Uptown and Lyn-Lake. Rather than facing the option of moving to a new neighborhood, or, worse, buying a historic home and gutting it, why not give them what they want? Many of those younger, single, hip condo dwellers are going to have kids one day; it's not like their tastes are going to suddenly change overnight. Their needs might change, however, and that's where modern family-friendly condo options could really fit the bill.

Location: Uptown and Lyn-Lake are both ideal locations for kids. There are plenty of parks, there's the lakes, the Walker Library, multiple schools (at least at the elementary level), excellent restaurants and cafes, the Greenway, and growing numbers of other kids. Sure, there are some gaps to be filled (a toy store would be nice...) but overall it's a very family-friendly kind of place. Putting a family-oriented condo or apartment building somewhere along the Greenway, for example, would be a great location. The kids could learn to bike on the Greenway, the whole family could stroll down to the library or to the lake, and it would be just a quick bike or bus ride (or drive) to places like MIA or the Walker.

I prefer an older place, but if the location and amenities were right I'd give the right modern family building serious consideration. My dream multiple-family building would look something like this:

Play space. This is the BIG one. I like the idea of owning a house or duplex because there's room in the basement for kids to run around in the winter. We don't need huge amounts of living space, but given that my son gets crazy when cooped up inside for too many hours we need somewhere besides the living room to burn off some energy. An outdoor and an indoor space set aside for kids would be a MAJOR perk. It doesn't need to be anything fancy: a small outdoor playground with benches and maybe some picnic tables gives the kids somewhere to play and the parents somewhere to congregate, while an indoor space, even just a gym-like room with room to run around and maybe ride a push toy or bounce a ball would give both adults and kids a place (other than the main living quarters) to let off steam in cold or wet weather. There's a practical element to this that goes beyond simply playing, though. It's tough to informally meet fellow parents these days; a common playground (to supplement, not replace, local parks) builds community within the building, and gives kids a place to hang out with their young neighbors, while giving adults a chance to meet other adults, both those with and without kids.
Mixed use in the building. I like a building that incorporates a blend of uses. The best, most Jane Jacobs-esque building I've ever lived in was in Washington, DC. It was directly across the street from the National Zoo, and the street facade included a convenience store, liquor store, coffee place, salon, dentist, bar and grill, and pharmacy. Inside the building itself were mixed apartments with therapists, at least one nurse-practitioner, and assorted other small office uses. We didn't have a kid at the time, but I look back and think how perfect it would have been. There was even a small internal courtyard with a fountain. Imagine how convenient it would be to have, say, a pediatrician in the building, maybe a pharmacy, a store that sells basics like milk, a daycare or preschool, or any other number of places that would be useful to busy families.
Well-designed units useful for families. In other words, include enough three, or even four, bedroom apartments. I know kids can share a room, but in Minneapolis at this time it's unlikely to think that most families with money would choose to squash into a smaller unit if they can buy a house with three bedrooms for the same, or less, cost. The places don't need to be huge, especially if there's other play or storage space in the building, but enough buildings plus a good design could make apartment living an attractive family option.
Stroller storage. I haven't lived anywhere with this option, but wouldn't it be nice to walk in the front door and have a (nicely integrated) storage space in the common entry? It doesn't need to be huge, just large enough to stash a stroller and hang the coats. Those without strollers can use the space to store boots, coats, bulky sports equipment, or whatever else they don't want to stash in their apartment.
Garden space. While I don't think city living absolutely has to incorporate green space, a little bit of greenery makes city living more enjoyable for many of us. A small communal garden (for those who wish to participate) would build community, give an opportunity to grow some fresh produce, and give both adults and kids a connection to the outdoors.
Laundry. In-unit hookups are probably a necessity. Families go through a lot of dirty clothes; having a washer and drier in the unit is a luxury most families with options won't be willing to go without. Still, laundry rooms often perform a shared community function as building information center; in this case that could be switched to the mail room. And on that topic...
Mail room. Yes, there could be row after row of mailboxes right inside the front entry. But it would be much nicer to have an official mail room dedicated to the boxes; it would also hold a large bulletin board where residents could post notices and requests.
Pools and other extras. I'm not a big pool person; this wouldn't be a huge draw for me one way or the other. Still, amenities like a pool or a game room might be attractive to both those with and without kids, and could be a nice addition.
Condo versus apartment. I think something like this should probably be a condo building. Families in Minneapolis tend to want to buy, not rent. People could, of course, rent the condos from the individual owners.

What am I missing? Would you live in a building like this? If the right building in the right place at the right place came along I'd give it serious consideration, even if it wasn't my preferred historic architecture. Families successfully live in high-rise (or mid-rise) apartment complexes around the world (I've been browsing the Singapore listings lately); is there any reason this can't be done in Minneapolis?

[reminder: Uptown Virtual Book Club coming soon! First up: Big Box Swindle.]

Uptown Urban Studies Virtual Book Club

2009-10-09T12:24:00.005-05:00

Okay, the title "Uptown Urban Studies Virtual Book Club" sounds more impressive than the idea behind the name. I try to keep up with interesting books that seem relevant to issues relating to building a better community, identifying the neighborhood's strengths and weaknesses, and contemplating both Uptown's (and surrounding neighborhoods) past and future. I know there's a lot of others out there who read those same books, too. The plan so far is that I'll announce a couple of weeks ahead of time what book I'll be posting about next, and then anyone who wants to can read along and join in the discussion.

My list of potential books includes those I already own or have read, as well as some I've seen that look interesting. Some possible titles (in no particular order) include:

Christopher B. Leinberger, The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2008).

Jay Walljasper and Project for Public Spaces, Inc., The Great Neighborhood Book: A Do-it-Yourself Guide to Placemaking. (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2007).

Laura J. Lawson, City Bountiful: A Century of Community Gardening in America. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005).

Richard Florida, Who's Your City? (New York: Basic Books, 2008).

Stacy Mitchell, Big-Box Swindle. (Boston: Beacon Press, 2006).

Anthony Flint, This Land: The Battle over Sprawl and the Future of America. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006).

Jerilou Hammett and Kingsley Hammett, editors. The Suburbanization of New York: Is the World's Greatest City Becoming Just Another Town? (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007).

Richard Moe and Carter Wilkie, Changing Places: Rebuilding Community in the Age of Sprawl. (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997).

Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place. (New York: Vintage Books, 1990).

David Owen, Green Metropolis. (New York: Riverhead Books, 2009).

Thatcher Imboden and Cedar Imboden Phillips, Uptown Minneapolis (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2004).

David A. Lanegren and Enrest R. Sandeen, The Lake District of Minneapolis: A History of the Calhoun-Isles Community. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004. Originally published 1979 by the Living Historical Museum).

Donald Shoup, The High Price of Free Parking. (Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 2005).

Jane Jacobs, The Life and Death of Great American Cities. (New York: Random House, 1992).

Anthony Flint, Wrestling With Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took on New York's Master Builder and Transformed the American City. (New York: Random House, 2009).

First up will be Big-Box Swindle, followed by Green Metropolis.

Any and all suggestions for additional books are welcome!

Kids Live in Urban Neighborhoods, Too

2009-10-08T15:39:00.008-05:00

Yes, that's a kid. Children are, have been, and will continue to be, a part of life in Ward 10.

I was reading an article about Lyn-Lake ("Lyn-Lake? The New Uptown?" Not exactly breaking news, but that's another post...) and got sidetracked by a brief comment made about the area's demographics. "[Residents] tend to be highly educated, disposable income, no kids, young people," said Andrea Christenson of Colliers Turley Martin Tucker. Well, sort of. Lyn-Lake does have a lot of young people, not as many kids as in many parts of the city, and as far as disposable income, well, that's a bit more debatable, but it's safe to say that the residents in the newer, more expensive developments probably do have a fair amount of disposable income. I'm not going to argue demographics here, and I'm not taking issue with the article itself or any of the people quoted in it. What I do want to discuss is the ongoing assumption held by so many people in Minneapolis that parents are expected to live a certain lifestyle. And, to many people, that lifestyle does not seem to fit with Uptown or Lyn-Lake.

Families are supposed to live in neighborhoods like Armatage. This view holds that new or expecting parents are supposed to buy a "starter" (oh, how I hate that term) home in a neighborhood like Kenny or Armatage, or, if they can afford it, somewhere like Linden Hills. While they're at it they might as well buy themselves a minivan, because real parents don't drive beat up old smaller cars, let alone ride the bus. They can buy a bike with a baby seat or one of those trailers for socially-acceptable family bike rides around Lake Harriet.

Parents don't go to bars or restaurants. According to the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan's Market Study, "this general area of Minneapolis, including Uptown and Lyn-Lake, has long been popular among a younger generation due to its range of restaurants and bars, and proximity to downtown employment." (p.20-21) I'm sure that's true. That's part of the reason I like Uptown and Lyn-Lake. And, to be fair, I still count in the study's "younger generation," since I am under 35. Again, not quibbling with the idea that bars and restaurants appeal to young people (they appeal to all people), but in general there is an assumption that families don't want to live in bustling city neighborhoods with bars on the corners. Admittedly I have less time or money to visit restaurants or bars, but that doesn't mean I don't want them nearby. As most parents can attest, delivery or take-out is a fabulous thing.

Families only want to live in single family homes. This is probably true for many families. But, despite the assumption otherwise, not all kids grow up in freestanding, single family homes. There's nothing wrong with apartment living for families, and maybe in Uptown and Lyn-Lake we should be encouraging that option for those families that want to live in the neighborhood but can't afford to buy a house. I'm not immune to the appeal of home ownership; we're hoping to buy a place (ideally a duplex or maybe a triplex), too, but I'd take longterm renting in Uptown or Lyn-Lake any day over a house in Armatage. It's just not for me. Kids can and do live in more urban neighborhoods, so let's stop assuming that everyone wants to move to quiet, pleasant, but boring neighborhoods (or worse, move out to the 'burbs).

Families don't need to have 2,000 square feet of living space. I admit it; if I could afford one of the grand old homes in the neighborhood I'd be happy to live there. They are big and beautiful and filled with history and original woodwork. I don't mind having space to spread out. I doubt we'll be able to afford one of those houses, though, and I have no problem with living with a smaller floor plan.

I like city living. I don't want to have to drive places. I want to be able to walk to the grocery store, the library, retail stores, the doctor, parks, and other destinations. When I can't walk I want to be able to take the bus (or, ideally, light rail!). I want safe streets, but don't mind a little noise at night, and don't care about traffic. I want my son to grow up enjoying urban life, and when he's older, being able to easily walk, bike, or take the bus places on his own, too. Both Uptown and Lyn-Lake are great places to raise kids, and instead of reading article after article making it sound like everyone in the neighborhood is 25, rolling in money, and spending every waking minute at the bars I wish we could start fully embracing the various neighborhoods of Ward 10 as places where people of ALL ages can find a home. Even if that home involves shared walls or no car, let alone minivan.

Does Gail Dorfman Ever Even RIDE a Bus?

2009-09-27T22:36:00.004-05:00

It’s been another depressing day as I think about the Twin Cities’ overall attitude towards the role of public transportation in life. Specifically, I’ve been reading Gail Dorfman’s letter to those who support the 3C LRT alignment. While I support 3C, I can understand that there are valid reasons to support 3A, mostly that it may come down to a choice between 3A or nothing due to the current flawed federal funding formula. While that’s frustrating, it’s not nearly as frustrating or depressing as the arguments of people like Dorfman. A quote from the letter:

“Many people are curious as to why ridership in Uptown isn’t significantly higher than on the Kenilworth alignment. The answer lies in the excellent transit service that Uptown already enjoys. Adding LRT to Uptown does not draw a large number of new riders to the transit system, and while it may move some riders off of buses, that reduces the overall efficiency of the transit system.”

How does this make any sense? Let me take it point by point:

Uptown already enjoys excellent transit services. True, to a point. Uptown does have good bus connections, and it is relatively easy to live in Uptown without a car. At the same time, these bus routes are often slow. ConnectUptown has crunched the numbers: 22 minutes from the Uptown Transit Center to downtown (4th Street), 24 minutes from Lyn-Lake. The Uptown alignment would reduce that to nine minutes and eight minutes respectively. That sounds like a pretty major improvement in service to me. Besides, if we were going to go purely by this argument we could say that riders in Eden Prairie already have express bus service to downtown Minneapolis; why bother putting in light rail since it duplicates service?

“Adding LRT to Uptown does not draw a large number of new riders to the transit system.” Where does this idea come from? Is it based on bogus federal reports? Common sense suggests that this simply isn’t true. Despite the fact that Uptown does have plentiful bus options, the vast majority of Uptown residents do not, in fact, take public transportation on a regular basis, or at least not to work. Many do, of course, but census data has shown that as an overall percentage of the population there’s still a lot of room for growth. Not all residents work downtown, in Eden Prairie, or at points along the route, of course, but there’s still likely a sizable portion of untapped new riders that aren’t being factored into the equation. These are the same types of people that are expected to be attracted to light rail out in the suburbs: people who currently drive, don’t like buses, but could be convinced to take a train. If they count out in the ‘burbs then they should count here in the city.

Moving riders off buses reduces the overall efficiency of the transit system. I don’t really know where to start with this one. What? What does that mean? Isn’t the point of an efficient transportation system to get people quickly and easily from point A to point B? If a lot of people along the 3C route want to quickly and easily get downtown (or to Eden Prairie, or to Hopkins, or to St. Louis Park, or anywhere else along the way) then isn’t this route helping them to do just that? Or does this imply that there will be so much demand from existing transit users (who apparently don’t matter) that they’ll crowd the trains and make the LRT ridership numbers a little too high?

I’ve seen others (including Dorfman) argue that Uptown residents won’t walk a few extra blocks to get to the LRT station if they can just hop on a bus instead. Again, I’d like to know where they get this information. Bogus federal guidelines shouldn't count. Are there local market studies out there that suggest this? This in no way matches up to my experiences living in other cities, cities with active light rail and subway lines. In DC we lived on Connecticut Avenue a couple of miles from downtown. A bus stopped right in front of our door; while I did take the bus sometimes, I almost always preferred to walk the extra four blocks or so to the metro station. The bus was convenient, but, like in Minneapolis, it sat in traffic. Snow, traffic, motorcades; the same issues that plague Uptown (well, not the motorcades) led to frustratingly slow bus rides. Far better to just walk to the station, hop on a train, and zip along underground until I got to my stop. It worked the same way in Los Angeles. I rode the bus a lot, but the train (light rail in this case) was faster, didn’t get stuck in traffic, and was often worth the extra walk (and I wasn't the only one who felt that way). I certainly plan to ride LRT in Uptown if 3C does somehow get built, even if it means a few more blocks of walking. From the perspective of a parent, too, it’s far, far easier to bring a stroller onto a light rail car then onto a bus. Uptown parents (or parents elsewhere who want to easily visit Uptown with your kids): take it from me, 3C will make your lives easier.

Light rail does not have to be for commuters only. This focus on city versus suburbs overlooks the fact that there is a great deal of movement between city and suburbs, and that Uptown is a part of a regional network. This is not just about getting Uptown residents to and from downtown quickly, although that’s worth consideration, too, given the density of the neighborhoods in the 3C corridor.

I can understand why some people support 3A, although I don’t agree with that choice. That’s not what angers me here. What is so depressing is to have politicians like Dorfman throwing out all sorts of arguments that make little or no sense, and perpetuate the myth a viewpoint that light rail lines are only for commuting. When I read some of the rationale thrown out by Dorfman I’ve got to wonder: does she ride the bus? How often does she ride the bus in Uptown? Does she take public transit in other cities? Because quite honestly, the impression I’m getting from a lot of these people is that they could use a little more time in the real public transit world. If they’re going to continue to advocate for 3A then please, please stick to the rational arguments, and stop arguing that the low Uptown ridership numbers reflect any kind of reality.

I Love Alleys

2009-09-26T14:43:00.017-05:00

I love alleys, and always have. I've been trying to analyze why, and think it has something to do with the blend of their private nature and utilitarian function. Wandering through a neighborhood's alleys show a glimpse of another world, one completely different from the facade out front. Garages themselves can be interesting, ranging from the architecturally intriguing to the hideously ugly, from the old and decrepit to the updated and modern, as well as all points in between. Nature, too, can be found back there; squirrels, birds, cats, sometimes rabbits or raccoons, not to mention the ever-present lilac bushes and other greenery bravely hugging the property lines and filling the gaps between garages. You can get a peek at people's backyards, some fabulous retreats still visible to the alley, others blocked off by tall fences, and still others unfortunately paved over into unpleasant surface parking lots.

Not all of Uptown's blocks have alleys, but many of them do. I've spent a lot of time in them over the years; walking dogs, pushing strollers, and visiting garage sales. The photos below are not meant to be the best examples of Uptown's alley system, but rather a handful of images that struck my fancy when I went out on a photo-gathering trip earlier in the summer.

Maybe it's because I grew up on a house with an alley view of the Buzza Building (Lehmann Center), but I think those enjoying the view from the alley between Dupont and Colfax should count themselves lucky. I've always appreciated the fact that you can see the beautiful and fascinating historic Buzza Building from blocks away; those who complain about newer tall buildings "blocking the sky" should stop for a moment and realize that the Buzza's tower is pretty tall, yet I've never once heard anyone complain about how it ruins the character of the neighborhood.

One of these days we're hoping to buy a place of our own, and when we do one of the first things we do will be to plan a vegetable garden. In the meantime I'll have to make do with watching the progress of those lucky enough to have sunny space of their own.

Yet another reason I want to buy a home of my own... I really want some backyard chickens. Uptown's chicken population is growing, and these lucky chickens reside in a beautiful red alley-side coop.

This alley (near Bryant Lake Bowl) isn't itself particularly attractive, but I liked how the building is edged with a strip of greenery.

Yet more garden photos; an example of how vegetable gardening doesn't have to be expensive or fancy to be productive and worthwhile.

This garage could use a little work, but I love the architecture. Let's hope it never suffers the fate of an owner who decides to "upgrade" to a massive new structure. I love Uptown's historic garages, especially those with a lot of character.

The garage itself isn't beautiful, but the modern and attractive address numbers add some visual interest. There's no reason the back entrance can't be given the same care and attention as the front of the house, or that garages can't also benefit from a little creativity.

Ever wonder how to best use that small patch of space between two garages? I loved the canoe storage concept.

The More Boba the Better!

2009-09-25T13:08:00.004-05:00

Word on the street (well, actually word in the Southwest Journal) is that Uptown will soon be home to another bubble tea place. Bubble Me will be opening at 1404 W. Lake St., next to Stella’s. The Southwest Journal is describing it as a “bubble tea, snack bar, and coffee shop.” Given the name, though, I’m assuming the focus is on the bubble tea (boba) part of the equation.

I love boba. I’d take it over coffee any day, and appreciate the fact that most (all?) of the boba places in the Twin Cities are independent places. It’s kind of a strange love, admittedly, as I don’t have particularly like the taste of the tapioca balls, although I don’t dislike them, either. I like the big straws, the bright colors, the very non-Minnesotan tropical flavors, and the weird sense of accomplishment that comes from sucking one of the balls up through the straw. Boba can be refreshing on a hot summer day yet warming (in the purely imaginative sense) on a cold day in January.

I admit that when boba first showed up in Uptown I didn’t think it would stick around. Is there really enough of a true boba following in Minneapolis (and in Uptown in particular) to keep boba around in the long-term? Now I know it’s been trendy for a long time now; it started in Taiwan in the ‘80s, became very popular in parts of Asia in the ‘90s, then made its way to New York, Los Angeles, and other strongholds of Asian immigrants who knew and loved the stuff. It’s since hit the rest of the US, including, of course, Uptown. Tea Garden opened its first location, at 26th and Hennepin, in spring 2002. It’s still going strong, and has over the years opened multiple locations around the metro area. I welcome more Uptown boba options, and concede that although I thought it was just a trend that wouldn’t last, maybe the boba bubble hasn’t yet burst.

Uptown is Worth the Fight

2009-09-19T23:41:00.002-05:00

As some of you may have noticed, I haven’t posted much lately. Some of that is due to practical issues; I’ve been busy with work, done some traveling, and have been entertaining visitors. Some of it, though, is because I’ve been a little depressed about the future of both Uptown and Minneapolis. While I’m sure that both neighborhood and city will continue to be pleasant and desirable places to live, it’s frustrating to feel like I’m on the losing side when it comes to vision for the future. I envision Uptown as a vibrant, bustling, exciting urban neighborhood, a neighborhood where people of different ages and backgrounds live side-by-side, where residents can walk to all the essentials of life, and where a car is unnecessary.

The problem is, lots of people don’t seem to share that vision. Despite the rhetoric, a lot of local activists, mostly the NIMBYs, seem to prefer a quieter neighborhood. Sure, they like local stores and give good lip service to the importance of walkability and public transportation, but their actions send the message loud and clear: no city neighborhoods wanted here. They'd prefer to see Uptown as a slightly larger version of Linden Hills. Uptown has historically been an urban neighborhood, and I want to build on that tradition, to bring back streetlife and vitality and a better mix of people and businesses, rather than trying to remake the neighborhood in the image of a (perfectly pleasant)neighborhood located just a couple of miles away. I love Linden Hills, but if I wanted to live the Linden Hills lifestyle I would choose to live there, not Uptown.

The most recent frustration has been light rail. I understand the various pros and cons of each line, and why some people think that any line is better than no line. I’m still hoping that 3C will come through in the end, but mostly the ongoing debates have highlighted the fact that many people in the Twin Cities, and even in our city neighborhoods, don’t see public transportation as a regional need. They see light rail as primarily something to serve the needs of commuters (whether to the suburbs or to the city), and not as something to be integrated into the many different needs of daily life. When we were living in Los Angeles I took my local light rail line on a regular basis. I used it to bring my son to and from daycare, to go to work, to go to the doctor, and to go shopping. Most of my trips involved short distances: five stops to get to daycare, followed by three stops to get to work; one stop to the doctor and to the pet store, two stops to get to the bookstore. Light rail, subway, bus, commuter rail, and Amtrak were all integrated into one larger transportation system, and I used all of them depending on my needs. Obviously the transit-dependent among us in the Twin Cities will do the same thing, but it’s frustrating that so many people are willing to accept the notion that light rail is only for home to work commutes. It seems part of a larger willingness to give up and accept as fact the idea that Minneapolis is not worthy of the same quality public transportation found in so many other cities around the world.

It’s not just public transportation, of course. The focus on height has overtaken almost all other issues when it comes to Uptown’s “character.” Many of Uptown’s self-appointed leaders have decided to focus their time and energy on preventing any tall buildings from entering the neighborhood. Where’s the outrage about auto-centric, short, suburban-style buildings? Why the focus on height at the expense of all else? I still believe that these outspoken residents do not reflect the majority of Uptown residents, but unless there’s massive change it seems likely that the NIMBYs will continue to hold enormous power over neighborhood issues, and to continue to represent themselves as the voice of the neighborhoods.

I love Uptown, and think a vibrant, urban Uptown is still a cause worth fighting for. Still, the NIMBYs are wearing me down, and sometimes I wonder if it’s easier to just give up and just move somewhere like New York (or, yes, LA) where dense, vibrant, urban neighborhoods are plentiful and appreciated. After having some time to think it over, though, I’m starting to get reenergized. Why should we have to move to another city simply to enjoy urban living? Why should a handful of outspoken local homeowners get to shape Uptown into a vision of a quieter, less urban neighborhood? Minneapolis has plenty of neighborhoods like that already. For many of us, Uptown’s primary appeal is that it’s one of Minneapolis’s nicest urban neighborhoods. Let’s run with that, and give Minneapolis city lovers a chance to enjoy the best of urban in our own backyards.

The Times They Are-a-Changin': Uptown Bar Edition

2009-08-25T23:42:00.004-05:00

Uptown is buzzing with conversation about the possible closing, or at least relocation, of the iconic Uptown Bar & Cafe. If all goes forward as planned, the current building will be demolished and a new, three-story building erected in its place. There are a lot of issues here, and I still have to sort out some of my thoughts. In the meantime, here’s my first stab at working through some of it:

The owner is old, and is the one who wants to sell. This is NOT an issue of a beloved local institution being forced out due to market forces. This is an essential point, and those demanding that the city step in to intervene need to keep this in mind.

There’s a possibility that the Uptown Bar would relocate elsewhere in the neighborhood. Not the same thing, I know, but better than nothing.

Is the Uptown Bar “historic”? I have mixed opinions on this point. I’m a strong believer in historic preservation, probably more so than many people in Uptown. I also like the Uptown Bar’s building, I like its sign, and I like its significance to not-so-distant Uptown history. At the same time, businesses come and go. That’s life, like it or not. Take a look at the Rainbow Café. Time moves forward. Much as I’d like to see the Uptown Bar stay where it is, I think it’s reasonable to accept that this is an inevitable change of guard in the neighborhood. The building has historic value, but I don’t think it’s significant enough to justify forced preservation. I would, however, like to second the suggestion I’ve heard floating around that any new design incorporate the Uptown’s sign, or otherwise preserve some element of the building and its history. I also hope that if and when things move forward that the Uptown Bar get in contact with the Hennepin History Museum, the Minnesota Historic Society, or, for ephemera, the Minneapolis Collection at the Hennepin County Library to see if they’d be interested in any materials for their collections.

If the Uptown Bar closes, does that really mean Uptown has “lost its soul”? This is another opinion frequently expressed by regular Uptown Bar patrons. I don’t agree. While I welcome some of the neighborhood’s changes and dislike others, I think Uptown was – and continues to be – more than just what is represented by the Uptown Bar. Uptown is more than a bar (or breakfast) scene. The Uptown Bar may be far less annoying than Cowboy Slim’s or Chino Latino, but it’s still just one aspect of the neighborhood. The Uptown Bar is an important local institution, but it’s not the only thing of value in Uptown. For those looking for local, independent, smaller, unique businesses, there are still plenty of those around, too. And for everyone who claims that Uptown has become just another suburb, well, I’ve yet to come across a Twin Cities suburb that offers the level of density, amenities, and overall urban lifestyle offered by Uptown.

Yes, I’ll be sad to see the Uptown Bar leave. No, I don’t want to see another chain in Uptown. I will be sad to see the Uptown Bar’s building gone, no matter how wonderful (or not wonderful) the replacement building will be. I’ll be interested to see what detailed arguments proponents of the historic preservation movement put forward. I’m sympathetic to their concerns, and if the arguments are good enough could still change my personal stance. Still, at this point in time I am resigned to saying a fond farewell to a longtime neighborhood landmark, and raise my Uptown Bar glass in salute to a local institution.

LRT Meeting August 13

2009-08-12T23:16:00.004-05:00

This isn't one of my regular blog posts, as I've been very busy lately and haven't had much (any) free time, but the LRT meeting tomorrow, August 13, is too important to let slip by without comment. I'll write a post soon about my comments about the importance of the 3C Southwest Corridor, but in the meantime there are several blogs and websites that do a great job of laying out some of the issues:

Connect Uptown: Want LRT through Uptown? The Connect Uptown website helps keep you informed on developments and how to go about making sure your voice gets heard.

The Transport Politic: This blog post has been getting a lot of attention lately, in part due to the blogger's extremely useful maps showing the proposed routes in context with neighborhood density.

Minnescraper: Minnescraper's forum has an entire thread devoted to the Southwest Corridor. Read the latest posts for comments and details relating to the most current developments.

Choosing a route that leaves out Uptown is short-sighted, and bad for the city, the neighborhood, and the region. The current bias is against the 3C route (based on part on arguably faulty numbers), so now is the time to show overwhelming public support for the Uptown alignment. You can do so tomorrow, August 13: the meeting will be at the Central Library at 11:30.

Moving the Walker Library?

2009-08-06T23:54:00.002-05:00

Above: The original Walker Library

I knew that there was a new Walker Library on the horizon, but until recently had not been aware that there is a possibility that the library could move to a different location. There are no specifics – at this point this is more of a “what if” kind of question – but the library would still remain in the Uptown area. I was surprised to discover that this was even open for discussion, but the more I think about it the more I like it.

The current location limits expansion. While the location on the corner of Lagoon and Hennepin is certainly convenient, the footprint is small. It will be a cold day in hell before a Minneapolis library axes parking in return for building space, so once you factor in the need for parking (even if an underground garage) there still isn’t going to be much room for additional space. Moving to another location would provide more flexibility with design (including parking options) as well as potentially free up more space for a larger building.

Go east, young library. While I certainly want the library to stay within Uptown, I really like the idea of it moving east along Lake or Lagoon. Even a short move would put it that much closer to residents of Lyn-Lake and the heavily populated Whittier and Lyndale neighborhoods.
What about public transportation? I’ve heard some complaints that patrons would be hurt if the library was not in such close proximity to the transit center. I don’t buy this argument. The library should be within easy distance of bus (and, I hope, a LRT line!) routes, but that doesn’t mean it has to be directly adjacent to the transit center. People can walk a few blocks, and those who can’t, but still depend on public transportation, will continue to have other options such as Metro Mobility. Ideally the library will be moved east along the stretch of Lake or Lagoon between Hennepin (I’d be open to as far east as Bryant) allowing for both easy bus access beyond simply the Transit Center as well as a convenient connection to the Greenway.

“Uptown” does not have to mean within two blocks of Hennepin and Lake. I’ve also heard the argument that if the library moves that it will be a sign that commerce has taken over the heart of Uptown, and that the people will have lost as a result. I think this argument only flies if one considers Uptown to be a very small commercial core. By moving the library to a different location within Uptown there’s the chance to further strengthen the entire area. Providing a civic building, a community gathering place of great social and symbolic significance, away from the historic heart of the commercial district will help send the message that Uptown is more than just a couple of intersections. If located between somewhere between Hennepin and Lyndale it could further strengthen the connections between the traditional Uptown area and the Lyn-Lake area.

What about the current site? The corner of Hennepin and Lagoon really does deserve a great building. I’m open to the possibilities, but don’t feel that it has to be civic in function. I would hope it would be something drawing enough traffic at different times of the day to keep that corner vibrant and bustling, further helping to liven up a block that is currently not living up to its livability potential. What would be really nice, though, although admittedly not practical, would be to turn the original Walker Library into a post office. That would ensure some civic presence in the heart of Uptown, reuse a building that will always look somewhat institutional (in a good way), and provide a much-needed service to the Uptown community.

A clarification on my stance on a mixed-use library: I had previously stated that I oppose a mixed-use library, in part because I like the idea of a library having sufficient community and cultural heft to stand on its own as a landmark and local focal point. I still feel that way, but do like the idea of some additional non-library use, although in moderation. If some low-key office space, perhaps with a separate entrance, were feasible it could help with costs, as well as provide some additional foot traffic in Uptown. It would then be available for future library use, if, say, the library system needs additional administrative space or has other needs. Another potential mixed-use option would be a coffee place or something similar (although Uptown is not exactly lacking in those); something to provide library patrons with a quick place to get a snack or a drink, while also providing some extra income for the library.

Finally, the Uptown branch may not be large enough to support such a thing, but a high-quality friends of the library store, one selling relevant gifts and book-related accessories, perhaps, could both bring added revenue and traffic to the site as well as enhance the library as a destination. It may be a branch library, but that doesn’t mean the Uptown neighborhood can’t treat it as our own “central” library. These options would only be feasible on a new site. In the end, though, I do firmly believe that the library should look like a library (although that can be interpreted in innovative ways – it doesn’t need to look like the classic image of a library) and should have a form befitting its status as a local landmark and major community destination.

Has ECCO Crossed the Line?

2009-07-31T19:02:00.002-05:00

The controversy over the proposed Lake and Knox development has taken the Uptown area by storm. As one would expect, the NIMBY-dominated neighborhood organizations have banded together to protest the recent Minneapolis Planning Commission ruling in favor of the development. If nothing else, recent neighborhood board activities highlight the dysfunctional nature of these organizations, and the need for real and substantial change in either the role or the implementation of neighborhood board activities. The recent allegations over ECCO’s recent activities are a good case study.

First, some background. The ECCO board previously voted to oppose the project due to concerns about height. It was not a unanimous decision, and several recent debates (including several letters and commentaries in the Uptown Neighborhood News) have led to heightened tensions at the board level. A difference in opinion in itself is not a bad thing; neighborhood residents seldom share the same view on something, and it’s only reasonable that the board members would also have differing ideas.

Fast forward to July. The Planning Commission met, approved the project, Lara Norkus-Crampton resigned in protest, and the NIMBYs rose up to declare the Uptown Small Area Plan (USAP) dead. The neighborhood boards and nine individuals are appealing the decision. This, however, is where things in ECCO get complicated and possibly cross both ethical and legal lines. Nancy Ward, ECCO’s board president, sent an email to ECCO board members asking if they would support an appeal, and, if so, would they be willing to contribute ECCO funds to do so. (I should note right here that I am not on the ECCO board, have never been on the ECCO board, and have not seen the email in question. If someone has the text and understands the situation differently, feel free to add your comments below.) It was not couched as a formal vote, and was never formally debated, discussed, or approved. A slim majority of respondents were favorable to the appeal, and the board (or at least a few members of the board) moved forward.

Assuming the allegations are true, this should be taken seriously by both the city and the neighborhood. ECCO is a nonprofit organization, and as such is expected to abide by certain laws and regulations. There is no excuse for ignoring legal obligations or for failing to follow the organization’s own bylaws. The bylaws, for example, state that “any action that may be taken at a meeting of directors may be taken without a meeting if authorized in writing and signed by all the directors.” An informal email poll hardly qualifies. The bylaws also clearly state “only the ECCO board of directors may make a binding commitment for the ECCO area.” An informal, non-binding email non-vote is clearly not sufficient.

There are many problems at play here. Local neighborhood boards are grassroots politics at the micro-level. ECCO’s own bylaws also state that one of their objectives is to “act as a spokesperson for the ECCO neighborhood before city boards, commissions, etc. and as otherwise needed.” If the ECCO board is going to assume that responsibility, and if the city and state are going to recognize it as speaking for the neighborhood, then it need to follow the rules.

I have little hope that the issues facing Uptown neighborhood boards will ever going to be fully fixed, but there are some potential actions that could help alleviate some of the problems. An open letter of suggestions for current and potential board members:

Take board membership seriously. A board is not just a social club or even a group of like-minded neighborhood activists meeting to discuss local issues. Boards have legal obligations, and as a director or trustee a member of the board it is your responsibility to know the law, as well as to read and understand (and follow!) your board’s bylaws. ECCO is a “duly authorized nonprofit organization under the laws of the State of Minnesota,” as ECCO’s own bylaws remind board members and residents. That status comes with rights and regulations. Board members – and especially officers – need to be conversant with their bylaws, and to fully understand just what they’re taking on when they join a board.

Board education is key. Obviously there are a lot of board members out there who quite possibly have never even read their own bylaws. Bylaws are boring. I understand that; I have plenty of personal experience both serving on boards, answering directly to boards, and attending board meetings as a non-voting participant. Still, every new board member should receive adequate orientation before assuming the mantle of “director” or “trustee.”

Boards shouldn’t ethically be allowed to speak as the “voice” of a neighborhood unless improvements are made. I don’t know about the legal issues involved, but if an Uptown-area board consists almost entirely of white, middle-class, middle-aged homeowners then I think it’s safe to say there are some potential problems. You can’t make people participate, and there’s no reason why a white, middle-class, middle-age homeowner can’t also take into account the potentially different needs of a young renter or an old renter subsisting on social security checks. Still, boards need to take a more active role when it comes to adding board diversity. A nominations committee should focus on outreach efforts, and the board as a whole should work to address the issue of lack of representation.

Board members are public officials, and need to be treated as such. If board members are going to assume representative powers then the residents – all residents (or eligible stakeholders) – in the neighborhood need to know just who these people are and where they stand on relevant issues. Realistically not all (or even many) residents are going to pay any attention to this, but neighborhood organizations could at the very least post candidate statements on websites prior to neighborhood elections, publish them (as paid advertisements, if necessary) in the relevant local neighborhood newspapers, and send them out via email.

Boards need to acknowledge their weaknesses. I’ve read and heard statements to the effect that if you don’t care enough to participate yourself, then you have no right to complain. I think this is hogwash. It is the boards’ duty to think about the needs of all residents, participants or not. It would be nice if everyone in the community could and wanted to participate in local issues, but that’s not the reality. That in no way means that the needs of non-participants do not matter. A good board acknowledges both its strengths and its weaknesses, and endeavors to consider the needs of the broader community.

Accountability is a good thing. Politics are obviously not perfect, and board members should be able to vote based on their conscience, not due to fears of political repercussions. But board members do need to be reminded that their decisions can have a significant impact on the development of the neighborhood. If, for example, a board member does something in his or her board capacity that is unethical or illegal or otherwise violates the public’s trust, then he or she needs to be held accountable for that action. Similarly, even if an action does not violate ethics – CARAG President Aaron Rubenstein’s comments in the Southwest Journal about the “very significant, long-term damage” to the Uptown Small Area Plan by the Planning Commission, for example – neighborhood residents should be aware of just what it is that their neighborhood representatives are saying on their behalf, and be prepared to boot those officials out of their board membership role if they decide that those opinions do not, in fact, represent the view of the neighborhood.

To bring this back to the situation in ECCO, it sounds like things are pretty seriously amiss if the allegations hold true. Bylaws and regulations aren’t perfect, but they are an attempt to protect people from potential misuse of power. In this particular case the NIMBYs are in the position of power; if the political makeup changes in the future and they represent a minority of board members then they, too, will appreciate why there are checks and balances in place to keep a few activists from making all of the important decisions. This is democracy at the micro-level, and it can only work if residents – and board members – take it seriously. If ECCO has indeed run amiss of ethics and the law then it’s time for a major shakeup, potentially a board recall, or at the very least some major internal soul-searching.

Lara Norkus-Crampton: "Part of the Problem"

2009-07-27T23:26:00.002-05:00

By now everyone has heard that Lara Norkus-Crampton has resigned her seat on the Planning Commission in protest over the Commission’s support of the project at Lake and Knox. What? You haven’t heard? You haven’t heard of Norkus-Crampton, and didn’t realize that she’s doing this for you, the people of Uptown? That, of course, is part of the problem, and is yet another reason why it’s so frustrating when people like Norkus-Crampton and her merry band of NIMBYs claim to speak for all Uptown residents and stakeholders. While it would be nice if every resident or other Uptown property owner, business owner, employer, visitor, or other Uptown regular was actively involved in discussions about the neighborhood and its future, that’s not the reality. Norkus-Crampton and the NIMBYs are one faction of the neighborhood; a vocal faction, of course, but just one group out of many.

Most of the readers of this blog probably do know Norkus-Crampton and her history, but then again, readers of this blog are, like the NIMBYs, not necessarily a representative cross-section of Uptowners. Norkus-Crampton has been an active figure in local development issues, and is one of the leading proponents of the concept that tall buildings, or even slightly tall buildings, are single-handedly going to destroy Uptown’s “character.” Norkus-Crampton and the NIMBYs have a vision of Uptown as a quieter place, a less-dense neighborhood where they can “see the sky.” And while I certainly think diversity of opinions is a good thing, and value a good community discussion as much as the anyone, the NIMBYs are, to adapt Norkus-Crampton’s description of the Planning Commission (“I have come to the conclusion that the Planning Department, and the Planning Commission, as a whole, are part of the problem”) the real problem facing Uptown today. Norkus-Crampton’s actions sum up the general attitude in a nutshell: my way or the highway.

Norkus-Crampton claims that the Planning Commission’s vote in favor of the Knox development shows a “complete disregard” for the Uptown Small Area Plan. More specifically, she says it destroys what she calls “the Grand Compromise,” a compromise she alleges the USAP allowed for higher density and height in the core of Uptown in return for lower height. The reality is not that simple. Uptown business leader and USAP steering committee member Thatcher Imboden described his view of things in a recent post on the Minneapolis Issues Forum:

“Height was a component, but it was intentionally not elevated to supreme status. Height itself, determined through our planning process, was not the main issue. It was the height’s relationship with people… meaning how it made you feel on the sidewalk and how it impacted other properties…. But, that’s not quite 100% the way everything ended. A pre-draft came out and was distributed to the Steering Committee. It supported a little more height than the adopted plan. But mysteriously, that height was stripped out a week later without any reason given. The official draft had every district recommended for 3-5 stories with potentially a little more between the Greenway and Lake between Dupont and Hennepin. Otherwise it said that height may be increased from time to time and it left the doors open for that discussion…. The public was told very clearly that staff would not make a recommendation on height and that the Planning Commission would resolve it after taking public comments in writing during the draft response phase and during the Planning Commission official proceedings. Lots of people gave feedback, some saying it’s a good plan, some saying less height, and some people saying more height would be fine, and others saying making it clear that the plan is flexible. BUT, the Planning Commission stated after the public hearing that a compromise had already been reached and they didn’t want to reopen the conversation. Except it hadn’t really been resolved.”

Was this the “Grand Compromise?” Does Norkus-Crampton really think that the Commission’s recent vote was a referendum on the USAP? The approved USAP itself even spells out the potential ambiguity of situations such as the Lake and Knox project. “On occasion, variances and conditional use permits within the Shoreland Overlay District may be appropriate,” (47) for example, and “a broader public discussion that evaluates and weights the overall public contributions and merits of an individual project should be expected on occasion in the future in the even that a taller building is proposed.” (74) I find it outrageous that Norkus-Crampton and her allies have the nerve to proclaim the USAP dead. “This kills the compromise,” said Norkus-Crampton in her resignation press release, “how do you say ‘yes’ to one 56 foot high proposal and ‘no’ to others who will follow this new precedent?” Well, Lara, it’s easy. You go with the plan and evaluate each proposal in turn, just like the USAP suggests. Norkus-Crampton calls the Commission’s willingness to follow the USAP’s flexibility as “cavalier;” I call her disregard for the plan and differing views cavalier.

I’m not sure exactly what to think of Norkus-Crampton’s actions. On one hand, I’m tempted to write it off as a childish reaction to not getting her way. The NIMBYs, after all, have enjoyed a great deal of power in recent years. On the other hand, maybe she really does believe in what she says. I’m not sure which is worse. Is it better to set yourself up as a martyr for the cause when you know full well that the plan was designed to be flexible (in a political move designed to further your overall agenda), or is it better to have such tunnel vision that you honestly don’t understand the details of the plan? To put it in a non-Minnesota “nice”way, is she calculating, is she dumb, or is she oblivious? I think it’s the case of well-meaning tunnel vision, myself. I don’t think she’s stupid and I doubt she’s particularly Machiavellian, but I do think she’s not spending enough quality time engaging in meaningful, sometimes uncomfortable, debates (internal or external) about Uptown and its past, present, and future. I think she honestly does believe that her view of Uptown and its potential is shared by the vast majority of local residents, or, if they don’t share it, then they must have somehow sold out to the evil developers who are out to destroy the neighborhood. In any case, I’m glad to see Norkus-Crampton go, but hope that it doesn’t newly energize an already energized bunch of vocal residents who already enjoy a disproportionate amount of political power.

“This proposal was opposed by the East Isles, ECCO, and CARAG neighborhoods,” said Norkus-Crampton in her press release. It’s this disregard for the people of Uptown, or at least for those who don’t share the NIMBY viewpoint, that really gets me steamed. The NIMBYs often claim to speak for entire neighborhoods. The problem, of course, is that the project was opposed by the neighborhood boards (and not all board members), and boards should not be considered the same thing as neighborhoods. The neighborhood boards are not particularly representative of the neighborhood residents, and are easily dominated by small groups of people with special interests. Neighborhood boards have their strengths and weaknesses, and certainly have a role to play in Uptown, but they have a lot of work to do if they want to become true representative bodies. The NIMBYs have nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to lose, by becoming more diverse and encouraging a broader range of opinions, so unless a slate of new neighborhood activists bursts onto the scene in coming years (and are willing to put up with the process and the frustrations of dealing with the current status quo day in and day out) it appears that the NIMBYs will continue to shape the dialogue as the “official” spokesmen and women for Uptown-area neighborhoods.

It remains to be seen what new role Norkus-Crampton will play in the ongoing debate about the future of Uptown, but I, for one, pledge to do my part to place Norkus-Crampton and her allies in their proper context: a group of neighborhood residents who have one concept of what Uptown is and should be, but not a group that has the authority to speak on behalf of all, or even most, Uptown residents and stakeholders. As for Norkus-Crampton herself, I appreciate her love of the neighborhood and her dedication to making it a better place to live (although our opinions differ on the details), but hope for the sake of Uptown that she channels her new free time into bird watching and planning block parties instead of resuming her role of ECCO and Uptown’s Queen NIMBY.

Kim Vlaisavljevich Runs for Ward 10 City Council Spot

2009-07-22T01:13:00.003-05:00

You knew it would happen one of these days: a conservative has now officially entered the Ward 10 race. While technically running as an Independent, Kim Vlaisavljevich has the endorsement of the Republican party. The odds of her winning are about as likely as Lake Calhoun freezing over in August, but at least she does bring some political diversity to the proceedings.

The Basics
According to her website, Vlaisavljevich’s primary issues are “budget control,” “better property tax management,” and “no wasteful spending.” Unfortunately her website, like most candidate websites, is heavy on rhetoric, light on details. She wants to “make better management decisions” and to ensure that stimulus money is “allocated to projects that make the most sense for the community.” What those decisions or projects may be is left largely to the imagination of the voter.

In a Nutshell: It’s All About the Money
Vlaisavljevich appears to be a one-issue candidate. That’s not surprising, I suppose, but I do with the local fiscal conservatives would put forth a candidate with more dimension, or, alternatively, that Vlaisavljevich herself would elaborate a bit more about exactly what it is that she stands for, other than on matters of money.

About Kim Vlaisavljevich
According to her LinkedIn profile, Vlaisavljevich holds a BA in Economics and International Business from St. Cloud State. She currently works as a financial and accounting consultant, and is the owner of mIT Consulting, a “customer focused IT consulting firm.” She started out her career as a bankruptcy analyst for Wells Fargo before moving on to work for Carlson Companies, followed by contract work for clients such as SuperValu, Allina, Thomson Reuters, and SALO.

“There’s nothing that bothers me more than wasteful spending.”
Really, this seems to sum it all up. I don’t like “wasteful spending,” either, but what counts as wasteful? And, when it comes right down to it, I can think of things that bother me more than wasteful spending. Things like inequality in education. Crime. Poverty. Lack of affordable housing. Given that there’s a limited amount of money to go around it’s important to allocate it in the best way possible for the sake of the community, but it would be nice to see a little more passion about the ways in which that money could help improve society as a whole, and Minneapolis and Ward 10 in particular. Or, since I’m not a Republican and admittedly just don’t “get” the mindset, what’s wrong with having passion for both saving money AND making Ward 10 a better place to live, work, and visit? What does she want for Ward 10? What are her priorities? What is her vision? She does mention the need for “less property taxes, high service levels, better schools, business development, and more green space,” but that’s still pretty vague. (I also found it interesting that "less property taxes" came first on that list of desires)

Things are starting to gear up, and if we’re lucky each of these four Ward 10 candidates will help provoke a larger community discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of Ward 10, as well as highlight the diversity of opinions held within the Ward as a whole. I will never vote for Vlaisavljevich, but I appreciate that she’s running. While I don’t wish her the best of luck with the actual election – I support Meg Tuthill, although I disagree with some of her stances – I do wish her the best of luck in drumming up some increased Ward 10 chatter, and in providing voters with an alternative view on local issues.

Ward 10 Candidate Slate Complete

2009-07-22T00:27:00.001-05:00

Filings are now complete for Minneapolis City Council candidates, and Ward 10 now has four official contenders. There’s Meg Tuthill, of course, now joined by Dan Alvin, Kim Vlaisavljevich, and Matthew Dowgwillo. I’ve already written about Alvin and Tuthill, but in the spirit of giving all Ward 10 candidates a shot at equal attention I’ll be posting comments about both Dowgwillo and Vlaisavljevich in the coming days.

Dan Alvin Runs for Ward 10 City Council Spot

2009-07-16T23:04:00.005-05:00

Ward 10 residents will at least in theory now have a choice at the ballot box this fall; Dan Alvin of either CARAG or East Isles (he lives on the border, although I'm not sure which side of the street) recently announced his candidacy for Ward 10 city council member as the Independence Party candidate. The Southwest Journal ran a brief profile on Alvin, in which Alvin cites the importance of local businesses and a neighborhood-driven police force as top priorities. A look at his website provides further details. Check it out for yourself, but here's the Cliff Notes version of his chief goals:

To transform the idea of what a candidate and city council member can be;
To let everyone know that an average person of humble means can change city politics;
To represent renting artists and hospitality industry folks, as well as property owners and small businesses;
To bring innovative thinking and unique perspectives to city leadership;
To listen to your thoughts and bring an independent voice to city government;
To empower our ideas and create the policies we want.

A quote published in the Southwest Journal's profile seems to sum up his view of the ward in a nutshell. The ward, he says, "is all driven by food and art and entertainment." He argues that his background as a musician, a chef, and former owner of a record-label make him an ideal fit for Ward 10. He also has significant experience in the non-profit world.

Before I write much more, let me state that I like some of Alvin's ideas. Who could disagree with statements like "I am a firm believer that we need more low cost, safe, and clean affordable housing"? I love that he wants to get local food into local schools and retirement homes. I appreciate that he's made support for "mother-in-law cottages" part of his platform. But overall, to be frank, I think his views (or at least his explanations of them) are somewhat simplistic and vague. I agree with him on some things, but strongly disagree with him on many other points. On the other hand, I'm thrilled that he's running, as a race with only one candidate hardly counts as a race. I hope that his participation sparks additional neighborhood discussions. And in the spirit of discussions, here are some of my concerns and disagreements about Alvin's platforms and views:

The Ward is not "all driven by food and art and entertainment." Those activities are all major issues in the Uptown area, but a focus on this overlooks the many other activities and businesses in the area. I like that he is paying attention to these factors (and as a positive - too many people focus on them as negatives), but it does make me wonder if he's going to understand what my issues are and why they matter. Food, art, and entertainment are just one component of the whole.

I don't want an "average" person in office. I realize that he's trying to push a certain image, a man-of-the-people grassroots image. I have no idea if he really considers himself average or not. But why is it acceptable to vote for average people for office? My ideal candidate is brilliant, has a broad range of experiences, and knows the ins and outs of both the neighborhood and the workings of government. I don't care if candidates have money or not, as long as they are aware of and outspoken about the issues facing people of all economic backgrounds.

He lacks details. I know, I know: candidate's websites are often heavy on fluff and big talk, light on the details. I realize that, but when a candidate proposes major changes I want to know just how he or she thinks this is possible. It's good - even desirable - to dream big, but I also want results. Alvin wants to encourage cops to live in the community, for example; sounds great, but what does that mean? Citing "incentives" and mentoring programs doesn't go far enough. And by community does he mean the police should live within city limits? Does a cop living in Camden have a closer affinity to Ward 10 than does a cop living in St. Louis Park? I'd love it if all of our police officers lived within Ward boundaries, but it's not realistic. I'd certainly be willing to hear Alvin's suggestions, though, but want more evidence that he's thought through these issues and has a good grasp of all the implications of whatever proposal he comes up with.

I don't agree with him on the development issue, or at least I don't think I do. Again, websites are a little vague. Maybe some of these details will be discussed in more detail as the campaigns shift into higher gear. On his website Alvin writes "the recent housing property bust has demonstrated the failure of putting everyone in a house. I think the threshold of high-rise condos in the ward has been reached." What does he mean by this? First, there are few high-rise condos in Ward 10, so I'm assuming (although am perhaps wrong) that he's referring to some of the developments along Lake Street and around Lyn-Lake. I would hardly call those high-rise. Of more significance, don't condos provide more living options in the area? How do statements A and B relate? High-rise condos (or medium-rise condo or apartment buildings) are not single family homes; if done right they can be part of the affordable housing solution, not singled out as problem.

Alvin also suggest that local residents need more power over zoning: "no one knows the needs and the wants of neighborhoods more than the people who live there, so locally elected zoning commissions could apply a more accountable standard to development concerns." Ward 10 is already filled with vocal opponents of any and all development project, with most concerns based purely on height. The communities do have a significant voice in new developments. I understand the desire of local neighbors to have some control over what goes up in their own neighborhoods, but more local control is not the right answer. For one thing, how are we going to ensure that these locally-elected zoning commissions reflect the will of the people? Alvin himself acknowledges that local politics need to better incorporate a broader range of residents, including renters; given that local neighborhood boards are currently dominated by middle-aged white homeowners, many of them adamant NIMBYs, why would these zoning boards be any different? I'm the first to acknowledge that not all white boomer homeowners share the same outlook on life or on development, but let's fix the current system and increase representation on the current neighborhood boards before we throw any binding power to local groups, elected or not.

Is Alvin a feel-good candidate lacking in substance? Maybe, maybe not. I'll reserve final judgement. But his website skews heavily to the fluff side. The sentence that grates me the most is his stated goal to "empower our ideas and create the policies we want." What ideas, and what policies? Or are those all to be determined at a later date, perhaps driven by the will of the people? What if (and this is not going to be the case in Ward 10, thank goodness, but it's a hypothetical what if) the people, or at least those who get out and vote or participate in forums or whatever other way of communication Alvin prefers, envision themselves living in a right-wing wonderland? I want a city council member who will listen to all local stakeholders -- including those with views I don't agree with -- but that doesn't mean I want him or her to make decisions based on a majority-rules mentality. And if Alvin does intend to stick to his guns and make the decisions he feels are best for the Ward, then I want to know the details of those ideas and policies upfront.

I think Alvin means well. I'm sure he's a smart guy, and he does have an interesting resume. I think he'd be a wonderful asset to any neighborhood organization. But I'm far from convinced that he's ready for the big leagues of Minneapolis City Council. But even if he's unlikely to win (and, I think, not ready to win), I hope that he has success in bringing his issues to the table -- even those I don't agree with -- and can help to spark some larger discussions and debates among the stakeholders of Ward 10.

Walker Library III

2009-07-07T23:56:00.004-05:00

Above: Current Walker Library interior

Uptown is getting a new Walker Library, and the Library powers-that-be want your input on what it should include. Meetings are scheduled for July 11 (2:00 – 3:30 pm) and July 16 (6:30 – 8:00 pm) if you want to get involved in the discussion.

Some Walker Library history in a nutshell: the first Walker Library, located across the street from the current building, was built for $45,000 in 1911. It provided local residents with access to books, as well as served as gathering place for the larger community. In the 1960s, discussion began about building a new library; things moved slowly then, too, and construction did not begin until 1979. The new library – the one we still have today – was designed to be energy-efficient. It opened for business in 1981.

Fast-forward twenty-plus years. In the early to mid-2000s there was discussion about the possibility of a new, mixed-use building on the site. (read Greco’s 2005 proposal here) Despite extensive community discussion, in the end nothing happened. The library is still here today, it’s still underground, and while there have been some changes, it still feels overall pretty much the same as it did ten, even twenty years ago. I’m assuming that the proposed new library will be free-standing and not part of a mixed-use development, but please post a comment below if you have information to the contrary.

Some thoughts and a wish list for the new library:

I support a free-standing structure. In most cases I like the idea of mixed-use developments. I think it helps add appropriate density, and in turns enhances the vitality of a neighborhood. It also increases the housing options available. In the case of a library, however, I think mixed-use is the wrong way to go. That goes doubly in a neighborhood that is in desperate need for public iconic gathering places. Uptown doesn’t even have a post office. There is no high school. We obviously don’t have a city hall. The Walker Library steps in to fulfill this role, and I think a suitably grand and inspiring freestanding building is the way to communicate its status to the community.

The plaza. I like the library letter art; it would be nice to see them Incorporated somehow in the new design. The plaza itself is a failure, though. It usually feels dead. I like the idea of some outdoor space, ideally incorporating seating and maybe even a small children’s play area, but it needs to better engage the public and contribute to the overall street life of Uptown. I’ve seen it done well in other places, and have every hope that it will work here.

Parking. I know people have a fit about parking. I believe that the library has to offer adequate parking, particularly to serve older or disabled people, but overall if it comes down to making a decision between extra space for either a public plaza or the library building itself I’d get rid of the parking (or most of it) in a minute. Non-disabled people can walk, bus, bike, park on the street, or walk from one of the neighborhood’s other parking lots.

Meeting space. The library needs to provide flexible space to accommodate large groups. An obvious point, of course, but one worth listing all the same.

Gallery space. Given the library’s function as more than simply a repository for books (and now provider of computer access), it would be wonderful to see an area set aside to feature relevant small-scale exhibits. There should be secure accommodations for small three-dimensional objects (including books) as well as wall space for art; possible exhibition topics could be everything from the work of local artists to local history to highlights from the library’s own collection. Curators could include both library staff as well as community members. Exhibitions with a Minneapolis, and even better, an Uptown, focus would further enhance the area’s sense of unity.

Corral the kids. The trend in libraries seems to be towards integrating children’s rooms into the larger library, rather than placing them off to the side and away from the adult areas. I assume that part of this is due to security concerns and staffing issues. As the parent of a toddler, I can speak from personal experience when I say that I absolutely hate these wide-open spaces. Kids are noisy (even when trying to stay quiet), run fast, and need their own space. A separate room may not be possible, but even an area enclosed by some Plexiglas or enclosed by a waist-high wall could keep the kids from a mad dash out the door while still allowing good visibility from outside. Still, a separate space would be my number one choice if at all possible, and would presumably also please the other patrons of the library, at least those who prefer to be able to work in peace and quiet.

Technology. Computers are a necessary part of any library, so provide enough of them to meet the needs of the patrons. Keep enough aside (and scattered) to provide easy catalogue access for visitors just trying to find a book.

And the big one: books. The more books the better. And also from the viewpoint of a parent of a toddler, it’s nice to have the aisles spaced widely enough so that I can push a stroller down the middle without my son being able to sweep all the books from the shelves before I can stop him. Even without a child in tow it’s nice to be able to have room for browsing, especially if it’s a popular row. Still, if it comes down to cramped rows or more books, I’d take the more books option.

What did I miss? What are your ideas for the new Walker Library?

Why Do Only Homes Get to be "Historic"?

2009-07-03T22:05:00.005-05:00

The Greenway - a reminder of Uptown's rich industrial heritage

Before I get into my spiel on the importance of local commercial and industrial buildings and landscapes to Uptown's "character," let me get a few disclaimers out of the way:

Historic houses are important, and do contribute to Uptown's character.

I think it's wonderful that the Wedge is actively working to designate part of the neighborhood as a historic district.

It's better to focus primarily (or virtually only) houses than on nothing.

Every neighborhood in Uptown should have a committee, or at least an informal group of residents, who actively consider issues relating to local history, culture, and, where relevant, preservation.

That said, hearing about the updates on LHENA's historic district, as well as their hopes to engage other neighborhoods, leaves me practically shaking with frustration. Take, for example, the current wording of LHENA's NRP Phase II Action Plan, Strategy 1.1.2 (bolding mine):

"In order to preserve historic homes and thus maintain the integrity and character of the neighborhood, LHENA will explore the possibility of designating the Lowry Hill East neighborhood as an historic district.... LHENA may explore networking with nearby neighborhoods which share similar interest, goals and needs to historic preservation."

The Board voted on proposed changing to the wording (at the July 1 meeting; I wasn't there, but assume that it was approved) to expand the section (leaving the above part alone) to include a paragraph stating that the neighborhood would "raise awareness and interest in historic preservation, through means such as producing and issuing commemorative plaques to recognize neighborhood homes and structures aged over 100 years or that have otherwise made a significant architectural or cultural contribution, and other educational efforts."

I don't have a problem with these statements say, but I do have a problem with what they don't say. When homes are emphasized over all other "structures" then it becomes all too easy for people to forget about our commercial and industrial past. And while that may be a simple oversight, I also wonder if there are larger issues at play here, even if maybe only on a subconscious level. Some thoughts on history and historic preservation in Uptown (in a broad sense, and not just in the Wedge):

Uptown's commercial buildings are just as important as its houses . Uptown's older commercial buildings contribute greatly to Uptown's character. There are the obvious landmarks, of course - the theaters, Temple Israel, my beloved Buzza Building (Lehmann Center), the Calhoun Beach Club - but there are many, many other commercial buildings throughout the neighborhood that contribute immeasurably to local character. They may even contribute more to a sense local community than do most individual houses. Businesses serve as landmarks in a neighborhood; they're open to everyone, serve as destinations, and become a part of people's individual neighborhood histories and memories. My family home is historically significant to me and my family, as well as to those who lived there before we did; that's important (and it would be personally devastating to see it torn down or massively remodelled), but of more importance to the neighborhood as a whole would be if a building like the Bryant Building (Magers and Quinn's building) or the Uptown Theater were demolished. Those buildings and their various businesses have been etched into local Uptown history in a way that touches many more people than does an individual house. That's not to say that local historic homes shouldn't be protected, or that they don't contribute to area character (and certainly the wide-scale demolition of older homes would detract from neighborhood character), but that shouldn't mean that homes should get a higher emphasis than does the local commercial past.

Uptown has an industrial heritage, like it or not. This is where I start to wonder if there are deeper currents when discussing local historic preservation. I don't get the sense that many residents really care about Uptown's industrial past. One need only take a walk or ride down the Greenway for a reminder that the neighborhood has an industrial past. Manufacturers, lumberyards, and other often dirty, sometimes loud, utilitarian businesses lined the tracks. These businesses provided jobs for thousands of local residents. Not every warehouse or old building needs to be preserved, but we should collectively take a look at this corridor and have a broader discussion about what should be saved, what can go, and what, if anything, of Uptown's industrial past should be acknowledged. I've got to wonder, though, if part of the apathy towards the industrial past is because to acknowledge that Uptown's historical character included a lot of gritty, blue-collar, city history (and not just lake-oriented pseudo-suburban "character") runs the risk of opening up a can of neighborhood character worms. Overall, though, I think most people just don't think about industrial history very much, and have fallen into the trap of focusing on the "finest" examples of rich people's houses because that's what often passes as history in modern society.

Plaques are a nice starting point. I don't quibble with the idea that commemorative plaques will increase interest in local historic preservation. I think they're a wonderful idea, and a potential source of revenue. Perhaps the price of the plaques (which should be shouldered by the homeowner) can be priced to provide an extra pot of more publicly-oriented historic education money. This could be used to produce high-quality outdoor signage located throughout the greater Uptown area; these signs could provide basic, site-specific historical information. Maybe a couple along the Greenway, by Lake Calhoun, by the former West High School, in the local parks, and so on. Signage of this sort is a more democratic way to educate a broader public about local history and culture, as well as enhances community, and - dare I say - character.

I'll leave it at this for now. In short, good for LHENA for taking a stab at boosting awareness of local history and historic preservation, but please, please, don't let a focus on homes blind the neighborhood(s) to the very significant nature of our commercial and industrial heritage. The combination of all of these elements have shaped Uptown into what it is now, and a responsible, inclusive approach to historic preservation and education can serve to shape Uptown into an even greater neighborhood in the future.

The New Rainbow: Does the Future Look Golden for Uptown?

2009-06-29T01:05:00.006-05:00

Uptown's Rainbow Foods has long been bashed for both its suburban-style parking lot, its faded interior, and its sometimes-limited offerings, among things. Most detractors are probably cheering as they contemplate the recent announcement that Rainbow is anticipating MAJOR changes. In short, the current building and parking lot will be demolished and a new, three-story building will be built in its place. Unlike the current setup, the new building will take up the entire property.

According to the website OurUptown, the new Rainbow will:

Have three floors; the first floor will include 10,000 square feet of retail space. 250 parking spots (total) will be spread out between the first and second floor. The third floor will feature an 80,000 square feet grocery store.
Shoppers will access the grocery store through stairs, elevators, and escalators.
The maximum height is currently expected to be 48 feet; no zoning variance is necessary.
The store will be closed (for obvious reasons) for most of 2010, and possibly into early 2011.

This is great news. While I may be in the minority when I say that I hate big stores, and think that the current store is more than sufficient (and is in fact too big for my tastes), I realize that most people embrace the big-is-better viewpoint when doing their grocery shopping. I also don't mind the store (often called the "ghetto Rainbow"), and actually think of the store as it is now as the new and improved, "upscale" Rainbow, at least compared to what it was in the '90s. And yes, I'll admit, I like my grocery stores a little dingy around the corners as long as that dinginess doesn't extend to unsanitary conditions. Too much class in a grocery store makes me nervous. I'm weird that way, I guess. Still, I admit that this new Rainbow will give the people of Uptown an updated grocery store offering, and is certainly better than the risk of Rainbow pulling out and leaving altogether (a la Best Buy when it closed its Uptown store because the size was smaller than their typical suburban store). Mostly, though, I'm just happy that the store is pumping money into the community and is demonstrating an interest in building a neighborhood-friendly store that will get rid of that eyesore of a parking lot.

There will be undoubtedly be far more to say on this topic as more facts are released. In the meantime, this is an exciting project, and has the possibility to really help fill in the gap between Lyn-Lake to the east and the core of commercial Uptown to the west. It sounds like Rainbow is interested in a design appropriate to the area. I also hope that they consider the potentials of the Greenway when building this new store; if done right this could better link the Greenway to Lake/Lagoon, and help better connect CARAG and the Wedge.

My Kind of Corner Store

2009-06-18T23:34:00.004-05:00

Above: Louie's Food and Greek Deli, 35th and Dupont

I love corner stores, and wish that Uptown had more of them. In an ideal world, or at least in my ideal world, no one would be so unfortunate as to live more than two blocks from a shop selling milk, bananas, twinkies, ice cream, and, if really lucky, made-to-order sandwiches. These sorts of stores are designed to serve the community, and sell the basic essentials for when you don't have the time or the inclination to run to the store. The owners usually cater to the specific needs and tastes of the neighborhood; in addition to the standard corner store staples, for example, our old store in Hollywood sold red fishnet stockings (presumably for the local hookers) and our DC store sold boxes of snails for those neighbors with more advanced food tastes than me.

One of my favorite Uptown-area corner stores is Louie's Food and Greek Deli, located at the corner of 35th and Dupont. There's been a store there for as long as I can remember. Back in the mid-1980s I remember going to the same location to buy popsicles and hubba bubba gum. Stepping down the steps and into the dim basement store it felt like we were entering a different world. It wasn't elegant or exotic, but it was sure convenient. Back then the store was more utilitarian; a place to buy the basics of life, but not a particularly attractive addition to the neighborhood. Oh, how things have changed. I can't remember when the changes started, but gradually the store started to get some facelifts. A new sign, a new awning, fancy landscaping. The inside seems cleaner and brighter, too. The corner store of the 2000s is an attractive place, ice box and all. Admittedly the Malboro sign above the air conditioning unit isn't particulary inspiring, but when I can buy milk and fresh deli items I don't complain too much.

Corner stores are an integral part of a successful urban neighborhood. They're vivid proof that the concept of mixed-use development isn't a modern idea. People have long mixed commercial and residental uses, and when done right it benefits everyone. I hope to see Uptown's small corner stores continue to thrive for years to come, and hope that they will continue to serve as reminders that vibrant urban neighborhoods need businesses like this to live up to their full potential.

It's a Strike! Uptown's Best Bike Rack

2009-06-09T22:21:00.008-05:00

Above: Bowling pin bike rack at Bryant-Lake Bowl

I’ve recently started paying attention to bike racks, and have become mildly obsessed. Not obsessed with using the racks, ironically, as I don’t own a bike, but fascinated with them for both their utilitarian and artistic values. Minneapolis (including Uptown) is a pretty bike-friendly place, and it’s great to see so many businesses – and even some apartment buildings – offering bike rack parking.

Uptown has many great examples of the sheer variety of bike racks available, but so far my all-time favorite is the one at Bryant-Lake Bowl (photo above). It’s the perfect blend of form and function, and further serves to establish a unique sense of place. The design is eclectic, fun, distinctive, and relates to the nature of the business. It livens up the streetscape on a stretch of Lake Street that has historically been rather drab and utilitarian.

While in some commercial districts or streets a more elegant, or at lesat subdued and uniform, look might be more appropriate, but Uptown – especially the area closer to Hennepin and Lake – is often criticized as having long since lost its artistic vibe. Lyn-Lake still has more independent spirit, but with its growing population and name-recognition it’s going to risk running into the same issues as the core Uptown commercial area. Interesting, unique, functional bike racks are a great way to restore some of that bohemian flavor. When done right, as at Bryant Lake Bowl, they add to the pedestrian experience, make it easy for people to choose biking over driving, and overall make a street more enjoyable and a neighborhood more interesting.

If you, too, want a unique piece of commercial-quality bike racks, Midtown Greenway-adjacent Dero Bike Rack is a local supplier. The company has seen sales skyrocket in the last four years; their customer-base is national, but people here in Uptown, business owners or otherwise, can just hop on a bike and head up the Greenway to discuss their business or building's needs. Check out some of Dero's custom designs for inspiration, or dream up your own vision. They sell the basic versions, too.

Did I miss any other creative Uptown-area bike racks?

I Love The Tin Fish - Well, Sort Of

2009-06-04T17:11:00.005-05:00

Above: The Tin Fish on a late spring weekday morning.

I love The Tin Fish; I think it's Uptown at its best when you can get lunch (and even a drink!) and sit enjoying it while overlooking Lake Calhoun. The lake itself is always beautiful, but The Tin Fish's corner offers the bonus of plenty of activity, allowing for good people (and dog) watching. There's a range of offerings at different price points, the food gets overall good reviews, and it's both child- and dog-friendly. The space is attractive; their decor pays homage to the historic building's lakeside location, but without going too over-the-top kitschy or cutesy. In short, I think it's the kind of business that belongs on our lakes, and does a good job of enhancing people's (locals and visitors alike) Lake Calhoun experience.

So what's not to love about The Tin Fish? The food is good, the location superb, the experience relaxing and pleasant. Well, let's just say that I was happier when I envisioned The Tin Fish another shining example of local entrepreneurship, unsullied by franchise options and unique in both name and location. The Tin Fish is not, as many would guess, an independent operation; it's part of a franchise-based chain with multiple locations. As the website puts it, "The Tin Fish name continues to spread across the country." With each new location a little of the charm of the existing one dies; for now it works for me because I never have to actually see another The Tin Fish, and can pretend that they don't exist, but the more a company, especially a restaurant, moves into chain territory, the less appeal they hold for me personally. It's not that a chain can't offer a perfectly pleasant experience (as The Tin Fish does), but there's simply something disconcerting about knowing that at other people elsewhere are sitting at a restaurant with the same name and the same (or similar) menu.

Despite my dislike of chains, I'll continue to eat at The Tin Fish, and hope that it continues to thrive. It's a great place, and does enhance both the Lake Calhoun and the Uptown experience. Still, I can't help wishing that the owners of The Tin Fish's Lake Calhoun operation could go their own independent way, or if not, then at least I hope to never run across another The Tin Fish on my travels. There's a time and a place for chains, but in my mind that doesn't include the banks of Lake Calhoun.

Let's Solve the Parking Permit Problem

2009-06-01T07:30:00.001-05:00

Above: wasted daytime parking spaces in Uptown

The Uptown portion of Minneapolis’s Critical Parking Area (Area 21) includes Emerson and Fremont between Lake Street and 31st Street, as well as a small stretch of 31st Street itself. As described by the city, these permit parking districts “are residential on-street parking areas that are intended to provide relief to neighborhood residents from parked vehicles by persons who have no association with the residents or the businesses in the neighborhood.” Resident permits cost $25 each year; additional visitor or service vehicle permits can be purchased for guests. Each resident license driver is allowed to purchase two parking permits. Uptown’s district has been in place for more than five years now, and its many flaws are readily apparent.

Donald Shoup’s excellent book, the High Price of Free Parking, proposes a solution for high-demand parking areas like Uptown. The problem, he points out, is that the parking spaces on residential blocks near commercial districts are often filled if there are no restrictions, yet parking permit programs such as the one in Uptown leave the blocks underused. In Uptown’s case, Emerson and Fremont are nearly void of cars during the day, while nearby (and more densely populated) blocks on the other side of 31st Street have few spaces available. Shoup suggests creating what he calls “Parking Benefit Districts,” a common-sense compromise solution that Uptown and Minneapolis would be smart to consider.

A parking benefit district, as outlined by Shoup:

Residents can obtain permits for free or for a small fee;

A controlled number of additional permits are available for purchase by non-residents for market-rate prices;

Permit fees are earmarked to return to the parking permit district, and could be used for things ranging from cleaning graffiti, fixing sidewalks, adding lights, landscaping, or otherwise improving the streetscape, area safety, or overall quality of life;

The non-resident permits could be restricted to certain times, if desired.

A stroll down Emerson or Fremont during weekday daytime hours makes it absolutely clear that the current permit structure isn’t working. Daytime permit parking for non-residents would allow local employees to find convenient street parking. Yes, I would prefer that they walk, bus, or bike to work, but the reality is that many people will choose to drive. If the city is going to provide free parking “storage for cars,” as one official quoted in Shoup’s book aptly puts it, then we as a community might as well get something out of that decision.

Parking Benefit Districts would offer something for everyone; residents on permit streets would still have parking available, but no longer would large swathes of curb go unused. Uptown regulars (employees or otherwise) arriving by car would have access to convenient parking. The revenue generated could be used to combat some of the district’s problems; graffiti, in particular, is everywhere, and maybe this money could assist with the ongoing efforts to keep local trashcans, street signs, light poles, and other streetscape elements clean. The Parking Permit Benefit District could be extended to cover a broader area than the current district; those apartment-heavy blocks in other areas of Uptown could also get some relief, but without resorting to the extreme restrictions currently offered. This would be an opportunity to make some other changes, too; currently Minneapolis Critical Parking District Area licensed drivers are allowed to hold two permits. This seems excessive; does the city really need to provide guaranteed parking for each person to have street parking for two cars? I’d suggest allowing residential rate parking for one car per licensed driver, with the option of purchasing a non-resident, market-rate permit for each additional car.

Regardless of whether Minneapolis embraces Parking Benefit Districts, the time has come to study the successes and failures of Uptown’s permit parking experiment. It’s a touchy subject, and the vocal voices of a few outspoken homeowners dominate the discussion and advocate policies that benefit a few with little regard for the community as a whole. (In a spectacular display of putting cars over people, for example, homeowner Phillip Qualy once described permit parking as the “single most useful instrument of city government to define and assure our residential livability.") While those homeowners may love the current system, it simply doesn’t make sense to continue the program as it works now. Parking Benefit Districts, with their added revenue and better use of space, works for the benefit of everyone, local residents included. Let’s hope that the next City Council Member – in all likelihood Meg Tuthill – will stand up to the special interest groups and bring permit parking back to the table for some much-needed reevaluation.

Don't Even Think About Parking in Front of MY House, Says Local Resident

2009-05-29T15:20:00.007-05:00

Top: do-it-yourself parking restrictions in CARAG

Bottom: legitimate city sign, also in CARAG

Sometimes legal channels will only get you so far. There are times when taking things into your own hands force necessary progress. But, I have to wonder, where does this local resident fall into the spectrum: neighborhood activist, parking vigilante, or selfish resident?

This house, located in the CARAG neighborhood, isn’t a particularly busy block, parking-wise. It’s a quiet street, mostly single-family homes and a few duplexes; unlike many blocks in CARAG, some of the houses even have driveways. The residents of this home, however, have for one reason or another decided that enough is enough, parking-wise. They took matters into their own hands, installing these vaguely official-looking “no parking between signs” signs in front of their own home.

When I first saw these signs I got mad. What nerve, I thought. Here’s some guy who thinks he’s always entitled to a spot in front of his own home, despite having his own driveway, alley, and, presumably, garage. If only I had a car, I told myself, I’d go park there just to make a point. What’s he going to do, have it towed? After working myself up, I started to reconsider. What if he really does have a reason for the signs? What if they’re official? Well, to make a long story short, I called the city. Signs like this, the helpful man at 311 informed me, were not legal. I could, if I wanted, make an anonymous complaint (I did not). City signs, sometimes installed at the homes of people with wheelchairs or other disabilities, are blue and don’t just “look” official, they are official.

I don’t know the owners of this house. I don’t know if they have some specific reason, other than pure laziness or misplaced sense of ownership, for needing parking in front of their home (or why they can’t just use their driveway). Maybe they do, but if that’s the case then they need to go the official route and go to the city and do it the right way (the city’s Traffic and Parking Services department will install disability loading area or parking signs for those who qualify). This do-it-yourself “solution” to this household’s perceived parking problem is the wrong way to effect change; it smacks of personal selfishness, an unwillingness to consider the shared good of the block or the community, and a sense of entitlement that doesn’t sit well with at least some fellow neighbors.

Again, I don’t know the behind-the-scenes story. Maybe the household has a real need for this sign, and has some legitimate reason for not getting what they need or want from the city. But what’s to stop other Uptown residents from putting up similar signs in their boulevards? Where does it end? If we were talking about some larger community act of, well, not necessarily civil disobedience (although I'm fine with that within reason), but something technically against city code (guerilla gardening or the planting of vegetables in the boulevard both come to mind as good Uptown possibilities…) then that’s one thing, but vigilante parking signs like these are not about community, they are about individual needs or perceived entitlements taken at the expense of everyone else.

These New Neighbors May Ruffle Some Feathers, but Hey (Hay?), They Don't Add to the Parking Problem!

2009-05-26T23:17:00.006-05:00

Above: Uptown chickens hang out under the coop on a sunny spring day.

The movement towards keeping backyard chickens in the city is sweeping the nation, and at least a handful of Uptown residents are fully onboard. Chickens are legal in Minneapolis, although you do need a permit (along with permission from 80% of your nearby neighbors). It’s a trend that seems only to be growing. The benefits are clear: enjoy the ultimate example of local fresh eggs, feel connected to the food you eat, and enjoy the company of what are entertaining and personable pets. Most Uptown backyards are easily big enough to fit a chicken coop and run. Chickens aren’t for everyone, of course – they do take money, time, and dedication, and if you’re only in it for the eggs you might as well just buy the local free range options available at the store – but I, for one, am thrilled that Uptowners have the opportunity to have a small taste of country life right in their own backyards.

Now if I could just have a couple of pet goats I'd be set...

An Open Letter to Ralph Remington

2009-05-24T23:32:00.002-05:00

Dear Council Member Remington:

Time is ticking; before you know it your time in the Minneapolis City Council will be up. No more dealing with annoying people, or at least no more need to put on a diplomatic front befitting of a City Council member. No more Happy Hour with Ralph – just plain old regular happy hours. You’ve put up with a lot; complaints from angry Ward 10 residents who think you’ve sold them out on the development front, complaints from other Ward residents who think you’ve sold out to the NIMBY crowd, probably countless calls and emails from grumpy residents whining about everything from parking to liquor licenses to whatever else floats their boats.

You’re not running for reelection; why not lose some of that Minnesota reserve and just tell it like it is? Polite is fine, but I, for one, would really appreciate some straight-to-the-point answers and opinions.

Imagine the possibilities:

Neighbor: Someone is parked in front of my house!! I need permit parking on my street!
Remington: What were you thinking, living in Uptown? Uptown is an urban neighborhood. Cars come with the territory. Don’t like it? Move. Rent a garage. Just stop complaining to me about it. I don’t want to hear it; I live here, too, remember?

Neighbor: There was a drunk person on my street making noise last night. Can you make the bars close at midnight, or better yet, ten? Oh, and no more liquor licenses to anyone, please. Booze is the root of all evil in Uptown.

Remington: Drunk people are a problem, especially if behind the wheel. But wasn’t that you I saw sipping a glass of wine last week at Barbette? Why is it okay for you and your friends but not for anyone else?

Neighbor: Someone built a five-story building near Lyndale and Lake, and now I can’t see the sky. My pedestrian experience is diminished.
Remington: You picked the wrong neighborhood, my friend. Ever been to a real city? A five-story building isn’t going to kill you, and lots of Ward 10 residents love them. Want me to bulldoze all those tall, leafy elm trees on your block while I’m at it? Those darn trees really get in the way of watching the clouds, let alone the eagles...

Neighbor: You betrayed me! You’re in bed with the developers!
Remington: Funny, the last caller said just the opposite. Can’t make up your mind, can you?

You can tell me what you think, too. If I call or email you with a question I’m fine with getting a direct answer – “I can’t do that because I’ll be bombarded with calls and emails from annoying CARAG zoning committee members and their allies, and I just don’t want to deal with that anymore,” or “I think your suggestion is absolutely nuts, and I’m only granting you the courtesy of this email because I have to be polite to my constituents, even the crazy ones,” or whatever. Unrealistic, I know, but oh, how I love the idea of an elected official going out in a blaze of direct, straight, no-holds-barred glory…

News Flash: Uptown and Lyn-Lake Character Dependent on Building Height, Say Some

2009-05-21T23:47:00.006-05:00

Local Uptown-area NIMBYs, led by the Queen NIMBEE (and Minneapolis City Commissioner) Lara Norkus-Crampton, have led a mostly successful campaign to firmly establish the belief that the terms “character” and “height” are virtually synonymous.

Take this new passage from the revised Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan, for example:

“Building height and character is discussed within context of each character area below… higher heights should be concentrated in the Activity Center, and height above four stories should be substantially set back from the lower floors.” (41)

The Plan went before the Minneapolis City Planning Commission on Monday; its earlier attempt at approval, back in April, was delayed by the efforts of Norkus-Crampton (she wanted to slow down the process to better evaluate issues relating to height and the pedestrian character of the plan) and – no surprise here – CARAG, which expressed concerns over “character, scale, context, and transitions,” according to the Southwest Journal. And as for the above quote, yes, building height and character are discussed, but so are a lot of other things. The singling out of these two particular elements, used together in the same sentence, is not an isolated example of “height” and “character” being lumped together as one topic; read enough of the local plans and attend enough public meetings and you’ll see and hear dozens, if not hundreds, of similar statements.

The fuss over height and character in the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan is pretty minor in comparison to the controversy relating to the Uptown Small Area Plan, and to new proposed developments in Uptown, for that matter, but it does highlight the near constant refrain of “preserve the character of the neighborhood – limit height.” If you say it enough it must be true, right?

Height is only one element of neighborhood character. Sure, a skyscraper is going to alter the character of Uptown, but the occasional tall(ish) building isn’t necessarily going to harm things. There are many different aspects of neighborhood character, and a limited primary focus on just one thing is one of the biggest dangers being pressed on us by a small but vocal group of neighborhood activists. In some cases a tall building may offer other elements that actually enhance the neighborhood’s character; a knee-jerk reaction based purely on height is illogical and misguided.

Why don't the NIMBYs complain about too-short buildings? The Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan does encourage buildings along Lake Street to be more than one story, thank goodness. Still, how often do we hear people complain when someone comes along and wants to build yet another one-story building on one of our valuable major commercial streets? This is just as potentially damaging to neighborhood character as a five-story building (if not more), yet I rarely, if ever, hear many people complaining about anything being too short.

I’m going to repeat it again, as I think it’s that important: height does NOT equal character. It is something to consider, certainly, and an appropriate height and design can have a major impact on the character of a street, block, or even neighborhood. But it is not the only consideration, and I don’t even think the most important consideration. The NIMBYs (and yes, Lara Norkus-Crampton and certain CARAG activists, I’m talking to you) need to broaden their horizons a bit for the sake of the neighborhood and the true preservation of its character.

A Sign of the Times: Lowry Hill East's Neighborhood Sign Project

2009-05-20T15:55:00.006-05:00

Above: A Lowry Hill East (the Wedge) sign on Hennepin Avenue

Neighborhood signs seem to be a big deal in the community-building world. The general concept seems to be that they help build a shared sense of community, establish a sense of boundaries, create a sense of place, and generally contribute to a better neighborhood and a nicer place to work and live. To this end, cities and neighborhoods across the country have been hard at work creating sign programs, often fully funded through public or private grant money. Minneapolis is no exception; most neighborhoods have a smattering of signs around their edges, in some cases multiple sign designs dating from different eras. In CARAG, for example, I’ve seen both those older orange goose signs, as well as the newer cartoon version; the modern CARAG sign is not bad for what it is, but admittedly not to my taste – I much prefer something more elegant and streamlined. And that brings me to the topic of this particular post: the Wedge (LHENA) and its NRP-funded signage program.

The Wedge’s original NRP plan designated $15,000 in funds to “utilize neighborhood artists and their skills to create new signs for the neighborhood.” Artist Linda Strand Koutsky (coauthor of a wonderful series of illustrated books related to Minnesota popular culture, including restaurants and the State Fair) was selected to design and create the signs. She served as a visiting artist at Jefferson School, where she helped lead the students in creating graphic icons representing various elements of neighborhood life. She then took the student’s work, “refined” it, and designed and created the final product. The signs themselves were installed throughout the neighborhood, with the strongest concentration along the boundaries of Hennepin, Lyndale, and Lake. The NRP Phase I evaluation cites the project as a success, although does note that there have been difficulties with maintenance – presumably keeping the signs clear of graffiti, stickers, and other acts of vandalism.

I’m a strong supporter of nearly anything that can be seen as building a feeling of community and promoting a sense of place, so my conflicted feelings about these (and other) signs leave me feeling a little guilty. But ultimately, I have to wonder: are these signs really worth the money and the time? Was this project truly a success? Some thoughts on the project:

The signs are attractive.

I give the Wedge – and Linda Strand Koutsky and the Jefferson students – kudos for the final design. They are by far the most attractive of the Uptown neighborhood signs. I like the simple lines, the use of color, and, especially, the elegant choice of cutout graphic icons. I also enjoy the fact that not all signs are the same; seeing the different designs makes each one special and more interesting than they would be if all identical. I have no problems with the design itself, and wish all neighborhood signs were as attractive.

The use of “Lowry Hill East” could be confusing.

The Wedge has a more complicated name issue than do the other Uptown-area neighborhoods. It’s commonly referred to as the Wedge, many people simply call it “Uptown,” and the official neighborhood organization is the Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association, or LHENA. Yes, I suppose some people know the neighborhood as Lowry Hill East, but I would guess that the vast majority of people do not. Does the Wedge want to be known as Lowry Hill East? If there was a concentrated effort to change the unofficial name then that would change things, but assuming that they don’t, I do wonder if the signs sometimes cause unnecessary confusion.

Neighborhood signs can contribute to sign pollution.

Yes, this is a nice sign. And yes, everyone else does it, too. But given that Minneapolis’s official neighborhood boundaries are often located along busy streets (in this case Hennepin, Lyndale, and Lake) pedestrians get bombarded with a streetscape filled with signs of all types. The visual clutter means that these signs don’t get the attention that they deserve. One alternative would be to move this type of signage into the neighborhoods themselves, posting them along quieter residential streets instead of along busy border streets; they wouldn’t designate the boundaries of the neighborhood, but I think they might gain more community-building power through the quieter viewing area. They would no longer announce that you were entering a neighborhood, but would serve the equally valuable function (and more effectively, at that) of reminding residents and visitors that they are within (and not at the edge of) the Wedge neighborhood.

Is this project really worth nearly $15,000?

I don’t know if the signage value itself – especially when used primarily on the edges of the neighborhood, and on extremely busy streets – is worth the high cost. On the other hand, this could be considered the support of a local artist and our local school. As a community-enhancing visual arts project linking school with neighborhood, well, maybe it was worth the money.

I realize that topics like this are pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but the little things really add up. The details of neighborhood life can make a large impact on quality of life, and it behooves us all to take the time to carefully consider the world around us, and to contemplate what works, what doesn’t, and what we can do in the future to make Uptown (and its individual neighborhoods) the best place possible to live, visit, and work.

CARAG is for (Car) Lovers

2009-05-12T08:36:00.006-05:00

When the CARAG Master Plan was completed in 2000, it was intended to serve as a guide to the next several decades of development and change in the CARAG neighborhood. It was created after a lengthy process involving many neighbors and other local stakeholders, and continues to inform the neighborhood’s decisions today. While there is much about the plan to be admired, there are also some glaring examples of hypocrisy, or at least examples of two deeply conflicting viewpoints that are never fully reconciled. Chief among these is the plan’s – and by extension the neighborhood’s – vision of the role of cars in CARAG. Some initial relevant snippets from the plan:

“Our plan begins with an understanding that CARAG is a great urban neighborhood and the actions that we undertake will only enhance its urban qualities,” states the plan in the introduction. (i)

“We believe that CARAG is a place where people could live without a car. (4-3)

“Our master plan recognizes that our dense, urban character is critical to the neighborhood, and if a parking problem is a by-product of what we like about CARAG, we will find ways to live with it.” (4-4)

So far, so good – these statements support the vision of CARAG, and of Uptown in general, as a vibrant urban neighborhood. Things don’t stay this clear, though, and conflicting views are quickly folded into the mix.

“We recognize that we live in a dense, urban neighborhood, and that people in CARAG will not give up their cars.” (4-4)

We do? Why? Not everyone will give up their cars, certainly, but isn’t it defeatist to start out with this attitude? There are many people who would happily give up their car if they had the opportunity, and there are people in CARAG who have already done just that. Part of the appeal of a dense, urban neighborhood is the ability to live without a car, and we should work to make that an option for as many people as possible.

And then there is this comment:

“One of the most significant issues in CARAG is the lack of parking that meets contemporary standards.” (4-7)

No, not really. The issue is that there are too many cars, not that there is too little parking. “Contemporary standards” means auto-centric standards, and it is these standards that pose the most threat to city neighborhoods. Luckily, the master plan offers a counterpoint:

“It should be noted that in CARAG, contemporary requirements for parking may not be appropriate. In a neighborhood where transit, bicycling, and walking are common, parking standards may be significantly reduced.” (4-7)

Now this, I agree with. Too bad the rest of the plan doesn’t agree…

“For site development in the CARAG residential district it is the intention of the master plan that parking is provided at the rate of two spaces per unit, at least half of which must be in a garage.” (4-32)

This doesn’t sound “significantly reduced” in the least, and is in fact an increase over what the city itself allows. The master plan is particularly concerned about parking in their proposed “lifestyle housing,” potential new housing developments that were envisioned as providing a denser, possibly row house-style homes between 31st Street and Lake. This vision was specifically designed to provide higher density living within close walking distance to Hennepin, Lake, Lyndale, the Greenway and other top Uptown business and recreational destinations. It should go without saying that these “lifestyle” developments are intended to offer residents a very urban lifestyle, one in which a car is not necessary. That should translate to fewer required parking spots, right? Especially given the earlier comment about how “contemporary standards” may not be appropriate for an urban neighborhood like CARAG? Think again:

“The city’s zoning requirements allows only one off-street parking space per unit, while our plan indicates that two would be desired. While we certainly do not wish to over-build parking in CARAG, we recognize that this type of housing [“lifestyle housing” such as row houses, townhouses, etc.] will likely result in a new housing type in the neighborhood – one where a greater number of off-street parking spaces would be desired by the ultimate residents. We believe the master plan is being realistic about market demands, and also recognizes that most people who might occupy these units will have more than one vehicle (or even have other recreational vehicles that will require storage on the site). (5-3)

I have so many problems with this statement that I find it hard to know where to begin. First, how can anyone possibly argue that this expanded parking requirement in any way follows in line with the stated goals of the master plan? What happened to CARAG being an urban neighborhood, one in which urban lifestyles were to be embraced? And who are these car-dependent people expected to move into these new lifestyle units? Presumably the biggest draw about living in the heart of Uptown, especially in a higher density development, would be the ability to live life without a car. These people, even more so than most CARAG residents, would be the least likely to need space to park multiple cars.

I suppose the plan is assuming that the residents in any such new development would be wealthy, and would as a result be likely to have more cars. While it’s true that these developments probably would attract a more affluent crowd, there are many wealthy people who don’t need or want to stable a garage-full of cars. What’s more, the necessity to add additional parking spot adds to the cost – further driving up housing prices and making this housing type even more unaffordable to lower or middle-class people. All residents, even those who don’t drive, or who own only one car, would indirectly foot the bill for the construction and maintenance of these unnecessary parking spots. That land could be put to better use as additional housing, or even as increased garden or outdoor green space., all uses that would benefit both the residents as well as the neighborhood as a whole more than would a parking spot.

The crafters of the CARAG master plan thought it “realistic” in their call for additional parking spots. What they call realistic, I call enabling. While the concept of lifestyle housing itself isn’t bad, the proposed parking requirements makes it appear that CARAG is advocating "suburban lifestyle" housing, not "lifestyle housing" for an urban neighborhood. Rather than water down CARAG’s urban nature to suit the perceived tastes of a few potential new residents, the movers and shakers (not to mention the rest of us) of CARAG should be supporting the creation and enhancement of an exciting city neighborhood, one that is designed for the needs of people, not cars. If CARAG really wants an urban neighborhood then it's time to dump the suburban mentality once and for all.

Garage Sale Season is Here!

2009-05-09T22:41:00.006-05:00

It’s always this time of year when the weather is getting warmer, the leaves are budding, and the grass is growing that my thoughts begin to turn to one of late spring’s pressing questions: when does garage sale season start up? And, more significantly, when are the Uptown neighborhood-wide sales?

Garage sales, and neighborhood-wide garage sales in particular, are a great asset to any community. They’re fun, of course, but their benefits go beyond just entertainment value:

Garage sales build community. Sales are a chance to meet the neighbors. There’s nothing like looking over someone else’s cast-offs to provide a source of instant conversation. Besides the snoopiness factor, of course, is simply the chance to hang out outside with your neighbors, chatting about the day, exchanging information (and money), and just generally feeling more connected to both other people and to the community at large. Your garage sale-hosting neighbor is usually a captive audience: you can talk to him or her as long as you want, and when you want to leave you have the ready excuse of other sales to attend.
Garage sales are a form of recycling. You might not have a use for that green lava lamp anymore, but that student down the street might think it’s just the thing for her new apartment. Garage sales hook up buyers and sellers, and keeps things out of the trash. It’s a win-win situation for everyone involved.
Garage sales help you to make or save money. Most people don’t make a fortune from their garage sales, but you’ll probably make enough to make it worth the time and effort. And, even if the hourly wage ends up being less than what you’d make at work, there’s something about garage sale money that makes it feel like found money. Have the sale with a friend to double the fun; time goes fast when you’re lounging around in the front yard talking to friends and neighbors, and when the day’s done you’ll have a pocket full of cash and house cleared of clutter. For those who are doing the buying, garage sales are full of great buys. Whether you’re looking for weird novelties or have an actual need to fill, go to enough sales and you’ll probably find what you need, and for a fraction of what it would cost new, and probably even cheaper than what you’d pay somewhere like Salvation Army.

While every nice weekend between May and October is going to be filled with garage sale options (check the Star Tribune, Craiglist, and watch for signs posted at corners to find them), there are some definite Uptown highlights fast approaching. The local neighborhood-wide sales are a highlight of the season. They make it easy to hit a lot of sales in a short amount of time, of course, but they also tend to have a festive atmosphere that you don’t find on the average Saturday. There’s usually food and drinks to be purchased at some of the sales, and the food, combined with the wandering groups of fellow garage salers, make for a good time. I, for one, am counting the days until the first (and my favorite) Uptown neighborhood sale of the year: next weekend’s CARAG sale. So, with no further ado, the 2009 guide to Uptown neighborhood sales:

CARAG Neighborhood Sale
Saturday, May 16; 8:00 to 4:00

The CARAG Sale always has a good mix of stuff. The neighborhood itself has a pretty diverse of ages, which translates to everything from old-lady knick-knacks to hipster apartment furnishings. There are families, too, and I once filled a bag with baby clothes at just a quarter per item.

ECCO Super Sale
Saturday, June 6; 9:00 to 4:00

The ECCO Super Sale has been around (almost) forever – it’s now celebrating its 37th year. I think I’ve been to at least 25 of them, and my brother was born after my garage sale-loving mother went into labor following a long day of last-minute ECCO Super Sale baby gear shopping. Historically this has always been the best Uptown neighborhood sale for kid stuff, although there are plenty of options for adults, too. It was at an ECCO sale that I scored a brand-new Coach briefcase still in the original shopping bag and tissue paper; the owner said he already had another one, and that the shade of brown “didn’t go” with his fashion tastes.

The WEDGE (LHENA) Sale
Saturday, June 20; 9:00 to 4:00

The Wedge is filled with youngish renters, which often makes for great garage sale finds. Younger renters often have cool stuff, move often, and can’t take it all with them. I like the Wedge sale for finding clothes and random household stuff. One bonus about the Wedge’s sale (for customers, anyway) is that you can top off a day of shopping by stopping off at Mueller Park for the neighborhood’s annual ice cream social. The ice cream social runs from 3:00 to 5:00.

ADDED BONUS: In the spirit of one of my favorite local blogs, Picking Up Strangers, I’ll give a prize to the first CARAG Sale shopper who identifies me and says the special winning phrase: “Uptown, it’s where I want to be.” (sorry, family members aren’t eligible.) How will you know me? I’ll wear my heart on my sleeve, Uptown-style.

ECCO Thinks You're Stupid

2009-05-06T01:20:00.008-05:00

The April 2009 ECCO Board meeting was more heated than normal. Not fist-fight heated, but pretty exciting by ECCO standards. Voices were raised. Words were had. So what happened to cause this group of mostly middle-aged and relatively mild-mannered Minnesotans to resort to, well, not violence, but a shouting match? Given that this is ECCO, I bet most of you can guess the root cause of the argument in one try - yep, development issues.

Kay Anderson, an ECCO resident (although not a current Board member) showed up at the meeting ready for action. The way things went down, as described in the ECCO minutes:

“Kay Anderson read a prepared statement regarding letters that appeared in the March and April issues of the UNN [Uptown Neighborhood News]. The March letter was written by Robert Kean, who was identified as an ECCO Board member. The April letter was written by Tim Prinsen who was identified as an ECCO Board member and chair of the Zoning committee. Kay was concerned that these letters would be perceived as an official statement of the board, and, as such, would represent a violation of the bylaws (since they were opinions of individuals, not the consensus of the board). After lengthy discussion, a motion was made and passed to hopefully resolve the issue. The motion states that when publically expressing personal opinions, current or former board or committee members should include a disclaimer clearly indicating that the statement represents their personal opinion and does not represent the position of the board.”

Both letters should definitely be on the reading list for anyone interested or concerned about current or future development issues. Kean’s letter appeared in the March Uptown Neighborhood News under the banner “Save the Uptown Small Area Plan,” and argued that the proposed Lake and Knox development was in violation of the USAP. Prinsen’s letter came the following month, running under the headline “Responsible Common Sense Development,” and was a direct response to the issues raised by Kean. Prinsen supports both the Knox development as well as the USAP-guided process, and disagreed with Kean’s conclusions – certain to get him in hot water with some of ECCO’s most vocal residents. The author descriptions, the ones that Kay Anderson and her friends thought were so confusing? “Robert Kean is on the ECCO Board and lives in ECCO” and “Tim Prinsen is a member of the ECCO Board, chairs the Zoning Committee, and lives in ECCO.”

I suppose that the headline of this post shouldn’t really be “ECCO Thinks You’re Stupid.” It would perhaps be more accurate, although not as pithy, to say “Some ECCO Residents and Board Members are Mad at Tim Prinsen Because he Dared to Suggest That Not EVERY ECCO Board Member Believes New Development is ALWAYS Inherently Evil.” Because really, that’s what happened here. Word on the street (I was, unfortunately, not able to attend the meeting itself) is that the real discussion at the meeting was not about the letters written by Kean and Prinsen; it was specifically about Prinsen and his letter.

I don’t have the exact wording of the new motion (note to all boards: good minutes always record the formal wording of the voted-upon motion, as well as record who voted for it and who voted against it), but based on the description I think it’s a ridiculous rule. ECCO Board members shouldn’t, of course, represent their personal opinions as that of the Board without Board approval. Besides the fact that it was the Uptown Neighborhood News that added the descriptions to the bottom of the letters, and not the authors themselves, there was nothing in either to suggest that the authors were expressing official ECCO Board opinions. A formal disclaimer is a waste of time and a waste of newspaper space. Most Uptown Neighborhood News readers aren’t stupid; they don’t need Kay Anderson’s burdensome regulations to help them identify formal ECCO stances versus the viewpoint of individual neighborhood residents who also happen to be on the ECCO Board.

Even more concerning, this motion attempts to force this new motion on former Board members. Presumably that means only future former members; anyone (including Kay Anderson) who has previously served as an ECCO Board member should be able to ignore the motion, as it didn’t apply to them while they were involved. ECCO might be within bounds to force this silly rule on current Board members, but is it really realistic to think that every ECCO Board member will have to slap this disclaimer on every neighborhood-related opinion piece or letter for the rest of his or her life?

I believe that this sort of public debate, meaning discussion in the form of publicly-available letters and writings accessible to all residents, not just those who can or want to attend meetings, can only be a good thing for the neighborhood. It’s important for residents, developers, politicians, and every other local stakeholder to realize that there is a diversity of opinions out there. Debate, as long as kept civil, could also encourage increased community involvement at the neighborhood level. It serves as a reminder that neighborhood Boards aren’t just casual social clubs, and that local residents, board members or not, can have an impact on decisions that will shape the future of the neighborhood. That’s powerful stuff, and should be encouraged, not stamped out.

I do believe, though, that board members should be recognized as such in their public statements; given that they are given power to vote on decisions impacting the neighborhood and that official Board resolutions carry some weight with the city it’s only fair that neighborhood residents know exactly who it is that they’re trusting to carry out this duty. That doesn’t mean that a formal disclaimer is needed every time someone expresses his or her opinion in public. The Uptown Neighborhood News’ author descriptions were sufficient. But then, of course, this motion isn’t really intended to clarify things for a presumed-stupid or easily confused public. It’s about trying to crack down on discussion and to punish an ECCO Board member who spoke his mind. Protest a new building, fine; write anything in opposition to the NIMBY crowd’s viewpoint, get yourself censured.

Fishin' For Fun? Party Like It's 1927!

2009-05-04T23:13:00.011-05:00

The countdown is on! To what, you ask? Why, fellow Minnesotans, to that annual unofficial state holiday: the Minnesota Fishing Opener! The event that the DNR and other fish folk would have you believe to be the BEST Mother’s Day event ever, as seen by their “Take-a-Mom fishing” weekend designation. Despite my Minnesotan roots, please, no fishing trips for this mom. Somehow I missed out on the Minnesota fishing gene. Still, I do have a thing for theme parties, and was pleased to find the perfect Minnesotan theme party suggestion in Jean Walden’s book The Art of Entertaining, published by the Uptown-based Buzza Company in 1927.

The Buzza Company, located in the venerable Buzza Building (now Lehmann Center) on Lake Street between Dupont and Colfax, is one of my favorite chapters of Uptown history. The building itself dates to 1907, when it was built for the Self-Threading Needle Company; Buzza bought the place in 1923 and proceeded to set up a publishing empire. The company was known for its greeting cards, posters, framed lithographs, and other artistic paper products. The artwork and products were designed and manufactured in the building, then called Craftacres, and from there were loaded onto railroad cars for distribution to the rest of the country. Buzza was not a book publisher, but The Art of Entertaining fit in well with their business focus on stationary, greeting cards, and other entertainment-related items. In conjunction with The Art of Entertaining Buzza also offered the “Bruelheide Buzza Bridge Service,” intended to assist hostesses with the planning of elaborate bridge parties (no doubt using Buzza-produced invitations and other materials).

The Art of Entertaining is packed full of party suggestions, all of them themed, and most of them involving bridge. If you’re looking for something fun to do this weekend but prefer not to bait a hook, let alone touch a fish, Buzza has the answer. “When the fishin’ season opens,” Walden wrote from her Uptown desk, “it is a good time to celebrate in an informal and rather unusual manner. Write the following invitation upon white correspondence cards. This is good entertainment for a ‘stag’ dinner also.

Dear Walter –
You’re just a poor fish – so I’m “droppin’ a line”
To ask you to dinner, old friend o’mine
‘Cause we’re goin’ fishin at our house, you bet.
You may “get the hook” but – you won’t get wet.
So come here on Friday ‘bout seven o’clock
Flappin’ your fins just a bit as you knock:
But one thing – you’ll have to play cards as you ought!

Dinner consists of a lobster cocktail or canapé followed by a planked trout, Lake Superior whitefish, or baked shad. Other details are left to the hostess.”

Decorating and non-food suggestions included:

A crystal bowl centerpiece filled with a lily pad and containing several goldfish

Place cards depicting a “very modern young lady carrying a fish-rod”

For prizes, “a reliable brand of canned lobster Newburg is very popular in these meatless, maidless, heatless days of Spring.”

Want to have your own Buzza-style Fishin’ Opener party but don’t know how to play Bridge? Well, there’s always that old standard – Go Fish.

Beautify Your Boulevard

2009-05-03T02:17:00.002-05:00

Are you tired about garbage on the street? If so, here’s a novel solution: the Adopt-a-Litter-Container program. The premise is simple. You fill out a short application, agree to provide garbage bags and to keep the area around the container clean and clear, and either empty the garbage yourself or pay the city a small fee to pick it up for you. While there’s no guarantee of “litter container” (really, who else other than a government official refers to “litter containers”?) style, you can put in a request for plastic, smooth concrete, or aggregate concrete. They drop it off, you agree to maintain it for two years, and there you have it – your own personal public garbage can.

Residents of the Wedge have an extra incentive to get the cans. LHENA approved NRP funds to give the first 20 applicants $100 in return for your participation. You can use that money to help offset the cost of liners or to pay for any additional garbage hauling fees associated with the project.

For an odder clean-up effort, you can also participate in the “Adopt-An-Ash Receptacle” program. It works essentially the same as the Litter Container program, but instead of trash you get to clean up cigarette butts. While I hate it when people throw their cigarettes on the ground (and even designed a billboard with the slogan “the Earth is Not Your Ashtray” while in junior high) I don’t know how well this program will work. Will it encourage smokers to congregate in specific areas? Who should decide where those spots are located? Do neighbors get a say in it? I’m all for public gathering places, and just as against cigarette litter as the next person, but that doesn’t mean I want my local boulevard turned into an outdoor chimney.

If you’re looking for actual boulevard beautification, and not just the absence of unsightly litter, then consider adding a boulevard garden. Helpful Twin Cities boulevard-specific gardening tips, including a list of dos and don’ts, can be found here. Minneapolis has specific ordinances regarding height and type of plants, but there’s still plenty of room for creativity. Just don’t grow or plant weeds (or weed, for that matter), shrubs, vegetables, or “noxious plants,” at least not without first obtaining a permit from the city.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to empty the Dirty Diaper Receptacle. (and yes, I'm accepting Dirty Diaper Receptacle adoption requests...)

Are you AMMPed up About Milfoil in Uptown's Lakes?

2009-04-27T23:56:00.003-05:00

Are you worried about the impact of milfoil on our neighborhood’s lakes? Are you looking for an innovative solution to the problem? If so, check out the a Minneapolis Milfoil Project (AMMP) and start doing your part to end the milfoil invasion.

What is AMMP?
According to their website, AMMP’s mission is to “educate and encourage city residents and park visitors to take individual action through prayer or meditation to revitalize these water resources.” Or, as their tagline succinctly puts it, “acknowledge the Spirit of the Lakes and give thanks.”

AMMP’s track record
In 1999, two local experts conducted a “Feng Shui Exterior Chi Adjustment and Pipe Ceremony” in response to that summer’s excessively high levels of milfoil. Apparently it worked, as by 2000 the milfoil was gone.

It’s back…
The pipe ceremony held things off for a bit, but by 2002 the milfoil was back, and worse than ever. Barbara Bobrowitz of Energetic Alignments and Jeff Grundtner of Earth Spirits, the original leaders of the pipe ceremony, suggested that “the Spirit of the Lake was being ignored as a living organism. Hence the energy of the lakes was declining, deteriorating the lakes’ health and vibrancy. The energy around the lakes has become negative.”

What will it take to solve the problem?
According to AMMP, it will not be easy to bring forth the level of positive energy necessary to combat the milfoil. As a goalpost, they suggest that a minimum of five percent of Minneapolis residents need to actively participate in the project.

What can I do to help?
Pray, meditate, or give thanks to the Spirit of the Lake. Children are encouraged to draw pictures or write stories. If you want to make a contribution of money, time, or energy, you can do so by contacting AMMP directly. AMMP claims nonprofit status, but I was unable to verify that information; searches on GuideStar and the IRS’s website came up with nothing for a Minneapolis Milfoil Project or Project by Design (the name indicated as the paypal or check recipient). In other words, contact them directly to confirm their current 501 (c) (3) status if you plan on giving them a tax-deductible cash contribution.

Does it work?
Admittedly meditation and prayer are not my cup of tea, but what the heck, it can’t hurt. More importantly, at least from the perspective of a skeptic, is that taking the time to think about the lakes and their significance to the community is a good thing. It may not help the milfoil problem, but it can give us all a chance to appreciate the lakes for what they offer. If we’re lucky that will translate into finding practical solutions (beyond praying, I mean) for their problems, even if it’s something as small (but important) as picking up trash while you’re out on your next stroll around the lakes. And as for the feng shui pipe ceremony and the call for positive energy, well, it’s worth a shot. I salute AMMP for offering a creative solution to a vexing problem.

The Tricky Nature of Community Involvement

2009-04-24T22:52:00.004-05:00

In spring 2008, the Wedge (LHENA) approved the neighborhood’s NRP Phase II Action Plan. As described in the executive summary, the plan “aims to promote a neighborhood vision through stakeholder-identified goals and strategies.” In an attempt to identify these goals, a survey was distributed at neighborhood meetings, at National Night Out events, through emails, and through publication in The Wedge, the neighborhood newspaper.

The results of this survey are a vivid example of how many important neighborhood decisions – in this case the shaping of neighborhood decisions, those involving large amounts of money – are being directed by a small group of active and involved individuals. The survey, its results made available in Appendix E of the Phase II Plan, shows a grand total of 21 respondents. Of these respondents:

90.5 percent owned and lived in their homes
This is compared to a rate of 14.7 percent of the neighborhood as a whole, based on 2000 census numbers. That percentage likely went up in the 2000s due to condo conversions, but most neighborhood residents remain renters.

4.8 percent were renters
One respondent chose not to answer this question, so in a best-case scenario less than ten percent of survey respondents were renters. In a neighborhood where 85 percent of homes were rentals in 2000, this is obviously a major disparity. The one renter was also “highly satisfied” with his or her landlord; while that’s good news (especially for him or her), I know that there are some slumlords in the Wedge, too. It would be nice to see some of their tenants getting active and involved and advocating for change from a renter’s perspective.

71.4 percent lived in single-family homes
I don’t know the exact statistics on this, but given the large number of duplexes and apartments in the Wedge I would assume that the percentage of single-family homes is nowhere near 71 percent.

On average, respondents had lived in their current home for 18 years; the average tenure in the Wedge neighborhood was 22 years.
In other words, these respondents were a self-selecting group of people with deep-rooted ties to the community. They may well be the best people to make informed decisions and suggestions about the future of the neighborhood, but they’re certainly not representative of the neighborhood’s demographics.

There were no respondents younger than 45
Given that only 15.7 percent of the Wedge’s population was 45 or older in 2000, this number is also skewed. There needs to be a way to get at least a handful of younger people involved in neighborhood issues. I know there are many younger people out there who do care about the neighborhood and who have strong opinions on its evolution, but for various reasons few of them are choosing to become involved through the traditional means favored by older residents.

Nine respondents had children under the age of five
I was quite happy to see this; Uptown, and the Wedge in particular, aren’t often seen as “family” neighborhoods. This number is skewed too, of course, but I’d rather see over-representation than under-representation.

No one made less than $29,999 household income in 2006
I know there are people in the Wedge making less than $30,000. Let’s get them involved, too.

One third of respondents had a graduate degree
While certainly not a bad thing that this group of respondents was highly educated, it is another indicator of the imbalance that so often occurs when dealing with neighborhood decisions, boards, and community-wide conversations.

90 percent of respondents were white, with the remaining 10 percent declining to answer.
87 percent of the population in 2000 was white, so maybe this isn’t too far off. Still, a little more ethnic or racial diversity would have been nice.

I’m not bringing up this survey to fault the Wedge or its NRP Phase II Plan; I think they made a strong effort to provide all residents with the opportunity to participate. The small response rate – 21 people out of a neighborhood with close to 6,000 residents, most of them adults – shows how hard it can be to engage the majority of a neighborhood’s residents in local issues or politics. While most people living in the Wedge probably have opinions about what can and should be done to improve the neighborhood, many of them aren’t going to get involved unless they see a pressing need. On the one hand, this may suggest that many residents are happy with the neighborhood the way that it is. On the other hand, by not getting involved or expressing their opinions they run the risk of a small but vocal minority of fellow residents potentially defining the future of the neighborhood, and possibly in a different direction than the quieter residents would like.

The Wedge, along with its fellow Uptown neighborhoods, is lucky to have a core group of neighborhood activists. These people care about the area and are willing to invest time and energy to make their neighborhood a better place to live, play, and work. But, as both neighborhood board demographics as well as surveys like this show, the people who actively participate in more formalized forms of neighborhood governance or decision making tend to reflect a small sliver of the larger neighborhood demographics. In a city where neighborhood boards, DFL conventions, and similar activities have a great impact on both political and practical matters, it is even more important that every effort be made to involve a broader cross-section of residents in the community.

I’m not sure what the solution should be. We’ve all heard that old saying, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” That doesn’t mean we should give up. This lack of involvement needs to be a priority in all four official city-defined Uptown neighborhoods. While it’s unrealistic to think that everyone, or even a majority of, local residents are ever going to attend a local board meeting or even a neighborhood block party, it’s not far-fetched to think that the rates of participation across different demographic subsets could be increased.

Locally, the Kingfield neighborhood seems to be doing a good job with their outreach efforts; their excellent website and e-letter provide an easy way for even those with odd hours to feel connected, and their recent annual neighborhood association offered free childcare. Although not a Kingfield resident, I’ve now subscribed to their email-based newsletter, and continue to be impressed with their community-building efforts. The Uptown neighborhoods have many achievements and innovate ideas of their own, of course, but I, for one, will continue to keep an eye on Kingfield for additional inspiration of how the neighborhoods of Uptown can continue to build community, engage all citizens, and generally go about building and sustaining the vibrant, safe, and thriving Uptown that we all want.

Matt Filner's Dilemma: Should I Stay or Should I Go?

2009-04-21T23:40:00.002-05:00

This past weekend was a busy one for Uptown, with the Ward 10 DFL convention crowning Meg Tuthill with the official party endorsement. Prior to the convention both Tuthill and her opponent, Matt Filner, had promised to abide by the endorsement. Well, it’s already Tuesday, and there’s still no official announcement as to whether Filner will stay or go. While I realize there is a lot going on behind the scenes at the moment, let me add my voice to the larger chorus: please, Matt Filner, continue your candidacy and give Ward 10 residents – all of them, and not just the DFL faithful – to make their voice heard in November.

While Meg Tuthill won the endorsement by a respectable majority – 62.2 percent – Filner counters that delegates were not representative of the Ward as a whole. “For an extremely diverse ward,” said Filner, as quoted in the Southwest Journal, “it was an extremely non-diverse convention.”

Not everyone agrees with Filner’s assessment; one commenter on the Southwest Journal’s site asks rhetorically, “could there have been any more of a diverse of an audience? I believe Mr. Filner had a gentleman in his 90s there to represent him, and I think I saw a toddler…” So, could it have been any more diverse of an audience? Yes, of course. Diversity is not just age, or even ethnic or racial background. When you’re talking about ward diversity, than geographic diversity is important, too. By most accounts the biggest delegate turnout was from the western part of the ward, leaving residents of other areas (including Lyndale, the most diverse section of the ward and the area most often overlooked by local politics) underrepresented.

Unfortunately for Filner, he stated that he “absolutely” would abide by the endorsement. I was disappointed when he first made that statement, although I realize that there are politics involved, and that it would be difficult for a candidate to gain full support without promising to follow the process. I think it will be difficult to explain away how “absolutely” gets tossed out the window following a loss, even if that loss is based on a flawed system.

I didn’t endorse Filner or Tuthill on this blog because I think it’s best for the ward if local residents have a real choice during the real election. Yes, I assume there will eventually be a Republican (or other party) candidate, but the reality is that a Democrat, and most likely the official, endorsed Democrat, is going to win. The local DFL delegates obviously care about the ward and are committed to the neighborhood, but that doesn’t mean that this limited group of people – however involved and informed - should have the power to essentially crown a winner in April.

Overall, this whole process has left a bad taste in my mouth. I know some will say it’s the system working as it should, but I simply don’t believe that this process works in a one-party town. Mr. Filner, please continue to run. Ward 10 voters – ALL of them - deserve the opportunity to make their voices heard.

Name That Alley: Named Alleys and Alley Gates in CARAG?

2009-04-19T16:00:00.005-05:00

I’ve been spending some recent quality time with the CARAG Neighborhood Master Plan, a document filled with both innovative and exciting ideas, as well as some, well, less-enthralling ideas. The CARAG Neighborhood Plan was completed in 2000, and while the authors acknowledge that the details may need updating from time to time, the document itself was intended to guide the neighborhood through several decades of growth and change. In other words, it might be up-to-date, but it’s not yet out-of-date. Over the next month or so I’m going to explore some of the plan’s highlights (or lowlights, depending on the topic) and see how the plan stacks up today. Documents of this sort can be extremely useful, and it’s worth reading for anyone who is a former, current, or future CARAG resident, or who is simply interested in learning more about how one Minneapolis (and Uptown) neighborhood envisions its future. And while I don’t agree with all of the concepts, I give CARAG much credit for being willing to make some truly creative suggestions and for not “playing it safe” by not always simply sticking with the status quo or always sticking with the traditional, safe, but sometimes boring design or planning options.

So, that said, one of the more realistic yet creative portion of the Plan were a series of proposals to increase community “ownership” of alleys. As described in the plan itself (page 4-23):

The master plan suggests that each alley be named – essentially reinforcing the ability of neighbors to take control of the space. Naming the alley, and then creating an appropriate sign, is the responsibility of each block. The sign – an alley ‘gate’ – is located at each end of the alley and marks the mid-block point of each east/west block… creation of the gate and its maintenance would be the responsibility of the gate and its maintenance

would be the responsibility of the neighbors who share the alley.”

Additional suggestions include the use of a CARAG artist-in-residence to work with neighbors to create the gate, as well as the incorporation of plantings and light fixtures into the gate itself. NPR money could be made available for the funding of these gates. As a side note, the plan also spends time discussing the benefits of alley-oriented “granny flats” (which I think is a wonderful idea), tearing down fences to create “visual connections between back door and alleys,” the renovation of garages, and the creation of ornate “garbage gazebos” to hold garbage cans and recycling bins.

I love alleys. I like their utilitarian nature, and the fact that they have a very different feel to them than do the streets. For kids, they often offer a new play space, somewhere where kids from the block can run around, maybe shoot some hoops, and generally enjoy the benefits that come from sharing the quasi private-public nature of the shared alleys. I think that they do contribute a great deal to CARAG’s character (and to the character of all the Minneapolis neighborhoods that have them), and that they do offer a sort of “final frontier” for forging new and improving old neighborhood relationships.

When I lived in CARAG most of our neighborhood activity was centered around the people who lived on our street; when I said “my block” I meant those houses that looked out onto the main street, not the houses that were shared an alley. Anything that can be done to build relationships with neighbors sharing an alley is a good thing; it is these neighbors, after all, who are the most likely to observe potential criminal activity (vandalism, garage theft, etc.). CARAG – and Uptown – residents will benefit from knowing both their neighbors on all sides. The CARAG plan is on target with that goal. I don’t, however, buy into the concept of named alleys or alley gates.

What’s in a name?
I once lived on a block with a named alley (not in Minneapolis). The name had no impact on neighborhood relationships, or on the sense of community; mostly it just served to confuse people who saw it listed on maps and were led to believe that the “Mission Alley” was more substantial than it was, inevitably envisioning a street of some sort and not just a dirt path leading to some garages. I imagine that some neighbors would love the process of naming an alley, but it’s not an easy thing to just let a group of residents (and are we talking homeowners or renters? Both?) get together to decide on a name. Just look back at the relatively recent discussion in CARAG about changing the neighborhood’s name to Wellstone – the naming of an alley could easily spark the same sort of controversy, just on a smaller scale. Maybe the process of getting together to discuss name and gate design would bring about an opportunity to build relationships, but given that many neighbors would lack the patience necessary to sit around in meeting after meeting debating the merits of this name or that name, let alone choice of a design, I don’t think that this is the best use of time or of NRP money.

An ongoing responsibility
If an alley is successfully named, and an attractive gate installed, can we trust that the residents of a certain block are really going to maintain it? True, the neighbors initially involved may be committed to the gate and its ideals, but CARAG has a high residential turnover rate. Renters come and go, as do homeowners. For certain designs this doesn’t matter - time and neglect can even enhance the charm of some materials – but for anything elaborate involving lights or plantings or anything else involving regular maintenance, or infusions of money, this could get tricky.

Current status
I haven’t heard anything about this recently, let alone noticed any elaborate alley gates or alley names, so I’m assuming that this project has been set on the back burner for now. Current funds are available for front yard lighting and for block club activities; block improvements could include efforts to enhance alleys, but that’s not the sole focus.

Although I think named alleys and formal alley gates are a little silly, I think there’s a lot of merit to the idea of reclaiming alley space for community purposes. Enhancing the alley experience – for safety, community-building, environmental, and aesthetic purposes – is certainly a valid and admirable goal. And while I might not live off of “Remington Alley” anytime soon, that doesn’t mean that we should stop looking carefully at Uptown-area alleys and their potential.

HOURCAR in Uptown

2009-04-16T00:37:00.008-05:00

Car-sharing has been in the Twin Cities for nearly five years now, yet there are still people out there who aren’t familiar with the concept. The only place in town – for now, anyway – is locally-based HOURCAR, a company started by the Saint Paul nonprofit Neighborhood Energy Consortium. And while car sharing is a useful resource for any neighborhood, it works especially well in a densely populated, urban neighborhood such as Uptown.

How car-sharing works, in a nutshell: Cars are parked in permanent locations, or “hubs.” You first become a member of HOURCAR. When you need to access a car you simply go online, make a reservation, then walk to your local hub, pick up the car, and go. Members pay monthly for hours, gas, and mileage based on usage.

Where are HOURCAR cars located in Uptown? Core Uptown locations include the YWCA at 29th and Hennepin and 31st and Girard (behind Calhoun Square). Also within walking distance of manyUptowners is the “Wedge Hub,” at 22nd and Garfield.

Cost: There are different plans available, but for the “Freedom” plan you pay just $5 per month in dues. Hourly rentals go for $8 an hour and 25 cents per mile. You can rent the cars by the day or weekend, too.

Hub Sponsorship: HOURCAR is currently soliciting applications from businesses, organizations, or individuals who are interested in their property serving as an HOURCAR hub. Sponsors pay between $12,000 and $15,000, depending on type of vehicle; in return HOURCAR promises to locate the car there for at least two years. The sponsorship will be matched 1:1 by the McKnight Foundation. I don’t know who currently is or has submitted a recent application, but am hoping that the future hubs will better serve some of the residents of the greater Uptown area who don’t live within close distance of the current hubs (although there are vast swaths of the city not currently served by HOURCAR; these people deserve access, too). Eventually maybe we’ll be lucky enough to have these dotted across the Uptown (and city as a whole) landscape, which in turn will give more and more people the opportunity to get rid of their cars as an unnecessary expense. HOURCAR's website specifically cites neighborhood organizations as potential sponsors; I'm not sure if any of the Uptown-area neighborhood organizations (I know the Uptown Association is a supporter) are current or potentially future sponsors, but this is certainly something arguably worthy of neighborhood funds.

What makes a good HOURCAR hub (according to website):

Low to moderate income neighborhood
High density neighborhood
“Strategically positioned to enhance the existing HOURCAR network”
Sponsor should be committed to supporting the hub, through marketing, maintenance, or other endeavors

I think car share programs are a great idea, but have a couple of questions and possible concerns about the way HOURCAR works in Minneapolis. First, the existing fleet of 19 cars is pretty small. What happens if someone has rented one of the only few cars in the neighborhood for the entire day or weekend? You can go pick up another one elsewhere, but if that’s the case it won’t be long before the convenience benefit of the program starts to erode. The coming expansion (ten new cars in ten new locations) will help a great deal, and eventually (with luck) there will be enough cars in enough locations that few people will ever be seriously inconvenienced. My second, and biggest, question relates to the cars themselves. HOURCAR is very proud of their energy efficient cars; options include the Toyota Prius and the Toyota Yaris. These are obviously great cars from an environmental standpoint, but do they really serve the needs of HOURSHARE customers? Take a look at this (unscientific survey) of some of the top trips for San Francisco’s City CarShare, one of the models for the Twin Cities’ HOURCAR:

Picking up friends or relatives at the airport
Dropping off donations at Goodwill
Helping friends move
First date
Meeting a client on the Peninsula (Minneapolis equivalent would be anywhere in the ‘burbs)
IKEA visit
Grocery store trip

A Toyota Yaris is a four-door sedan. It fits five people and has a spacious trunk. The Toyota Prius is a sedan with a hatchback. It can fit a lot in the back, but is it big enough to handle a trip to IKEA? Maybe, maybe not. I suppose there are always regular rental options, or the traditional cheap U-Haul truck, but it would be nice if HOURCAR could consider expanding its fleet options as it expands its bases. On the other hand, a Prius could well impress a first date, and both of these cars would be fine for a trip to the store or for a jaunt out to Maple Grove.

I’m not (currently) a member of HOURCAR. My transportation options are bus, feet, and the occasional ride from family or friends (too scared to brave city streets with a bike; a weakness, I admit.). In the future, though, should I join the ranks of licensed drivers, I will definitely consider HOURCAR as an option. Programs like this one make it easy for many people to give up their cars. Why go through the hassles and expense of maintaining a car if you mostly use it just to go to the grocery store or run occasional errands? Car shares are an increasingly common part of urban life, and it’s encouraging to see the concept growing in popularity in Minneapolis. With each new location, and perhaps with each new type of car option, it becomes easier and easier to eliminate some of the cars on our streets.

Are you a member of HOURCAR? If not, what’s stopping you? Where would you like to see the next HOURCAR hubs located?

Support Local Business With the 3/50 Project

2009-04-12T15:07:00.004-05:00

City Page's Hot Dish blog clued me into a new website designed to raise awareness of the need to support local businesses, as well as some practical tips on how to do it. The 3/50 Project, as it’s named, encourages residents to select three of their favorite local independent stores, then commit to spending at least $50 per month (total) at those stores. It’s a simple, easy suggestion, and provides an instant framework to help people wean themselves off of chain stores. Given all the recent furor over the possibility of Trader Joe’s coming to the Uptown/Lyndale area, this seems like a particularly relevant topic.

The 3/50 Project has national ambitions, but has its roots right here in the greater Uptown area. Founder Cinda Baxter is the owner of the former Details Ink, which until its recent closing (it shut its doors in 2008) was located Calhoun Village.

The concept of shopping locally should be an obvious one, yet for many of us it’s not. How many people from Uptown do you know who do their shopping elsewhere? Sure, not everything is readily available here, and sometimes you don’t have much of a choice, but I know plenty of people who think nothing of hopping in their car and driving out to Mall of America to pick up a present or buy a pair of shoes. If we want locally-owned independent retailers and businesses to stay in our neighborhoods, then we need to be willing to support them with our dollars. The $50 per month that Baxter suggests does not have to be above and beyond your current budget; most of us can meet that minimum amount by simply doing some shifting around; if the battle of the grocery stores has you riled up, shop a little less at Trader Joe’s in St. Louis Park and a little more at the Wedge.

Uptown has a large number of residents who do spend their money locally. Still, there’s a lot of room for improvement. Taking Baxter’s advice and identifying your personal top three independent stores that you would hate to see go out of business is a great approach, but ideally it is only the first step towards a larger shift in shopping and spending habits. You might not spend every dollar right here in the neighborhood or in the city, but being aware of the impact that dollar can have, and the benefits of shopping locally, is a great start.

My only question about the 3/50 project is why they have chosen to use Café Press (an online store) to sell their 3/50 Project coffee mugs and t-shirts; I’m assuming it’s for the sake of ease and affordability, but given the local “bricks and mortar” independent store philosophy of 3/50, it might have been better to go without rather than offer up this non-local, online option.

If you own a local business and want to be listed as a supporter, or want to obtain free graphics to use in your business or on your website, you can register (for free) as a supporter at 3/50 website.

And finally, the hard (but fun) - picking your top three. Realistically we should all pick more than three local (3/50 asks that they not be franchises, and that they have fewer than six local locations) places to support - shopping locally should become a way of life - but picking three is a good place to start. Here's my Uptown list:

Although not officially endorsed by the 3/50 Project, I also think it's important to support your local community stores, even if sometimes that means supporting a larger chain. Davanni's and Dunn Brothers, for example, are both above the six locations rule, yet I think they deserve our support, too. (although the bigger a chain gets the less I like it, even if it is locally-based; Caribou, for example, is pretty low on my list now, and Dunn Brothers is falling fast with the opening of each new franchise location.) My personal rule of thumb is to first try the independent, then the local chain, and then finally the national chain located in neighborhood. At the very bottom of the list would be leaving the neighborhood to go out to a mall or the suburbs to support a big box store.

What three local, independent stores will you put on your 3/50 list?

Uptown Crime: All About Your Neighborhood Policing Plan

2009-04-11T00:50:00.006-05:00

The Minneapolis Police Department compiles annual neighborhood policing plans for all of the city’s neighborhoods; these community-based plans allow the department and neighborhood to zero in on the specific issues faced by each individual neighborhood. These plans lay out specific goals, and evaluate the successes and failures of the previous year’s plans. 2009 plans are not yet available for Uptown’s neighborhoods, but the 2008 plans are compelling reading. Once the 2009 report is out I’ll spend a little more time investigating how things went in 2008. You can read the details for yourself on the city’s website, but to save you some reading I've listed the main goals/targets for each Uptown neighborhood. How do you think the neighborhoods stacked up in the end?

LHENA (the Wedge)

Robbery suppression: Among other items, two new beat cops attempted to decrease the number of robberies in the neighborhood.
Reducing residential burglaries: According to the report, there were 165 burglaries in the Wedge in 2007. The majority (approximately two-thirds!) did not require force, suggesting a lot of local residents leave their garages and homes unlocked. The department dedicated some of their time and resources in educating residents in the basics of common sense.
Reducing theft from motor vehicles: As with burglaries, much of the prevention tactics focused on education. In case you missed the police department’s messages, I’ll repeat it here: please do not leave your purse, laptop, wallet, or valuables in your car.
Other highlights: The MPD was also planning on working to expand the block club program, and to expand the concept of e-block clubs and the use of technology as an outreach tool. There was also discussion of the creation of a citizen block patrol.

CARAG

Burglary prevention: The Department had the ambitious goal of eliminating all non-forced-entry burglaries. Education was an important element in this plan, as was an increase of nighttime patrols.
Reducing drug trafficking: The 2008 goal was to reduce local drug sales by five percent.
Increased curfew and truancy enforcement: Exactly what it sounds like: get kids off the streets and in bed or at school.
Other highlights: Community involvement and engagement continues to be the common thread between all of these plans. In CARAG that means involvement with neighborhood meetings, encouraging block clubs, the continuation of a citizen “stroll patrol,” a group formed following the 2006 murder of Michael Zebuhr.

EAST ISLES
Interestingly, although perhaps understandably, despite the very low rate of violent crime in East Isles (nearly all crime is property-related), the report notes that residents are focused on the scarier stuff.

Reducing residential burglaries: As with other local neighborhoods, two-thirds of residential burglaries did not involve forced entry. Lock your doors, people!
Reducing theft from cars: Also like other area neighborhoods, East Isles gets a lot of people, residents and otherwise, who leave their valuables in their car.
Other highlights: Continued block club expansion, the use of technology for communication with the community, and the creation of a citizen block patrol were all discussed.

ECCO

Reducing theft from vehicles and car theft: The police intended to address the car theft (both from and of) through increased patrols and education.
Reducing burglaries: While 2007 crime mostly went down, burglaries actually went up. The 2008 plan attempted to address this problem through increased and targeted patrols as well as increased enforcement of curfew and truancy laws.
Other highlights: The Police Department expected to continue to strengthen and expand community relations, as well as to increasingly use technology to enhance communication.

Overall, Uptown is a pretty safe place. There is crime, of course, and residents and visitors alike need to take the standard basic precautions, but overall Uptown seems to be in pretty good shape. I might complain at times about the neighborhood organizations, but they have taken on a strong role in working hand-in-hand with the police to help keep the area’s streets safe and crime at bay. Given that crime – or even the perception of crime – can really impact a neighborhood in negative way (let alone the people it directly touches), it’s essential that community members and the police continue to come together to address crime of all types, from the broken car window to the more serious and scary crimes like robbery or assault.

And please, please, remember to lock your garage, your house, and your car.

Trader Joe's: Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You?

2009-04-08T21:17:00.000-05:00

The local food blogs (at City Pages and Heavy Table) are buzzing over the suggestion that Trader Joe’s may be coming to a new location at 2309 Lyndale. The debate so far seems to be concentrated on several issues:

Do chain stores belong on Lyndale?
Would a Trader Joe’s hurt the Wedge Co-op?
What does this mean for traffic?
Is Trader Joe’s a terrible, soul-sucking evil corporate Walmart-type that will destroy the neighborhood? (that’s a bit extreme, but Trader Joe’s seems to have the ability to incite strong feelings in people)

I’m perfectly fine with a Trader Joe’s moving into the neighborhood, although my position hasn’t yet solidified. Some musings on the issues at hand:

Do chain stores belong on Lyndale?
I would much prefer to see local, independent stores than I would see chains. But, that said, I don’t think it needs to be a hard-and-fast rule. National chains have their role in society, too, and I’d rather see some development than no development. Trader Joe’s fills a different niche than any other store in the neighborhood. If it was in direct competition with another independent store I might feel differently. But in this case, if done right, I think a Trader Joe’s could fit in well.

Would a Trader Joe’s hurt the Wedge Co-op?
I don’t think the two stores are direct competitors. Sure, some traffic might go to Trader Joe’s that might otherwise go to the Wedge, but for the most part Wedge fans are going to stick with their regular store. Trader Joe’s is great for frozen items and private line convenience foods; it’s not the kind of place you visit because you want top quality produce or meat. Yes, people have a limited amount of money that they’re going to spend on food each month, but realistically many Wedge patrons don’t shop exclusively at that store. A Trader Joe’s might take some money away from Wedge and other area food stores (Rainbow, Kowalski’s, etc.), but it’s unlikely to be as drastic as some people fear. Finally, many people in these neighborhoods are already Trader Joe’s fans; in their case it would simply mean that their Trader Joe’s budget was shifted from one location to another. I'd like to also think that instead of getting in the car and driving to St. Louis Park they'd do their shopping by foot or bike. Given the unpleasant nature of most Trader Joe's parking lots, I'd guess that many Uptown residents would choose to walk and not drive.

What does this mean for traffic?
Yes, a Trader Joe’s will undoubtedly increase traffic. The parking lot will almost certainly be congested. The only reason I care about any of this is because it will slow down buses, as well as potentially hurt other area businesses. In general I think that people who live in urban neighborhoods should expect traffic and parking problems; it comes with the territory. In an ideal world the bulk of Trader Joe’s shoppers will be walking or biking and not driving. Both the Wedge neighborhood and Whittier are dense, urban neighborhoods, and walking should be a doable option for many local residents. I'm not sure where the tipping point is between acceptable and unacceptable traffic levels; I don't want to see local businesses hurt, but at the same time I hate to see the continued development and growth of our neighborhoods designed around the needs of automobiles.

Is Trader Joe’s an evil big box store?
Trader Joe’s likes to fashion itself as an alternative to both traditional large grocery stores as well as smaller upscale gourmet food shops. It’s not a co-op, either, but does incorporate some of the food ethics that are more traditionally found in stores of that type. I think it’s this marketing that leads to people’s strong feelings – of both love and hate – for Trader Joe’s. Yes, it is a national chain, and some people would hate it for that alone. But the feelings towards Trader Joe’s seems to run deeper than that. Some of the comments on local discussion boards seem to bear this out; I’ve already seen multiple references to the epitome of evil corporate globalization, Walmart. Warnings about “big box stores” and “walkabilty” are already flying. This is where the opposition argument really begins to fall apart for me; while Trader Joe’s is a national chain, it’s certainly not anything like a Walmart. And as far as “big box stores” and threats to walkability, well, Trader Joe’s are not big stores, and there’s no evidence that a local store would in any way negatively impact neighborhood walkability. When the gloom and doom warnings veer off into the downright silly then I think it’s fair to say that there’s more at work than just a discussion about whether or not a certain store would be a negative or a positive for the neighborhood. While there are valid reasons to dislike Trader Joe’s, I think many of these negative reactions are knee-jerk emotional responses to both chain stores as well as to the perceived yuppie clientele of a Trader Joe’s.

I like Trader Joe’s. I don’t like the crowds and I don’t like the crowded aisles, and find the theme thing a little annoying, but I like the fact that I have an option to buy affordable, vegetarian frozen and convenience foods. I do agree that we as a society should be increasingly moving towards buying locally, and I also try to when possible support local businesses. I’m not perfect, though, and while I try to stick to my principles there are times when it’s not possible. Trader Joe’s isn’t perfect, either, but it’s certainly not the evil empire that some opponents make it out to be. If Trader Joe’s does come to town then we can and should expect it to be an appropriately developed urban store. We can also use this as an opportunity to raise community-wide discussions about the importance of supporting local businesses. We can expect Trader Joe’s to give back to the community and to be a good corporate neighbor. A Trader Joe’s might not be the best fit for Uptown/Lyndale/Whittier at this point in time, but it’s not a terrible, thing either.

Snapshot in Time: 32nd and Fremont in 1930

2009-04-08T00:07:00.002-05:00

Do you ever walk down Uptown’s streets and wonder what it was like to live here back when it was “new”? Uptown didn’t develop overnight, of course, but most of it dates to the first three decades of the twentieth century. Most blocks are filled with houses and apartments all dating to the brief time span. The experience must have been drastically different, say, in the 1920s; while walking your dog or strolling with the family you’d likely pass busy construction sites, walk across roads still being laid, and witness new businesses opening up constantly. The relatively new, thriving neighborhood was well-served by streetcar, and residents could buy practically anything they wanted right in the neighborhood, as well as go to the theater, attend church or synagogue, go to school, and generally meet most needs in life.

So who were these residents? The short answer: it varied greatly. Uptown has always had a mix of residents of different economic levels. It was a primarily white place, but then so was Minneapolis as a whole. Uptown was actually pretty diverse, with residents from all over the world. Also, unlike many Minneapolis neighborhoods, Jews could rent and buy Uptown homes and apartments. It was never a “Jewish” neighborhood in the traditiona sense, but with two synagogues in the neighborhood it had more religious diversity (plenty of Catholics and Lutherans in the ‘hood, too, of course) than many Minneapolis neighborhoods.

Out of pure curiosity I decided to take a look at some sample 1930 census data from the 32nd block of Fremont. I’ve always liked that block for its mix of grand old apartment buildings, duplexes, and single-family homes. As an added bonus, it’s also the current home to Ward 10 Council Member Ralph Remington. So who lived here in 1930? Here’s a snapshot from the time, featuring the representative residents of one big apartment building, one mid-sized multiple family building, and one single-family house:

3240 Fremont
According to current city data, the building is now home to 26 units: 25 one-bedroom apartments and one two-bedroom apartment. It was built in 1924. Rents ranged from $38 to $65 per month, with the average hovering around $55.

In 1930, it was home to 39 adults (ages 16+); all but three of them were born in the United States. 54 percent were born in Minnesota, with the other Americans coming from a total of 15 states, mostly in the Midwest or on the East Coast. The foreign-born adults were born in Canada and Russia. The majority of American-born residents were the first generation to be born in this country; most of them had at least one parent from another country. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Mexico, Russia, and Ireland all appeared multiple times, with other parental nationalities including Denmark, England, and Canada also listed.

The bulk of the building’s apartments seemed to be either couples or families with one or two young children, but some units packed in several generations or included roommates. The Malchow family, for example, consisted of mother Louise and her two daughters, Flora and Charlotte, as well as a young boarder. The girls were all in their young 20s and worked in office jobs. The Fosters, a couple in their 30s, lived with Mr. Foster’s mother. The biggest family was the Shortalls, consisting of Mr. and Mrs. Shortall, Mr. Foster’s mother, and two Foster children.

The residents of 3240 Fremont held a broad array of jobs. In addition to the office workers listed above, other occupations included, among other things, a barber, a flour mill employee, a silk hose salesman, a paper boy, a filling station attendant, a candy salesman, several teachers, a bookstore clerk, a motion picture machine salesman, several engineers for the street railway, and a “credit man” for an underwear manufacturer. The vast majority of the women, regardless of age, were not officially employed outside of the home.

3216 Fremont
3216 Fremont was smaller and more upscale than nearby 3240. The 1923 four-plex still stands, and was one of the local buildings to “go” condo. Four families lived in the building in 1930. The owners, Max and Sarah Kohn, lived on-site; they had paid $15,000 for the building. Max Kohn was originally from Czechoslovakia, Sarah was from Austria, and their adult son, still living at home, was born in Minnesota. Max worked at a clothing manufacturing company and son Samson was a clerk at a cigar store. The Reade family consisted of Harry and his wife Mildred, along with their three-year-old son Noel Jack. Harry managed a jewelry store. While both adults were born in Minnesota, Harry’s parents came from Germany. Also living in the home was 20-year-old servant Celeste Schumacher, a Minnesota native with parents from Norway. The Reade’s young son probably played with three-year-old Charlene Morse; Charlene’s parents, Henry and Blanche, were born in Minnesota, although Henry’s parents were originally from Romania. The Morses also had a live-in servant; 19-year-old Natalie Pirrami was born in Minnesota, but had parents from Italy. Henry was the buyer for a radio store. The final family in the building was the Blat family; Charles was a barber and Leah was a beauty operator. They also had a six-year-old son, Robert. Charles was born in Russia and spoke "Jewish Russian" as his first language; Blanche was born in Minnesota to Russian parents.

3232 Fremont
One of the block’s single-family homes, 3232 Fremont was home to the Wallburg family. Herman and Elise Wallburg and their two young sons, Herman and Walter, paid $35 a month in rent. Herman Wallburg worked as a milkman. Both adults were born in the United States – Herman in Minnesota, Elise in Iowa – but Herman’s parents came from Germany and Elise’s from Norway. Elise, a 27-year-old mother with a 2 year old and a 3 ½ year old, was one of many mothers on the block; the houses and apartments - including both 3216 and 3240 - were filled with children.

Wear Your Heart on Your Sleeve, Uptown-Style

2009-04-02T23:57:00.003-05:00

I wear my Uptown sweatshirt with pride. It’s warm, it’s soft, it has an Uptown logo. For those of you out there who also are looking for some Uptown-wear, whether for yourself or as a gift, here’s a brief tour of some of the Uptown-themed apparel for sale out there. Go ahead – wear your heart on your sleeve, Uptown-style.

I’m Down With Uptown: one of my personal favorites, despite not having the money to actually spring for the shirt myself.

A Lakeside View of Uptown: for those of you who don’t like words on your shirt, this landscape painting-turned-t-shirt is by artist Michael Sciortino.

Condos are Ruining My Neighborhood: I happen to think that the Uptown condos are mostly a good thing, but I know that not everyone agrees with that point of view. If you happen to hate condos then you might love this shirt.

Options, Options, Options: Design your own sweatshirt or other piece of clothing at Neighborhoodies, or take this general concept and bring it somewhere local.

Uptown Business Association: Buy Uptown Art Fair shirts or choose from an assortment of Uptown-themed shirts and hats.

Wearing a shirt with "Uptown" splashed across the front might not exactly save the neighborhood, but there's still possibly more benefits to be found than just a new piece of clothing for the closet. Schools have mastered the art of building a sense of student body (or alumni) community; maybe the symbolic act of purchasing and wearing a piece of "branded" clothing isn't so insignificant, after all. And hey, even if it doesn't enhance our shared community spirit, at least you'll have something to wear.

Granny Flats: Coming to an Alley Near You?

2009-03-31T00:56:00.005-05:00

Adding density to Uptown is vital if the neighborhood wants to support the kind of walkable, urban lifestyle that so many residents desire. That doesn’t mean we need to line the streets with high-rise apartments, or tear down single-family homes to clear space for multifamily residences. A balance can, and should, be struck between the neighborhood’s traditional “character” (and I’m talking OVERALL character, not just height) and the need to provide more housing for more people.

I particularly like the idea of “granny” or “alley” flats (also called “accessory dwelling units,” or ADUs). These are smaller residences found in the backyards of homes. Some parts of Minneapolis, particularly the big mansions with surviving carriage houses, still have these. For the most part, though, the only structure found in most Uptown backyards is a garage.

Alley flats have a lot of benefits:

These units tend to be smaller, providing housing options for single people (including the “granny” looking to downsize to smaller digs) who don’t want or need to live in a big place.

The smaller size often also translates to cheaper rent, broadening at least the possibility of affordable (or semi-affordable) housing in the neighborhood.

The property owners – who often live in the main, front house – get some extra income to help pay their mortgage. This would assist larger families who would prefer to live in a house, but have a hard time paying an Uptown-sized mortgage.

We’ve all heard about the importance of “eyes on the street” in preventing crime; this would bring more eyes and ears to Uptown’s alleys.

Alley flats increase a neighborhood’s density without significantly altering its outwards appearance.

There are some potential negatives, too:

Increased density is going to impact parking. More people probably translates into more cars, although ideally it also means the population necessary to support a greater variety of daily essentials in the neighborhood, as well as increased access to both public transportation as well as car share programs – thereby making it easier for individuals and families to live a car-free life, or at least reduce the number of cars needed per household.

Increased density means more people, which could mean more noise, more traffic, more garbage, and possibly decreased green space. These issues could be alleviated with good planning, and are counteracted by the positives associated with increased appropriate density in Uptown.

Although these types of housing have always been popular in some parts of the country, communities sometimes see them as a negative. That’s been changing in recent years, as more and more cities and towns (including some wealthy enclaves filled with even more NIMBYs than Uptown) face the need for increasing density and housing options, and as baby boomers start to age, retire, and consider the benefits of moving to a smaller space.

Minneapolis has embraced the concept of alternative accessory dwellings in some of the neighborhoods along the Hiawatha Light Rail line, as well as in several other overlay districts throughout the city (North Phillips/Ventura Village, for example). While not necessarily allowed in Uptown, they are supported by many area residents. And while the Uptown Small Area Plan does not specifically address granny flats, the CARAG Master Plan does – a positive sign, as CARAG in particular is a hotbed of anti-development activists. I’m hoping that this means that granny flats and ADUs are something that we can all get behind. I called the City to get some more information on the current situation, and was reminded that although a specific residence may not currently meet current zoning requirements for a granny flat it is possible to be granted a variance. I hope that the City code will continue to be tweaked to make it easier for these types of residences to be built; perhaps this will be spurred along if Uptown gets its LRT line. I’m not in the market to construct a granny flat anytime soon, but the possibility is intriguing, and it will certainly be something I at least ask about when I start the process of purchasing an Uptown-area home.

The Traffic Issue in Uptown's Own Backyard (or Garage)

2009-03-29T22:49:00.003-05:00

One of the complaints we all frequently hear about Uptown is that there’s too much traffic. I agree that the cars speeding through Lake or other major thoroughfares are a source of frustration. There are also many people driving to Uptown, and I do wish that more of those people would consider taking the bus, biking, or, when possible, walking. That said, too much of the traffic focus tends to be on the problem of “outsiders,” whether it’s the people coming to Uptown to shop or dine, those who drive to their Uptown jobs, or the people who are driving through Uptown on their way from and to places elsewhere. These groups of people are admittedly a major component of any traffic “problem,” but we can’t forget the group of people most likely to be on Uptown streets on a daily basis: Uptown residents themselves.

The 2000 census sheds some interesting light on Uptown residents’ commuting patterns (“Uptown” in this case defined as CARAG, ECCO, LHENA, and East Isles, with the numbers based on “workers 16 years and over). Some highlights:

52 percent of Uptown residents drove to work alone, a five percent increase over 1990.
Six percent of Uptowners carpooled to work, the same percentage as in 1990.
A mere 17 percent took public transportation to work, a decrease from 22 percent in 1990.
Four percent walked to work in 2000; five percent walked to work in 1990.
Two percent of workers took “other means” (I’m assuming this means bicycles, plus perhaps the occasional skateboard or set of roller blades thrown in for good measure) versus less than one percent in 1990.
Two percent of Uptowners worked at home in 1990, three percent worked at home in 2000.

There were, of course, statistical differences between neighborhoods. The percentage of local workers commuting alone by car (in 2000) broken down by neighborhood are:

58 percent in the Wedge
61 percent in CARAG
64 percent in East Isles
72 percent in ECCO

I realize that not everyone can bike, walk, or take the bus to work. Still, these numbers leave a lot of room for improvement. The majority of those people - and we're talking thousands of Uptown residents - are driving to and from work five days a week, many of them in the same general morning and evening timeframe. Instead of focusing our energies on parking permits and battling new developments we can and should identify the most efficient ways to get people out of their cars and onto the sidewalks, onto bikes, or on the bus (and at some point, I hope, LRT). Some worthwhile potential goals:

Cut down number of cars per household. Not every adult member of every family needs a car, and some households can live without any car.
Decrease the use of each car. If even a relatively small number of current residents switched to, say, biking to work one day a week in the summer it would have an impact. So, too, would be if some current drivers switched to taking the bus to work one or two days a week instead of driving. And once at home, if more residents walked to local stores for their errands (including grocery store runs) we’d decrease local traffic even further.
Provide support for residents to get by without owning a car. Uptown has a car share service (HOURCAR); with time and increased usage we could expand the locations, making it an even more convenient option for those who don’t want a car yet still want to have access to one from time to time. And, of course, an Uptown LRT alignment, good (and affordable) bus service, and a bike- and pedestrian-friendly environment are also essential.

Traffic and parking are always going to be issues facing Uptown; it’s part and parcel with urban living. An equally important element of urban neighborhood life should be the ready availability – and embrace – of a car-free lifestyle. By all means continue to address through traffic and parking, but don’t forget the simple fact that in many cases the traffic problem is not just “them” – it is “us.”

ECCO Board Member Speaks Out in Favor of Lake & Knox Development

2009-03-28T01:09:00.010-05:00

Those of you interested in the proposed development at Lake and Knox, or about the ins and outs of the Uptown Small Area Plan and the Shoreland Overlay District, should check out ECCO resident and neighborhood board member Tim Prinsen's opinion piece ("Responsible Common Sense Development") in the April issue of the Uptown Neighborhood News. It's refreshing to see a local activist speak out in such a calm, reasonable, and well-reasoned way about the development issues facing the Uptown area. Too often these issues get blown into major storms, with the resulting confusion, tangents, and politics distracting from the actual issues. As Prinsen writes, "please do not allow a vocal minority to dictate what happens in our neighborhood."That's solid advice, and something we should all heed.

Lake Calhoun: Build, Baby, Build

2009-03-26T23:43:00.003-05:00

Lake Calhoun. It’s one of Minneapolis’s most unique assets, as well as one of the defining features of Uptown. It’s even the inspiration for the name of one of the Uptown-area neighborhood groups – CARAG (Calhoun Area Residents Action Group) – even though even the westernmost borders of CARAG are still at least four blocks from the lake (and is, of course, the namesake for lake-adjacent ECCO, or the East Calhoun Community Organization). The lakes are a major draw for most Uptowners, and one of the reasons people are willing to shell out some big bucks (comparatively) to live in the area. It’s also the source of much ongoing controversy, serving as a lighting rod of sorts for practically any and all development issue in Uptown. Take, for example, the Uptown hotel proposed a few years ago; opponents complained that they might be able to see the top floor when walking around the lake. Needless to say, any development taking place on or across from the lake attracts even more neighborhood ire.

None of this is new news, but it might be dragged up again during the course of the Ward 10 City Council race. At the recent debate (“forum”) between Wedge residents and candidates Meg Tuthill and Matt Filner, Tuthill once again pulled out that oh-so-popular development card. While answering a question about the relationship between new development and local Small Area Plans (Uptown has one; Lyn-Lake’s is being finalized) she referred to the danger of Lake Calhoun looking like “Miami Beach.” She’s not the only or the first one to say this. Participants in the Uptown Small Area Plan process also referred to the Miami Beach concern, while developer Clark Gassen was slammed locally when a 2006 New York Times article quoted him as referring to his vision of making Uptown – and presumably some of the land by Lake Calhoun (his company was responsible for the controversial Edgewater project) – a “little Manhattan.”

I’m treading on sensitive ground here, but I think Meg Tuthill (along with the active and outspoken NIMBYs who fill many, although not all, of the seats on our local neighborhood boards) is wrong to excessively limit development by Lake Calhoun. The stretch of land between Lake Street heading northwest towards St. Louis Park could, if anything, use more development. Sensitive, well-done development could add housing to the neighborhood, potentially add useful retail, and decrease the car-dependent nature of the development along the northwest portion of the lake. There are already tall buildings in the area, so it’s not as though short, single-family homes would be converted into towering apartment buildings.

Not every lake needs to provide local residents with a “pure” nature experience. These are urban lakes, and I love the fact that I can see the downtown skyline from Lake Calhoun. Buildings such as the Calhoun Beach Club are certainly a visual presence on the lake, but that doesn’t detract from the overall experience. I would not advocate for tall buildings along Lake of the Isles or Lake Harriet, or for the ECCO portion of Lake Calhoun, for that matter, but I think it’s appropriate and desirable for part of the lakeshore. Increased housing options also means more opportunities for people – and not just rich people – to live within close proximity to the lake and its amenities. I know what the NIMBYs think; now I’d like to know what other Uptown – and Minneapolis – residents and visitors think about Lake Calhoun-adjacent housing development. As for me, I say build, baby, build.

Uptown's Pizza Landscape

2009-03-25T00:23:00.005-05:00

Pizza. It’s not really appropriate to say it’s the glue that holds a neighborhood together, but I don’t think I’d be too far off to say that a community’s quality of life is directly related at least in part to the number of quality pizza joints available to its residents. Proximity to a good pizza place is a neighborhood essential for me. Better yet is being within close walking distance of several places, and having yet more options within delivery distance. Luckily for me and my fellow pizza connoisseurs, Uptown is bursting at the seams with pizza options.

DAVANNI’S
My all-time favorite place, Davanni’s has become a local powerhouse, a local chain known for both its pizza and its hoagies. The first location opened at Grand and Cleveland in St. Paul, and was initially known as Pontillo’s Pizzeria. According to Davanni’s Uptown general manager Phil Martin, the Uptown story began on January 16, 1981 with the opening of a Pontillo’s Hot Hoagies store. Although the customers presumably loved the hoagies, they also wanted their pizza; pizza was soon added to the Uptown menu. In 1983 the company, by then a thriving local chain, changed its name to Davanni’s Pizza and Hot Hoagies, and the rest, as they say, is history.

So what’s to love about Davanni’s? I’m not a food critic; I’ll leave the culinary reviews to the experts. Still, I get hungry just thinking about a Davanni’s deep-dish pizza (introduced in 1986) or one of their hot hoagies. Although food is obviously the core function of any restaurant, there’s other, less edible factors that make a place a beloved part of a community. Customers have enjoyed sitting in Davanni’s for more than 25 years now, watching the street activity along Lake Street through each dining area’s huge glass windows. Many of the employees seem to have been there for years, as do plenty of the customers. Finally, Davanni’s has a long history of local involvement and socially responsible corporate decisions. The company has always supported local suppliers, has implemented energy saving measures in its restaurants, and in general tries to combine good business practices with good environmental policies. They also are active in the community, and frequently provide pizza and food to fundraising efforts. I don’t know what they’re like as an employer, but given the long tenure of many of its employees I’m guessing it’s a pretty good place to work.

GALACTIC PIZZA
Galactic Pizza is in Lyn-Lake (2917 Lyndale), so admittedly not as central Uptown as Davanni’s. A relative newcomer to the local pizza scene, Galactic Pizza also offers local residents a chance to pump their money back into the local economy. They very consciously make every attempt to be socially and environmentally responsible. Some of my personal favorites from their long list of “values-led activities” include the sale of the “Second Harvest Heartland Pizza” (one dollar donated to Second Harvest Heartland with every pizza sold), their composting program, the fact that they contribute five percent of their pre-tax profits to charity, and that they run their restaurant with wind energy.

Galactic Pizza’s menu is more gimmicky than the more traditional old-school local pizza places – they even offer a pizza named the “Hipster,” for example – but their gimmicks include some truly creative offerings. The “CSA Pizza,” for one, is based on produce from the Harmony Valley C.S.A.; I love that they’re both utilizing local, in-season produce as well as helping inform the public about some of the local C.S.A. options available.

PIZZA LUCE
Also in the Lyn-Lake area is Pizza Lucé, now celebrating its tenth year in the neighborhood. The pizza is good and has received all sorts of awards, but one of my favorite things about Pizza Lucé is that it’s turned a boring and ugly convenience store into something new and improved, complete with patio.

DULONO’S
And yet another Lyn-Lake addition, Dulono’s has been a longtime neighborhood institution. Go here to get your thin crust pizza, beer, and bluegrass music. I love that it’s been around forever, and hope that it continues to thrive. I get tired of all the trendy, hipster places (even if they do offer good pizza and socially-responsible operational policies), so it’s a relief to have some actual authentic, non-manufactured “ironic” places around.

LEANING TOWER OF PIZZA
The Leaning Tower of Pizza gets major bonus points for its place in Minneapolis history. The restaurant opened in 1952, and moved to its current Lyndale location in 1959. According to their website, they were only one of four restaurants in the city to offer pizza. Thank goodness I was born well after 1959, as I can’t imagine a childhood (and adulthood) devoid of pizza. In addition to its tasty pizza and long history, Leaning Tower is also where Uptowners can go to schmooze with current Ward 10 Council Member Ralph Remington – go eat pizza, have a beer, and talk Uptown with Remington every fourth Tuesday of the month between 5:30 and 6:30. I hope this is one tradition the next Council Member will continue; with both leading contenders living in the Wedge I’d say it’s at least a possibility.

So there it is… a partial tour of some of Uptown’s (and Lyn-Lake’s) pizza offerings. I’ve undoubtedly left off someone’s favorite spot, but we can all take heart in knowing that there are plentiful pizza offerings for those of us who think as goes the local pizza scene, there goes the neighborhood. Even better, most of the Uptown area’s pizza offerings are either independent stores or local chains. Go buy a pizza today and do your part to support your community, stimulate the economy, and soothe your pizza cravings.

Do You Remember A Brother's Touch?

2009-03-22T08:49:00.001-05:00

Do you remember A Brother’s Touch? A Brother’s Touch, once located at 2327 Hennepin, was the Twin Cities’ first GLBT bookstore. It was a local landmark for many in the local LGBT community, as well as a familiar part of the neighborhood even to those who never set foot inside its doors.

Owner Harvey Hertz initially opened A Brother’s Touch at Franklin and Nicollet in 1983; at some point the store moved to its Hennepin location, where it remained until its closing in 2003. Its closing was part of a larger, national trend, a result of both competition from national chains and online booksellers as well as the changing nature of American society. By 2003 GLBT books were readily available in mass bookstores; at the time, Uptown’s own Borders branch purchased more books from LGBT publisher Alyson Publishing than any other store in the state.

I’m not gay or lesbian, and never actually went into A Brother’s Touch, but the store’s bright pink neon sign – a man with his hand on another man’s shoulder, if I’m remembering correctly – blends in with my other vivid mental images of Uptown’s changing landscape. The store’s loss is unfortunate on several levels; from a pure neighborhood standpoint it’s a sad reminder that this decade saw the departure of many good neighborhood bookstores (including the longtime and independent staple Orr Books, as well as the above-mentioned Uptown Borders).

Markets change, neighborhoods evolve, and businesses come and go. That’s the nature of life. Still, I look back at the closing of A Brother’s Touch and mourn the loss of an independent store, a store that would be unlikely to be found at a suburban mall. A Brother’s Touch is also a reminder that Uptown’s history has been (for the most part) inclusive and tolerant; while there is no “gay neighborhood” in Minneapolis, Uptown certainly has been and continues to be popular with plenty of Twin Cities LGBT residents. And while A Brother's Touch lacked any deep personal meaning for me, other than as a familiar storefront, I know that has great significance for many others. A Brother's Touch was a local institution, and as such deserves to be remembered for its role in Uptown's - and the Twin Cities' - history.

The Uptown Market: Coming Your Way Summer 2009

2009-03-21T01:25:00.002-05:00

Word on the street is that initial plans for an arts, crafts, and farmer’s market are in the works. The Uptown Market is tentatively scheduled for the third Sunday of every month between June and September. According to the website, “the Uptown Market is a venue to enhance the quality of life for the community through the gathering of local artisans, craftspeople, small business owners, area farmers, and neighbors.” The Uptown Market will also provide outreach opportunities for community organizations.

The Uptown Market is the project of Minneapolis resident Roxie Speth. I don’t know Speth, but it appears that she’s a prolific crafter, and was presumably inspired by the larger crafts movement (as seen on sites such as etsy) that is sweeping the nation. She envisions something modeled after Seattle’s Fremont Market. I have my doubts as to how feasible it is to get this off the ground and running, but am cautiously optimistic that it will turn out to be a wild success. It’s an interesting concept, and certainly worth pursuing.

So where will this Uptown Market be held? While the site isn’t yet firm, the expected location will be at 29th Street, between Lyndale and Dupont. And that, really, is the only thing that slightly bothers me. Or, more accurately, it’s the potential disconnect between the name and the location that I find jarring. Is 29th and Lyndale Uptown? There is no clear answer. Some people believe the Lyn-Lake area to be a subsection of Uptown, while others are adamant that it is its own distinct location. My views are starting to slightly shift; while I still consider Lyn-Lake to be its own entity, I acknowledge that to those outside of the greater Uptown area that the distinctions between the two are fuzzy or non-existent. The two areas do overlap, and I sometimes cover Lyn-Lake issues or places in this “Uptown” blog. Still, I do think that the name deserves careful consideration, especially given that Lyn-Lake is currently in the final stages of putting together their own Small Area Plan. It’s possible that the choice of a different name, perhaps the Lyn-Lake Market, would better brand both the Market and its location.

In the grand scheme of things, of course, the choice of a name isn’t the important thing. The larger point here is that there are active, involved people who are working to implement their creative vision for the benefit of the community. I’ll be following the developments on the Uptown Market front with great interest, and look forward to the day when I can wander down the streets of Uptown (or Lyn-Lake) on a sunny summer day to purchase some locally-grown carrots directly from the grower.

Is Uptown a Hipster Haven?

2009-03-19T00:13:00.002-05:00

In recent years Uptown has taken on a reputation as being a “hipster” neighborhood. What exactly does that mean, was it true, and is it still true today? And, perhaps most significantly, does it matter?

Despite the frequent references to “hipster neighborhoods” in popular culture, there is no one standard definition agreed upon by everyone. While they all share many common characteristics – most notably the presence of hipsters themselves – there seem to be a range of diversity, economic situation, and overall level of “grittiness” in hipster neighborhoods. Uptown seems to be sort of in the middle on the spectrum of hipster neighborhoods; less diverse than many, not as recently gentrified, yet still relatively affordable in its local context (key word is “relatively.") For my own purposes, I’m going to go with Richard Florida’s definition of a “hipster haven” (from Who’s Your City?):

"With just the right combination of city grit and posh, hipster havens tend to attract a relatively affluent crowd – that doesn’t want to appear too affluent. Music scenes, nightclubs, and coffee shops pop up everywhere in their wake, as older residents either cash out or are pushed out. Hipster havens also attract the bridge-and-tunnel crowd on the weekends – people from the suburbs who can’t quite stomach city life during the week but like to visit from Friday through Sunday."

Florida cites Williamsburg (NY), Wicker Park (Chicago), Montrose (Houston), and West Hollywood (LA) as examples of hipster havens. His description of the issues facing hipster havens should sound familiar to Uptown watchers: rising rents (both commercial and rental) and the resulting loss of independent or “authentic” businesses and residents. Noise is also an issue, as apparently all those nightlife-loving hipsters keep late hours.

So is Uptown a hipster haven? While I think it is, to some degree, I think it’s also straddling the line into another neighborhood type, one Florida dubs “designer digs.” Designer digs, he says, “feature upscale condos, renovated town houses, organic markets, posh grocery stores, and niche boutiques.” In the case of Uptown, the Wedge and CARAG tend to lean towards the hipster haven side, while ECCO and East Isles have greater designer digs tendencies. The result is a blend of the two in the commercial core and up and down Hennepin.

A couple of statistics pulled from the recent Uptown Small Area Plan have some bearing on this discussion. Despite Uptown’s reputation as a young neighborhood, it is in fact aging. There are now 30 percent fewer 20 to 24-year-old residents in Uptown than there were in 2000, while the percentage of 55- to 65-year-olds has grown by nearly 40 percent in that same period. Assuming that hipsters tend to be young, that suggests a transition away from a traditional hipster haven. Presumably they’re moving east towards Whittier and Lyn-Lake, or over Northeast, an area frequently labeled as Uptown’s successor.

I appreciate that Uptown has a reputation as an interesting, exciting place to visit. I like that it has developed a regional, and even national, reputation. The thing I don’t like about the hipster label, accurate or not, is that it oversimplifies things and highlights one group of residents at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood. Uptown is more than just hipsters; an over-emphasis on one neighborhood element discounts the fact that many types of people live here, including plenty who roll their eyes when they see hipsters rolling down the street. Pegging a neighborhood as a certain type, especially when urban neighborhoods such as Uptown are constantly evolving and changing, isn’t accurate, and could potentially be damaging if too many Twin Cities residents or new arrivals write off Uptown as a place for families, old people, non-hip young people, or anyone else who doesn’t wear horn-rimmed glasses and swig PBR.

Lara Norkus-Crampton Drops Out

2009-03-16T22:03:00.003-05:00

Hot off the press - the Southwest Journal reports that Ward 10 candidate Lara Norkus-Crampton plans to officially drop out of the race. She will continue her role on the City's Planning Commission, and doesn't discount the possibility of running for City Council at some point in the future.

I have mixed feelings about this news. On one hand, I think Lara Norkus-Crampton is not the right person to represent Ward 10. While certainly involved and committed to the neighborhood, her views are often extreme, and reflect only the opinions of a small percentage of the Ward's residents. On the other hand, her exit leaves only two people left in the race. While I believe that Meg Tuthill and Matt Filner are both solid choices, I am uncomfortable with the lack of significant choice in politics at the local level.

I'm a little fuzzy on the current ins and outs of the DFL endorsement process; in the last City Council race there was no endorsement, leading to more options for voters and a more robust debate. With three plausible candidates in the mix it would have been more difficult for one candidate to get the endorsement. I'm not sure what it means to the endorsement process if only two candidates remain. While at this point in the game I believe both remaining candidates to be good City Council material, I still hope that the residents of Ward 10 - including those who aren't actively involved with the local political party - will have the opportunity to enjoy some actual choices.

Both Tuthill and Filner have promised to abide by the DFL's endorsement, should there be one. That means that the show could well be realistically over and done with months before the actual voting begins. Sure, there might be a Republican or a third party candidate, but they're going to have a hard time overcoming the Democratic nominee. Norkus-Crampton had also promised to abide by the endorsement, but at least in the meantime she offered an alternative view for the neighborhood, and her participation may have sparked some important debates.

I might not agree with much of Lara Norkus-Crampton's vision for Uptown, but I don't doubt her love for the neighborhood or her good intentions. I wish her the best of luck in her future non-City Council endeavors.

Uptown in a Larger Context

2009-03-15T01:36:00.003-05:00

A recent Pew Research Center study declares Minnesota to be what they define as a low magnet/sticky state. In other words, Minnesota doesn’t attract a large number of new residents (perhaps they’re afraid of the cold?) but does retain most of its natives for life. Some other interesting statistics, also from the Pew Research Center:

37% of Americans have never lived outside of their hometowns; this number rises to 46% in the Midwest.
57% of Americans, and 64% of Midwesterners, have not lived outside of their home state.
15% of Americans have lived in four or more states.

So what does this have to do with Uptown? Although I don’t have the statistics for Uptown. I would suspect that Uptown, as a desirable city neighborhood, has a higher percentage of people born elsewhere. Still, I’m sure that there are many residents in Uptown who have never lived outside of the Twin Cities, or of Minnesota. This potentially translates into a population consisting of people who have limited experiences with other cities. While this can be mitigated by travel and research, a tendency towards parochialism, combined with an at-times smugness and a rah-rah Minnesota attitude, can hurt Minneapolis and Uptown by squashing deeper dialogue and limiting vision.

I think this limited viewpoint can be seen most acutely in discussions about transportation. It's shocking that a metro area of this size is so lacking in rail options. We’re finally starting to make up for lost time, but perhaps if more people were familiar with light rail, subways, and commuter rail found in other cities across the world they’d more fully embrace light rail in the Twin Cities. Similarly, if more Uptowners had lived in cities with busy light rail or subway networks they’d better understand why so many people consider it vital that the Southwest LRT alignment come through Uptown.

A limited understanding of other cities also leads to at-times silly assertions. Remember a few years ago when there was talk about the “Manhattanization” of Lake Calhoun’s shores? It may be news to the neighborhood’s hard-core NIMBYs, but Uptown is no Manhattan. It goes the other way too, sometimes, with proud Uptowners comparing the neighborhood to Greenwich Village. Again, for better or worse, Uptown is no Manhattan.

I am a strong advocate for exploring other cities. I’ve lived a lot of places in my life, and every experience has helped me to further refine the way I think about urban design and the makings of a good – or bad – neighborhood. They’ve also helped me to better put Uptown into a larger, national context. Travel, too, has shown me yet more neighborhood options. The world is wide open with possibilities, and Uptowners needn’t be restrained when it comes to daydreaming about the future.

I’ve been doing a little thinking about what other national (and maybe international) neighborhoods Uptown resembles. One of Uptown’s charms is, of course, that it retains a distinct identity. Still, there are certainly many comparisons to be made, all of which can help us to better understand what works and doesn’t work about this neighborhood, as well as to provide some inspiration for further developing Uptown’s unique identity. I’ll post my personal summary later this week, but in the meantime I’d love to hear from others what neighborhoods Uptown should be looking at as we continue to chart the future.

To be continued…

Do Condos Mean the Death of the Neighborhood?

2009-03-11T23:55:00.004-05:00

With the housing market in turmoil across the nation, it might seem a little out-of-date to spend much time discussing condos – both new and conversions – in Uptown. But I ran across this Liberate Uptown website today, and thought it raised some interesting questions. Do condos belong in Uptown? Are condos destroying the neighborhood? Is this even still an issue?

First, the anti-condo argument. The Liberate Uptown website, written in 2007, makes the following assertions:

Condos only “belong” downtown.
Condos are and will continue to force current residents out of the neighborhood.
Condos will gentrify the neighborhood.
Condos are created and sold by rich people who are out to make a buck on the backs of the people.
Condos are not affordable and will never be affordable.
Condos are a form of class warfare.
Condos force up rental rates.

These are fairly typical arguments, and shouldn't be seen as strictly the view of one lone author. I agree on some points, while in other places I think the anti-condo arguments are flawed. Let’s take them one point at a time:

Condos only “belong” downtown.

This seems to be a fairly common view. I’m guessing that the people who share this opinion have limited familiarity with other cities and their housing markets. Condos are a type of housing option; at their most basic they are apartments that people own rather than rent. They don’t represent a specific aesthetic style, they’re not all luxurious, and in many places they are located in neighborhoods of all price points. There is nothing inherently wrong with condos being located in residential neighborhoods.

Condos are and will continue to force current residents out of the neighborhood.

and

Condos will gentrify the neighborhood.

The condo critics have a better argument for these points. Still, this snippet from the Liberate Uptown site was a bit dated, even for its 2007 publication date:

“Uptown is full of young people, artists, musicians, people who want to live in a vital area with grassroots communities, as well as working class and middle class people who can’t afford to live elsewhere and/or want to live close to where they work rather than driving for hours each day to and from work.”

The unfortunate reality was that by the 2000s the gentrification movement had already largely displaced many residents. The conversion of Uptown apartment buildings added to the numbers, but it wasn’t the root cause of the problem. That paragraph could just as easily – and probably even more accurately – refer to the 1980s instead of the mid- to late-2000s.

The addition of new condo buildings, luxury or not, doesn’t bother me, assuming they are replacing either surface parking lots or bland, unessential neighborhood buildings. The new places do tend to be expensive, or “luxury,” but they do offer additional diversity to the neighborhood’s housing stock. I also believe that density is a good thing in the long run, and the new buildings open up higher-end spaces that take up less room than the neighborhood’s traditional expensive single-family house options. Not all of the “luxury” condos are even that expensive – in many cases you can buy a modern Uptown condo in a new building for less money than it would cost to buy even a dumpy Uptown house. I’d take a historic home with character myself, but I think it’s a positive thing if we can provide people with more options. If nothing else, maybe people who want that modern aesthetic will be more likely to just buy a new condo than to buy an older place, gut it, and install an out-of-place modern interior. (as someone who appreciates older buildings, I cringe every time I see references to "updated" kitchens or bathrooms - this can be a good thing if done well, but just as often it means a shoddy modern suburban-style shoehorned into the stripped hull of a formerly stately historic kitchen.)

The conversion of existing apartment buildings is a more difficult issue. It is terrible to see longtime residents forced out of their homes. Many condos were purchased by investors. It did drive up prices. On the other hand, condos offer would-be buyers more opportunities to purchase property of their own. Middle class people who didn’t want to lose out on the tax incentives and possible long-term financial gains associated with home ownership often actually had a shot at buying a condo, while a more expensive freestanding house was more likely to remain out of the realm of possibility. Lower income people are the real losers here; they are unlikely to be able to buy a house or condo in Uptown, and they have at times been forced out of their apartments when their buildings have gone condo.

Condos are built, converted, and sold by rich people who are out to make a buck on the backs of the people.

The developers and sellers of condos understandably want to make a profit. That doesn’t mean that everyone involved with the condo market is evil, or even necessarily rich. Many of the condo developers do have long roots in the neighborhood, and do genuinely care about Uptown and its problems. Others didn’t, or don’t. I don’t think that this can be counted as a valid argument against condos specifically, though, as this could also be said about apartment owners. There are some very good landlords in Uptown, and there are also slumlords. Landlords also want to make money from their investments. In their case the profits come from the rents paid by their tenants.

Condos are not affordable and will never be affordable.

When most people buy a condo their payment often will be more than what they’d pay for a comparable rental unit. On the other hand, they won’t be at the mercy of a landlord and will, if lucky, have a fixed rate mortgage that won’t seem like such a bad deal in the future. Some of this is also relative; a condo payment may be more than a rent payment, but those who want to buy but can’t afford to buy a freestanding single-family home have more opportunity when they have access to condos. In the short-term condos are more expensive, as they’re a recent phenomenon in Uptown and the sales prices reflect the housing and condo boom and the related escalating property values. In the long-term it’s possible that condos will be more on par with rentals. On the other hand, this readjustment will have come at the cost of a large-scale rise in price that has made lack of affordable housing in Uptown an increasingly pressing issue.

Condos are a form of class warfare.

Again, condos are in themselves not the problem. The problem is the larger issue of lack of affordable housing. Large-scale apartment conversions certainly didn’t help, but it’s only one aspect of the bigger picture.

Condos force up rental rates.

I’m sure that they often do, at least in the beginning. In the cases where a building goes condo, buyers move in, and then turn around and rent their units. In that case of course the rent is probably going to go up – the new owner has a higher mortgage, and would need a higher rent just to cover their payment. Affordable housing is obviously a problem for Uptown.

I believe the concept of condos to be good for a neighborhood. They offer a viable home alternative to many potential Uptown residents, both in terms of housing style (in the case of the new buildings) and housing cost (as compared to a freestanding single family home in the neighborhood). In Minneapolis there seems to be a much higher stigma attached to renting than there is in many other major cities; as a result there's more social pressure for people to buy rather than rent long-term. Those who like apartment living but prefer to own would be well served by condo options; so, too, would be people who want to buy in Uptown but can't or don't want a house. Condos should not be automatically written off as a bad thing for Uptown or for Minneapolis, or the larger issue of affordable housing lost in a haze of allegations of class warfare.

The market may have cooled, but condos are now a permanent fixture in Uptown. Like it or not, there is no way to “liberate” Uptown from condos. There is room for increased dialogue and creative thinking about ways in which to encourage the preservation and creation of affordable housing. Perhaps in the future condos can even be a part of the solution.

Calhoun Square: Good or Bad?

2009-03-09T23:41:00.002-05:00

Now that work on Calhoun Square is visibly moving forward, it’s perhaps a good time to take a moment to look backwards. More specifically, back to the late 1970s when Calhoun Square was first envisioned, and the early 1980s, when it became a reality. Like it or not, most people will readily acknowledge that the opening of Calhoun Square was a turning point in the neighborhood’s history. Did Calhoun Square “kill the soul of Uptown,” (as one local argues in the Uptown Small Area Plan) or did the urban mall give the commercial district a figurative kick in the pants, reenergizing the neighborhood for the benefit of all?

First, some history. Depending on your point of view, Uptown in the 1970s was either a run-down crime-ridden dump, or it was the exciting center of local and even regional artistic and bohemian life. For others it was a combination of the two; a little rundown around the edges, perhaps, but still a vibrant, affordable, and desirable place to live. You could even argue that the extra layer of urban grit gave it the authenticity so often lacking in modern suburbs or in overly sanitized malls.

The Hennepin-Lake intersection had been the center of the neighborhood’s commercial district for decades. Businesses in the area included a bowling alley, the Rainbow Café (a regional draw), and stores ranging from the Uptown Bookstore to the Save-Mart store. An elementary school, Calhoun School, was located adjacent to the business district, approximately where Calhoun Square’s parking lot now stands. The school was closed and demolished in the mid-1970s, opening up land and ultimately paving the way for Calhoun Square’s eventual construction.

Even after Calhoun Square was gone, the Calhoun Square footprint had businesses and other buildings still standing. After a long and controversial public debate, the Minneapolis City Council voted to designate the Hennepin-Lake district as “blighted,” allowing both the use of eminent domain as well as tax increment financing. While some in the neighborhood were supportive, others dubbed the project “Updale.” In many ways this is the battle still raging, although not necessarily focused on Calhoun Square at the moment; the modern updated argument centers on modern luxury condo buildings and chain stores, but the basic concerns about gentrification, change, suburbanization, and yuppification remain the same.

Calhoun Square finally opened in 1983. The urban mall incorporated both old and new buildings. Five buildings originally were located on the site; two were razed for the project, while the remaining three were gutted. The mall’s stores included a mix of both longtime neighborhood businesses as well as new ventures. Although a mall, Calhoun Square’s independent retail stores were a far cry from the standard shopping outlets at the ‘Dales. The mall quickly became an anchor in the neighborhood, and did successfully draw shoppers from across the region.

So, did Calhoun Square squash the spirit of Uptown? Was it the best or the worst thing to happen to the neighborhood? In many ways, I think it was a little of both. Uptown pre-Calhoun Square was an active commercial district, but we’ll never know how well it would have survived the 1980s or 1990s without Calhoun Square. Calhoun Square did energize the neighborhood, and did bring in many new amenities. Large interior malls may not be the fashion now, but in a cold Minnesota winter (or even during the worst days of a hot Minnesota summer) it can be nice to have some indoor shopping options, too. Back in the 1980s the central atrium was actually pretty nice; there were fountains and plants and benches, and there did seem to be a genuine attempt to make the common space feel like it belonged to the community. On the other hand, Uptown’s “revitalization” meant that some longtime businesses got pushed out. A neighborhood shopping district once again became a regional destination; this meant more options for locals, but in return it meant a loss of that smaller, neighborhood feel.

Ultimately what I want out of the neighborhood is a vibrant, urban neighborhood, one in which I can do all my daily and special occasion shopping and living, only leaving the neighborhood because I choose to and not because I have to. I’m too young to have many memories of a pre-Calhoun Square Uptown; I don’t have an answer as to whether or not Calhoun Square was good or bad for the neighborhood. Ultimately I don’t know believe that anyone does. It changed the neighborhood, without a doubt, but things would have changed whether or not Calhoun Square was in the picture. Calhoun Square was only one pressure point of change – a large one, admittedly – on the neighborhood. It would be unfair to forget about larger city and even national economic and cultural trends that also shaped life at the local level. Would that bohemian artistic vibe survived the materialistic ‘80s? We’ll never know for sure.

Calhoun Square of today is a very different place than the Calhoun Square of the 1980s. It’s quieter now, with fewer independent stores and a lot more vacant spaces. The new construction has and will change things dramatically yet again, and it remains to be seen whether or not the outcome will be positive or negative for the neighborhood.

Regardless of one’s opinion about Calhoun Square, past or present, I think most people will agree that it is very important to Uptown as a whole that Calhoun Square survive, and ideally thrive. Love it or hate it, the reality is that the Uptown that existed prior to 1983 is long gone, and it isn’t coming back. The best we can do is to support Calhoun Square in its new form. Shop in its stores. Eat at its restaurants. Don’t forget about the rest of Uptown, of course, but do try to keep your money local. Don’t like chain stores? Focus your buying power on the independents. There’s no way to know whether the neighborhood will thrive or wither in the years to come, but having a big empty albatross sitting at our busiest intersection is the fastest way to encourage failure. Good luck, Calhoun Square, for all our sake.

Emily Goodridge-Grey Charter School

2009-03-08T00:46:00.006-06:00

Did you know that CARAG has its own elementary school? Many people don't - it's a small charter school located at 34th and Dupont (in the First Universalist Church). The Emily O. Goodridge-Grey Accelerated Charter School is sponsored by the Audubon Center of the North Woods, and has approximately 170 students in grades K-6. Among other things, the school focuses on a "sense of community and responsibility through service learning and environmental education." They're fairly new - the first academic year was 2007-2008 - so I'm guessing that there are many others out there who know little or nothing about this local school.

I had a difficult time finding much data about Emily Goodridge-Grey, in part because it's so new. The State offers some basic information, but the Emily Goodridge-Grey is so small that the data has limited use. Still, some useful facts from the 2007-2008 school year show that the school had a staff of 10, 60 percent of the staff is state-licenses while 30 percent is "in compliance by permission," and about half of the teachers hold Bachelor's degrees while another third hold Master's degrees. None of the teachers have taught for more than ten years, while 44 percent have less than three years of teaching experience. A glance at the school's staff and board roster and biographies shows an impressive range of interests, experiences, and areas of expertise.

I was surprised to see that despite the school's goals of diversity, the school itself was certainly lacking in that category: there were only 11 kids out of the school's 159 students who weren't black. Of those 11 there was some diversity: three American Indians students, one Asian, five Hispanic, and two. I don't know what percentage of the black students were African American and what percentage were either immigrants or were born to immigrant parents; that would add an element of diversity that may not be reflected in the these numbers.

There was also a lack of economic diversity; Emily Goodridge-Grey is classified as "high poverty," and 96 percent of its students qualified for free or reduced lunches. Diversity of academic skills seems to be lacking, too, with NO students (tested in grades three, four, and five) meeting math or science state standards. The school did slightly better with reading; a majority of students still failed to meet basic standards, but there were at least some students meeting and exceeding standards. These dismal test scores don't necessarily reflect upon the school or its offerings - the school was brand-new, and besides, teachers can't be held solely responsible for the many educational obstacles likely faced by many of their students - but I think they would be disturbing to a parent looking for a good school for his or her child.

I don't have to worry about a school for my own children yet, but I'll face that decision someday. I believe in public schools, and am open to the concept of charter schools. If I were evaluating this school for my child I would be concerned about the lack of economic and ethnic or at least racial diversity among the student body. Most significantly, I would be concerned about those test scores. It's not that I think the scores reflect an unprepared staff or a poorly designed curriculum, it's just that I think that a student working at or beyond the grade level standards would be slowed down or bored if the majority of his or her peers were working at a much lower level. I don't know if that's a bad thing for a kid who is working at a lower grade level; perhaps it means that there will be more resources available to help him or her progress. I'll leave that particular question to the education theorists.

Given the school's math scores, I find Emily Goodridge-Grey School's emphasis on self-esteem - the website references teachers referring to their "math geniuses" - a little silly. On the other hand, there are certainly kids who desperately need to hear from someone that they are smart and can do well in school. The kids at Emily Goodridge-Grey may well all be little geniuses just waiting for a caring teacher to encourage them and help them to develop a love of learning.

Emily Goodridge-Grey School does sound like an interesting place, and very well may offer its students a quality educational experience. The teachers sound enthusiastic, and perhaps some of the diversity issues will be resolved as it ages. In the meantime, I hope that the school can continue to carve out a niche in Uptown. I'm guessing that many of its students don't currently come from the neighborhood (not many high poverty families can afford to live in Uptown), but I hope that, too, will change with time. Emily Goodridge-Grey's current students may not be Uptowners in terms of place of residence, but they can still be part of the Uptown community. High quality public education for all children is essential for a successful society. Schools, too, can be a rallying point for a neighborhood, places where a sense of shared community can take root, whether or not the school's neighbors have kids in the school. I wish the Emily Goodridge-Grey Accelerated Charter School the best of luck, as well as a belated welcome to the neighborhood.

Streetcars on the Greenway

2009-03-07T14:51:00.003-06:00

There's been some differences of opinion over the type of transportation best suited for the Midtown Greenway. Some people would prefer it to remain bikes and pedestrians only, others hope for a light rail line through part of it, while still others still hold out hope for a Greenway streetcar line, ideally using vintage trolleys. At one point there was even talk of creating a designated busway, although common sense seems to have prevailed and that plan has lost its traction.

A 2001 Greenway Trolley study was commissioned by the Midtown Greenway Coalition. A different streetcar study, issued by the City in 2007, lays out a 20 to 50 year potential streetcar plan for Minneapolis; this study also incorporates a potential streetcar line up the Greenway.

There are many people out there who have been following this issue for years, who have a high level of expertise in transportation issues, and who know all the ins and outs of the proposed Greenway Streetcar. I'm not one of them; I admittedly have a lot to learn. Still, based on what I know so far, my opinion boils down to several key points:

Uptown needs light rail. A streetcar connection to the Hiawatha line and to a Kenilworth alignment of the Southwest line does not serve the residents of Uptown well. Uptown needs quick, direct rail transportation to downtown. Those who believe a streetcar connection would be an adequate substitute are probably not transit users themselves. Those who use the bus for daily transportation (and not just to go to the airport, sports games, or for a fun day out and about) want their transportation to be efficient, easy, and fast. Screwing around with a Kenilworth Connection just to get from Uptown to Downtown is none of that.
I agree that the neighborhoods along the Greenway Corridor need and deserve improved transportation options. Lake Street is a heavily traveled artery, and taking the bus up its length seem to take forever. Some sort of rail transportation would speed up transportation time, attract new riders, and spur development. These are all good things.
Streetcars are cool. I love streetcars. I love the idea of a vintage trolley. The Greenway report has lots of examples from other cities, and I think it could be a great addition to Minneapolis. The Midtown Greenway Coalition and I agree on that point.
Can't we have both light rail and a streetcar? Does it have to be an either/or proposition? The City's plan shows a proposed line that connects Hiawatha with the Southwest line. I want a streetcar, but not at the expense of light rail.
Does it have to be IN the Greenway? This is my biggest question. I think a streetcar would be wonderful, and I think they'd be an asset to South Minneapolis. I don't understand why it needs to go in the Greenway. Why can't we put the line up Lake Street instead? I realize that construction is disruptive to residents and to businesses, but ultimately it seems to make more sense to have a streetcar run up a major commercial corridor. People can easily get off to run errands or grab lunch. If riders are zipping along the Greenway they'll have a pleasant ride, but it won't help local businesses if riders don't know the commercial wonders located just a block away. A Lake Street route would be convenient for riders as well as benefit the local economy.

I fully support the idea of the Greenway as a transportation system. I hope that Uptown gets its light rail line, which of course would run on part of the Greenway. I love the concept of the Greenway as a bicycle and pedestrian path. I have no problems with the idea itself of a streetcar sharing that space. I'm just not convinced that the Greenway is a logical place for a streetcar line.

Transportation issues seem to move at a snail's pace in Minneapolis, so for better or worse I suppose I have plenty of time to investigate this in more depth and to be convinced one way or the other that a Midtown Greenway streetcar is the way to go. I'd welcome any and all thoughts on the issue.

Heading to Cowboy Slim's? Get the Right Duds Right on Lake

2009-03-05T07:09:00.000-06:00

I know a lot of people out there are anxiously awaiting the arrival of Cowboy Slim's (for those that can't wait, Cowboy Jack's in Plymouth is already open). Uptown is apparently a neighborhood filled with would-be cowpokes, all itching to get their hands on some sloppy joe and onion rings.

When the big day comes and you first venture into the saloon, are you going to be dressed in your same old boring city clothes, or are you going to dress for the occasion? Why not go all out and both support the neighborhood AND indulge your inner ranching spirit? While technically in the Lyn-Lake area (and therefore sort of Uptown, depending on your view) the Schatzlein Saddle Shop at Grand and Lake is the real deal. Not only is it exactly what it sounds like - an honest-to-goodness saddle shop in the heart of the city - it has also has a long history in the neighborhood.

Schatzlein's first store opened at 609 West Lake Street (between Lyndale and Garfield) in 1907. Now, 102 years later, they're still going strong, and still located in the Lyn-Lake business district. Besides saddles, they also sell fun things like boots, hats, and clothing. Even if your city life doesn't bring you anywhere near a horse doesn't mean you can't look the part.

And, I've started to research this but don't yet have an answer: are horses allowed on the Greenway? Is there a reason why horses shouldn't be on the Greenway? I jokingly said once before that Cowboy Slim's needed to get some hitching posts for their patrons' parking needs; wouldn't it be cool if there really was a stable somewhere along the Greenway that offered evening rides down the Greenway for a fun night out? It's been done other places. I'll be the first to sign up, wearing my newly procured Schatzlein boots, of course.

Raise Your Hand If You Hate Uptown

2009-03-04T08:00:00.001-06:00

My hand is down. I love Uptown. Not everything about it, of course, but I love that it does offer safe, interesting, attractive urban living in Minneapolis. Besides, I grew up here; I'd probably love it even if it was crumbling down around my ears. There are plenty of others out there who don't share the love. For every person out there who claims to love Uptown, there's another, equally vocal person who proudly announces his or her hatred of the neighborhood. It's an area that seems to incite strong opinions, such as some of those expressed in this relatively recent Yelp conversation. You just don't hear this kind of passion about many local neighborhoods.

For the purpose of this discussion I'm going to ignore those who hate Uptown because they don't like cities, hate traffic of any kind (although I really don't see driving to Uptown as any worse than braving a mall parking lot), or just overall would hate Uptown regardless of who lived or did not live here. Instead, let's take a look at why in some circles it seems to have become the in thing to hate Uptown.

1. Hating Uptown makes you cool. Sneering at Uptown for "selling out," being too "white," too "yuppie," or filled with too many chain stores highlights your own superior taste in neighborhoods.

Well, I guess it's a short list. That pretty much sums it up right there.

On to some other observations on Uptown and its supporters and detractors:

Expectations are unrealistically high. I think it's reasonable to believe that Uptown can and should be an interesting and successful city neighborhood. I don't think it's realistic to think that it can be all things to all people. I wouldn't care what the rest of the Twin Cities thinks about Uptown, other than the fact that the neighborhood needs to continue to draw on outside dollars to support local businesses. I have no need to live in a trendy neighborhood. I just want to live in a walkable, safe, non-car dependent neighborhood filled with local businesses and interesting people. People who have high expectations about how it "should" be filled exclusively with musicians and artists (and not investment bankers and lawyers and doctors or other potential yuppies) are going to be disappointed. Personally, I'd like to see it strike the right balance of both. Diversity of all sorts is a good thing.
People who hate Uptown mostly don't live there. They may or may not have enough experience with the real neighborhood to make an informed judgement call. Some people lived there once and were disillusioned, while others only come in once in awhile to go to the stores, restaurants, or theaters. Still others lived here briefly at one stage in life, and then moved elsewhere. Not to get too pop-psychological here, but maybe those people look back at those years as being a period of younger, more immature (but perhaps fun) behavior, and extend those feelings out to the neighborhood as a whole.
Uptown does change. It should be obvious, but things don't stand still. Favorite places go out of business, new places move in. Sometimes the change is good, sometimes it's bad. Rather than complain excessively about the bad let's get proactive and do something about it. Realize, too, that Uptown will continue to evolve. Every decade has a different flavor, and we all have the opportunity to help shape the direction of the future, whether through political involvement, community service, or simply choosing to live a lifestyle that supports the neighborhood.
Uptown does not answer to anyone. Or at least not to any single person. Uptown is not a person. It's a neighborhood made up of residents, businesses, and visitors. It can't "sell out." Many changes in the neighborhood are a result of changing demographics and larger city patterns, as well as just simple evolution and changes over time, and there are no laws on the book saying that only people of the "right kind" (aka the cool people) can live here.
There are plenty of other options out there. I love Uptown, but I love other Minneapolis neighborhoods, too. We all have options. People who can afford to live in Uptown have other choices available. For those who do live elsewhere (who tend to be the Uptown haters, anyway) why focus so much energy on hating this neighborhood? Why not concentrate on why you love your own choice of community? Perhaps it's partially due to jealousy - Uptown does get a lot of media attention, and is a top trendy destination. But really, do the people who bash Uptown for attracting "uncool" wealthy suburbanites really want their own neighborhoods to become the new location of Chino Latino? Wouldn't that simply recreate what it is that they say they dislike so much about Uptown?

I spend plenty of time on this blog complaining about things. I don't like everything about Uptown, but I do love the neighborhood and think that it has a lot to offer. I also respect the fact that other people don't have to love Uptown. They can choose to hate it if they want. But do they have to be so damn annoying about it? It would be obnoxious of me to write that they're just jealous. So I won't. I'll just think it instead.

Ward 10 Precinct Caucus (Un) Endorsements

2009-03-02T08:04:00.003-06:00

Those of you involved in Ward politics know what March 3 means: the first step towards selecting the official DFL-endorsed Ward 10 City Council candidate. Given the one-party dominance of this neighborhood, the endorsement of a candidate will in all likelihood mean that the contest is over, especially if the other Democratic candidates in the running step aside if they don't receive the endorsement.

Those not involved with politics at the local level might be lulled into thinking that one candidate is as good as the next; they're all Democrats, right? And yes, certainly at some level there are shared values. But the reality is that these candidates have very different approaches and visions, and the general public (and local delegates) deserve the opportunity to understand what each candidate brings to the table.

Before I go any further, let me fully disclose that there's still a lot that I have yet to learn about the candidates. Things are starting to move along quickly, though, so I'm sure we'll all have the opportunity to get more questions answered in the coming month. I don't, however, feel ready at this time to make a formal decision about where to throw my support. That said, I do know enough to be able to state definitively that there is one candidate that the Uptown Urbanist and the Uptown Musings blog will NOT be endorsing: Lara Norkus-Crampton.

Lara "I like to be able to see the sky" Norkus-Crampton is not the right person to represent Ward 10. Her record to-date has shown her to be an active NIMBY, focusing on issues of height at the expense of providing a broader, more useful vision for Uptown. I don't know Norkus-Crampton, and assume that's she's a nice, caring person who does passionately care about the community, but she is not the right person for this job at this time.

Rather than embrace Uptown for what it is - an exciting urban neighborhood - Norkus-Crampton instead all-to-often focuses her energies on the dangers of building height and excess traffic, with the goal of shoehorning Uptown into a quieter, different kind of place. Yes, there are some in Ward 10 who share her (tunnel) vision, but a great many others do not. Her platform also includes references to engaging the community in city affairs, but her stated approach - attending all neighborhood board meetings - fails to acknowledge that the neighborhood organizations do not necessarily reflect the majority of neighborhood residents.

Minneapolis and Ward 10 are facing more pressing issues right now than whether or not a building two blocks from Lake Calhoun is three, four, or even five stories tall. Yes, of course these topics are important to local residents, and do need to be discussed. But we also need someone who both shares a love of Uptown and Ward 10 for what it is now, as well as what it can be in the future. We need a representative who can better balance the many nuances of city life. Lara Norkus-Crampton represents only a small percentage of the Ward and therefore receives the official Uptown Musings un-endorsement.

Meg Tuthill versus Matt Filner: I haven't made up my mind between these two candidates yet. I've heard great things about Filner, and especially appreciate both his acknowledgement that there are many in the Ward whose voices are seldom heard, as well as his knowledge and understanding of the larger Minneapolis and Twin Cities political situation. He's a smart guy who knows his way around the political landscape, and I believe he would serve both Ward 10 and Minneapolis well. His references to the issue of Minneapolis and Ward 10 poverty and political exclusion highlights Norkus-Crampton's lack of commentary on those same subjects, furthering my impression that Norkus-Crampton, while undoubtedly well-meaning, will not represent all the people or be as in-tune with some of the serious issues facing many Minneapolis residents.

While Filner hasn't been around long as a local community force, his educational and professional experiences are impressive and completely relevant to the job. I feel comfortable that he understands Ward 10 - and not just one small subgroup of Ward 10 residents - and would make a true effort to put his skills and knowledge to work on behalf of all Minneapolis residents.

Meg Tuthill also seems like a solid candidate. She's been actively involved in the community for decades. Her experience as both a resident and a small-business owner would serve her well. I'd like to know more about her vision for Uptown - as well as her take on changes and development - but I feel comfortable that she understands the balancing act between "character" (and NOT simply the character=height arguments of Norkus-Crampton and the NIMBYs) and change necessary to keep the neighborhood thriving. I like that she's been long been active in the schools, and I also appreciate her interest in and work on behalf of the preservation of Uptown's historic housing stock. I think she'll work hard, get things done, and do what it takes to make both Uptown and Minneapolis a better place to live and work.

I'd like to see Meg Tuthill and Matt Filner have the opportunity to continue to discuss their opinions on issues (and solutions) relevant to both Ward 10 and to the city as a whole, while I'd like Lara Norkus-Crampton to find another outlet for her service to the community. (I'm thinking official City ornithologist might be right up her - low-rise and quiet - alley...)