http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the $5 million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com 612-251-4662 3913 29th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:56:51 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1113 Sunday's Strib article about skyways suggests that we look to Venice for ideas about our skyway system is creative at best, loopy at worst, I cannot decide. What I do know is it would be horrendously expensive and legally impossible to achieve, so let's just move on. But before I dismiss the entire idea, there are some nuggets of good ideas here. I love the idea of naming the skyways. Why not? Even if I were in charge, the skyways will be here for a while and they are hard to navigate, so sure, name them. The most practical idea is to have regular opening hours for skyways. The catch is most skyway businesses close by the time or before office workers head home, so standardizing skyway hours, while a fine idea, may not result in much improvement with most businesses closed during evening hours anyway. Second, is the city really the best entity to regulate hours of the shopping district? Wouldn't that decision be best left in the hands of the Downtown Council or Downtown Improvement District? And finally, we already have pedestrian passageways that are open 24/7 - they are called sidewalks! My biggest problem with this issue is the real world - does Mr. Sykes understand eminent domain laws? They have been severely curtailed in recent years, making eminent domain extremely difficult for even the most worthy redevelopment projects. If you can prove the skyways are polluted and neglected, then have at it. Professor Sykes says, and I quote, "Good real estate lawyers can figure this out." No, they can't! No disrespect to real estate lawyers and Professor Sykes, but even this nut would be too tough to crack! And even if we could use eminent domain, how much would that cost? Furthermore, are the overburdened taxpayers of the city willing to spend more for a takeover of the skyways as public space when we already have public space downtown that is sorely underfunded? Let's pool what resources we have, primarily private dollars to improve our existing public realm at the street level! So, if the skyways are around to stay, perhaps a more reasonable option is to create a system whereby every dollar, public and private, spent on skyways in the future is matched by an equal investment in the public realm at the street level. How does that sound? Let's stick to reality here, folks. What we have on our hands is an expensive system that keeps people warm for a fraction of the year, but funnels precious dollars and even more precious citizens away from the thing we all share, the public realm - the thing that sets us apart from being a truly world class city. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/surely-you-cant-be-serious/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:13 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1108 my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/those-skyways-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/#comments Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:03:12 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1102 It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/time-to-develop-on-the-target-midtown-parking-lot/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:46:24 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1100 http://joe-urban.com/archive/is-it-time-to-get-rid-of-those-pesky-skyways/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/#comments Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:17 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1091 Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-importance-of-the-public-realm-our-space/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1089 UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/a-streetcar-victory-in-cincinnati/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/#comments Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:06:50 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1087 Atlantic Cities entitled The Case for Congestion. In it, he sensibly explains that cities must recognize that traffic and congestion are often a sign of dynamism, and by moving traffic too well, cities often drive out economic potential that "good congestion" provides. Most of all, he argues that it's time to retire the highway in an urban context - I couldn't agree more. Norquist has long argued that, like good and bad cholesterol, there is such thing as good and bad congestion. He's right, and it's time for the rest of us to recognize that. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/john-norquists-case-for-congestion/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:55:19 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1078 see my ULI article from May, 2011), but it isn’t easy. As was presented at Developing Walkable Urban Groceries in Mixed-Use Environments at the ULI Fall Meeting, getting the design of the grocery store right, while accommodating residential units on the site at the same time is particularly daunting. This session was moderated by Neal Payton, principal at Torti-Gallas Partners, which has significant experience designing mixed-use urban grocery projects. It featured John Given, principal of the CIM Group, a developer of mixed-use urban grocery projects, and Donald Wright, senior vice-president of real estate and engineering for Safeway. The group brought significant, development, design and practical advice for those considering developing an urban grocery store as part of a mixed-use project. The following is a range of the highlights and takeaway lessons from the session. Mixed-use developers typically are either residential developers who add retail or retail developers who add residential. They specialize in one, but the secondary use often suffers. With urban grocery stores in mixed-use buildings, this will not suffice. You must have a development team who is well-versed in each Design is tough to blend. It is physically hard to actually place residential units above a grocery store, as the floor space in the grocer cannot be interrupted by vertical impediments like elevators, residential entry lobbies, exit stairs, ventilation from garages, and plumbing stacks. In other words, the grocery store interior at an urban store must be largely similar to the layout of other stores in the brand. “Grocers have honed their suburban store design,” explains Payton, “but they have to be a little flexible in urban areas.” Typically column grids don’t match up, either. If there is room on the site to build the residential portion not directly above the store, or perhaps over liner retail instead, it is preferable, as was done at the CityVista project in Washington DC. Parking is absolutely necessary. Nearly all urban format grocery stores need parking, and it must be separated from residential parking. Often grocers require five spaces per thousand square feet of store. Even in the substantially denser urban locations where significant percentages of customers walk, sufficient parking is still required, although it can be as low as two or three spaces per thousand square feet. Furthermore, Donald Wright was emphatic that whether it is on the roof of the store or underneath, parking must be easy to access, well-lit, have a higher ceiling than residential parking, and store signage and the entrance must be as intuitive as a surface-parked traditional suburban store. “One bad or confusing experience and a customer will not return,” he said. Equally critical is the store’s pedestrian entrance, which in an urban area requires a welcoming access from the sidewalk. “Coming across a threshold is important,” says Wright. However, grocers don’t necessarily want too much exposure and light, as natural sunlight and windows can negatively affect HVAC systems and refrigerated goods. Plus, grocers rely on brand identity rather than window shopping and the ability to see their product. Thus, a big sign is more important than streetfront windows, and the sidewalk can be lined with complimentary retail shops. Grocery stores rely on high volumes of truck deliveries, often during the night. If residential is part of the mix, it is important to hide truck loading docks, if possible under cover and enclosed to reduce noise. Grocery stores transform neighborhoods. John Given, who helped develop the Ralph’s grocery store in South Park, downtown Los Angeles, describes urban grocery stores as providing an essential element of streetlife for neighborhoods. As for the Ralph’s grocery store, he believes it is more important to the everyday life of downtown than LA Live or Disney Hall. Read more from the ULI Fall Meeting here. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/urban-grocers/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:01:07 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1065 Minnehaha-Hiawatha Community Works program, Hennepin County has identified several potential improvements to the area around Hiawatha. Among the myriad issues to address, Hiawatha itself was cited as a dividing line between neighborhoods, a hostile barrier to cross. To that end, some of the proposed Community Works solutions include improved pedestrian crossings of Hiawatha Avenue (State Highway 55), notably at 38th and 46th Streets near light rail, but also at 32nd. The proposed improvements are wonderful, and are necessary first steps towards making Hiawatha a better street in the future. Let's get right to it. Hiawatha is a "Stroad," in the words of Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns. Marohn writes about our 45MPH world where stroads are neither streets nor roads and do nothing well - they are not fast and access-restricted enough to move traffic efficiently nor slow and humane enough to concentrate density in a pleasant urban environment. At 40MPH, Hiawatha does nothing well, yet it is built to MnDOT highway standards that are hostile to pedestrian movement. Fix Hiawatha and you solve a number of issues, make the street safer for all, make Minneapolis more attractive to residents and visitors and increase property values at the same time. The proposed changes by Hennepin County are good; they include curb bumpouts, increased pork chop size (the island between through-lanes and the right turn lane), straightened crosswalks (ADA compliant), lengthened walk signals for crossing Hiawatha, widened center medians (in case the signal still isn't long enough and you get marooned), and the possibility of restoring the southern crosswalk across Hiawatha on the south side of 46th Street (ironically removed right after light rail service opened to accomodate a second turning lane on 46th Street). The efforts of Hennepin County (with cooperation from the City and State) are steps in the right direction and to be applauded, but we must demand more. Every proposed change, while an improvement to the pedestrian experience, still does nothing to tame Hiawatha, reduce its speed or make it a more livable street. Yes this is a busy corridor that must accomodate a lot of everything (cars, trucks, trains, pedestrians, bikes), so not everyone will be happy. But, while the spotlight is shining on Hiawatha for these proposed improvements, let's increase the wattage. It isn't ridiculous to imagine an "urban/urbane" stretch of Hiawatha Avenue. Plenty of highways change character through different zones - think about when a rural two-lane highway passes through a town. The two-lane 55MPH zone slows to 40, becomes four lanes perhaps as it passes edge-of-town dreck, slows to 25 or 30 and becomes two lanes with on-street parking in the historic town core, then reverses this pattern as it exits the town. Why should Hiawatha not do the same in our TOD pedestrian-overlay zones, most notably at 38th and 46th Street? To add to the proposed improvements: 1. Reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH (at least between Minnehaha Creek and 35th Street) 2. Allow parking on Hiawatha Avenue. Use the existing shoulder. 3. Plant trees along the street that will actually one day create a pleasant, leafy canopy. 4. Build crosswalks a different color than the roadway. 5. Reduce curb radii - make corners sharper to slow turning cars. 6. Increase walk signal timing so an old lady or family with small child can make it across. 7. Add crossing gates for sidewalks, not just traffic lanes. The first one is simple. Just reduce the speed (and enforce it). I'm not going to sit here and pretend that an unenforced 40MPH speed limit on a roadway built for and often driven at 50 is okay. It is not. If we are really concerned about pedestrian safety and creating transit villages around our light rail stations, slow the vehicle and enforce it. It is well established that a slower-moving car is far less likely to kill a pedestrian, so start there. Furthermore, a slower street is not as noisy, a quality of life issue for pedestrians and the increasing number of nearby neighbors as well. This dovetails nicely in to the second point of allowing on-street parking along Hiawatha. One great way to slow traffic is put stuff in the way (not literally in the way, but near the travel lanes). Using the existing shoulder for someting other than a barren, windswept open space will help naturally slow traffic - drivers instinctively slow down when there perception is they could hit something - again, this has been proven. And why not? There is no doubt demand for on-street parking: commuters would be thrilled to park near the light rail station, and there's no neighbors to incense along Hiawatha versus the neighborhood streets; and retail uses in our proposed transit-oriented developments can use all the parking they can get, especially as we try to reduce off-street parking. Tall trees not only provide shade for buildings and pedestrians, they add beauty to a corridor sorely in need of it. Furthermore, tall trees (although antithetical to traffic engineers) along a roadway slow traffic down. The existing stunted trees along Hiawatha are a joke and need to be replaced by taller grander trees that will add to the beauty of the street. Those proposed bump-outs? Put trees on them. Straightening the crosswalks according to ADA is great, but at a minimum don't just stripe them but paint the pavement a different color from the street. Best case, pave them with colored concrete. Or use bricks, but this is Minnesota and with winter that may not work as well. The point is they have to be distinctive to drivers, as this will raise awareness that people may be crossing the street, making it safer to do so. The existing proposal calls for curb bumpouts to reduce the distance from curb to curb (and which might also slow traffic! Clever!). This is a great start, as reducing the literal distance across the crosswalk from 94 to 74 feet is important, but also consider squaring off corners. This can reduce that distance even more, and slow down turning cars. Obviously where truck traffic still exists to feed grain elevators, for example, sufficient turning radii needs to be maintained, but some corners do not have this issue and can be squared off. I'm assuming the proposed addition of a few seconds to the signal crossing timing is based on some measure of reality for person A to cross Hiawatha in a given amount of time, but I'm far from convinced it is enough based on discussions with neighbors and personal experience. The traffic engineer must walk it him or herself, with a small child in tow. It is the only way to be sure there is enough time. Also, crosswalk signals need to automatically turn to Walk when the light turns green. Cars don't have to push a button for the light to change, why should a pedestrian? In fact, the light should change to Walk a second or two before the light turns green to give pedestrians a little head start. Crossing gates come down to block vehicles from entering and crossing the tracks. This is a safety measure intended to protect cars from being hit by trains. Unfortunately, pedestrians do not receive the same treatment. They are relegated to second-class status, as the back side of the crossing gate swings only partway over the sidewalk and is easily sidestepped. This sends the signal that pedestrians are not as important as vehicles. Either treat pedestrians as equals or remove all crossing gates. Look no further than Chicago to see how it is done. Don't add walls or other impediments for pedestrians. If people want to cross at 45th Street (interestingly enough, dozens do so safely every day even without a crosswalk), and enough people are doing so due to existing and future housing or employment, a signaled crosswalk may be necessary. But do not build a bridge. They are costly and foolish and nobody uses them. To quote Charles Dickens from All the Year Round, "most people would prefer to face the danger of the street rather than the fatigue of getting upstairs." Even with the million Midtown Greenway bike bridge, beautiful as it is, a sizeable proportion still cross at grade on 28th Street. We need to take in to account human nature and not engineer a solution to everything. This is a long list, and but for MnDOT highway standards and some likely neighborhood opposition, imminently do-able. The bottom line is Hiawatha Avenue was designed and built to move cars, and done so before light rail came along, and as a result the pedestrian was an afterthought. Walk along or across Hiawatha and you will agree with me. Hennepin County is on the right path, but much more needs to be done. Some of you will shout Hiawatha is a highway, let's leave it alone. I say it is not. It is a faux-highway in form but is compromised in a number of ways and doesn't move traffic very efficiently. It is also decidedly not an urban street, either. In the era of highway building a limited-access highway was once proposed and neighbors rose up and defeated it. We used a portion of the right-of-way for light rail and sold the excess to developers, and what we are left with is neither highway (road) nor street, but a stroad. We must acknowledge that we'll never really have a highway, so the only way to go is to make it more like a street, particularly in light of the success of light rail and the demand for development near stations. To immediate neighbors like myself (potential NIMBYs), yes, the time it takes to approach the Hiawatha corridor and drive along it may very well increase (in some ways that is the point). But the increase may only be a couple minutes, and besides, if land use changes along Hiawatha and around light rail stations continue to occur, you may not need to drive as far or even drive at all to meet your daily needs. For those of you traveling from downtown to the airport, Eagan or beyond, we have a really nice train for you to ride (with park and rides at Fort Snelling and in Bloomington), or you can drive the recently rebuilt I-35W and Crosstown interchage. But if you do choose to drive along Hiawatha, we hope the experience is a safer and more beautiful one. Some of these changes can be made with little or no cost. For example, remove the no parking signs and allow parking. Get grants or donations for trees. Costs that are incurred can be charged to immediate landowners, as they will benefit most from changes (the increased rent you can charge to live on a more beautiful, traffic-calmed and easier-to-cross street will pay for those costs over time). This is a gateway to Minneapolis - perhaps the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau could help find dollars or corporate sponsors for improvements to livability and beautification. Life is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you don't believe that, you have to admit the journey along and crossing Hiawatha, whether by car, bicycle, on foot or even in the train, leaves much to be desired and there are countless ways we can improve it. Hiawatha is viewed more as a necessary evil for those traveling along or across it, and that really isn't good enough for Minneapolis, is it? What kind of signal are we sending when a first-time visitor to our city rides the train in from the airport to downtown and looks out the window at Hiawatha Avenue today? I welcome the improvements proposed by Hennepin County, but we can and must to more. Hiawatha should be a welcoming place. A more attractive, humane and livable Hiawatha Avenue unites rather than divides some very nice Minneapolis neighborhoods, attracts even more development and improves the value of all nearby real estate (even auto-oriented), bolsters the city's tax base, and makes a more pleasant experience for those who live, work, learn and play in the area as well as those seeing Minneapolis for the first time. ]]> http://joe-urban.com/archive/the-urban-future-of-hiawatha-avenue/feed/ 0 http://joe-urban.com/archive/reviving-a-dying-mall-in-austin/ http://joe-urban.com/archive/reviving-a-dying-mall-in-austin/#comments Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:40:01 +0000 Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/?p=1060 http://joe-urban.com/archive/reviving-a-dying-mall-in-austin/feed/ 0