urbanMSP

Maybe this is the wrong thread but anyone ever think about calming traffic on Lake and Lagoon? Went to Lake and Irving restaurant last Saturday and I noticed how dangerous and unpleasant the traffic is there. Could easily be two lanes plus a bike facility.

They're county roads, so the conventional wisdom is that when and if any redesign does take place, it won't be very ambitious. Would be nice to see some of the neighborhood organizations and elected officials push for a change.

Being (perhaps) excessively cynical, I can't imagine Lake or Lagoon seeing lane reductions through here unless a high-profile traffic fatality occurs. The fact that so much development and retail growth has taken place already, despite the hostile roads, probably makes it harder to argue that calming is necessary.

Lake (eastbound) is 3 lanes at all times.
Lagoon (westbound) is 3 lanes during both peak periods, 2 lanes at all other times (one lane becomes a parking lane). Sidewalks on Lagoon are ridiculously narrow and not ADA compliant.

More than lane reductions or bike infra, what this area needs most is much wider sidewalks and bumpouts. If the enhanced pedestrian infrastructure requires a lane reduction, great, but that shouldn't be the driving factor (just thinking in terms of how you sell it to the public, businesses, etc.)

In terms of timing, my understanding was that the area was simply not due for reconstruction, because Lake Street in the core of Uptown (west of Dupont) was last rebuilt in the 90s or something. Sure, Hennepin County could try some different things with paint & bollards to create temporary bumpouts, better crosswalks, etc. But the streets & sidewalks really need a total reconstruction, which is going to be expensive as hell and is probably several years away. It would be nice to see Hennepin County do as much as possible with paint in the meantime. That could be done in concert with a mill & overlay of the street, if one is planned anytime soon.

Being (perhaps) excessively cynical, I can't imagine Lake or Lagoon seeing lane reductions through here unless a high-profile traffic fatality occurs. The fact that so much development and retail growth has taken place already, despite the hostile roads, probably makes it harder to argue that calming is necessary.

Is this really a common argument? That calming doesn't need to occur because the area is successful already?

Uptown has to have a Special Service District, right? Can't they chip in for bumpouts or whatev, even without full reconstruction? Heck if we can cobble together funding to make changes near 48th and Chicago, I'm sure a business node that's multiple times more valuable can do the same.

Uptown does have a SSD. For some reason, I though it was self-managed (like DID), rather than City-managed like many of the other smaller SSDs, but now I'm not so sure - based on my reading of the ordinance it is City-managed. I'll note that the SSD does not cover Lagoon west of Humboldt, so that wouldn't be much help with the pathetically narrow sidewalks there.

I seem to recall thatchio saying something like that they were still paying off the previous reconstruction (or something of that nature).

Before we go too far down the SSD path, I will note that the City and County do have something in the works for better crosswalks. Planning to spend $130k on durable markings soon, perhaps 2017: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 174308.pdf

The Uptown SSD is self managed. They were still paying off a couple of years ago the 1990s sidewalk, lantern pedestrian lights, and tree lighting receptacles that they installed. My recollection is that the capital payoff was in 2017 but that is very rusty. I think the thought a number of years ago was that in the early 2020s it may be time for Lake Street west of Dupont to be reconstructed to Lake Calhoun but I'm not really sure if that's true anymore. They just did a mill and overlay, which buys them some additional time.

The electrical conduit serving the trees is all broken and not working both from underground breaks and the endpoints. The SSD has been upgrading the lantern lights to have electrical boxes on them to serve their holiday lighting program.

The Uptown Small Area Plan referenced that there was a significant amount of land that could be reclaimed from Lake Street simply by re-striping it to East Lake standards. That's without discussions about either removing a lane of parking or a lane of traffic, though you could probably remove a lane of traffic east of Hennepin relatively easily due to lower traffic counts.

My vision has been that there should be a removal of a lane of parking west of Hennepin and a lane of traffic east of Hennepin to Dupont. Sidewalks should be expanded on both sides and a two-way protected bike lane should be installed on the south side of Lake Street from Lake Calhoun to at least Girard. Bump outs should be added where possible, especially on the east side of Hennepin on Lake Street, the west side of Hennepin on the north side of Lake, and the south side of Lake Street west of Hennepin.

As of two years ago, for anything truly great to happen for pedestrian environment, there would need to be leadership coming out of the Uptown business and neighborhood community to make it happen. There has been some difference of opinion about a number of financial related items within the commercial real estate and business community about how to pay for typical BID-related items. Given the inequity within Minneapolis, I don't see the city leading any effort to improve the situation. A coalition will need to emerge.

New 13 story project on Lake Calhoun:

http://www.startribune.com/developer-ey ... 406091856/

Didn't they try 11 stories at that one just a bit west of this one and got shot down?

There was an 11-story that was shot down to 6 based on fears it would blot out the sun. The six story that the neighbors thought they favored ended up with a building that is a low wall that can't be seen around.

From reading the proposals it seems the developer is pointing out that if the 13 story is shot down the lower they are required to go the wider they will fill up their property. Seems a warning shot at people living behind it, be careful what you wish for.

More than the neighbors, it was CIDNA that doesn't want anything above 6 stories. They want to prevent the Calhoun Village strip mall from being redeveloped into residential towers, whenever that happens. I'll be surprised if anything above 6 happens in this location.

Okay so I'm all for green space and more parks in Minneapolis, but why here? It's backyard is green space, so is across the street, etc. Can't we just put in like a 1 story commercial building there with 4 bays? Parking in the back if needed? This area is dense enough that I want to see more retail starting to line Excelsior Blvd.

I think some serious work would have to be done to calm Lake & Excelsior before street-fronting retail could do well here. Maybe I'm wrong.

I wish they would subdivide this lot into 2-4 smaller parcels shotgun style that have a narrow width but go all the way back to the property line where it meets the trail/railroad. That way the developments that would occur would infill similar to the 3 projects immediately to the west of this parcel, which are developed ultra efficiently. As for the height, I'd have no issue with 13 floors but I think everybody knows that isn't happening. That being said, I prefer their 9 story contingency to their 6-story one. However, to me it's almost a foregone conclusion that the retail areas just to the west of these parcels will be redeveloped to include much taller structures (taller than 6 floors, anyways), so I'm not sure 6 floors should be the artificial ceiling here anymore.

I know that Calhoun Towers was originally designed to have a twin to its east/northeast, but because of soil conditions and difficulty getting the foundation of the building in place, that twin was never built. Given today's technology, would that parcel be in play for future redevelopment if/when the SWLRT corridor has a station right next to that area? I wonder if it's outside the shoreline overlay district that limits heights of new structures...

Okay so I'm all for green space and more parks in Minneapolis, but why here? It's backyard is green space, so is across the street, etc. Can't we just put in like a 1 story commercial building there with 4 bays? Parking in the back if needed? This area is dense enough that I want to see more retail starting to line Excelsior Blvd.

Likely because of Minneapolis' park dedication ordinance, which requires most new development to either provide park space or pay a fee. In cases like this where the proposal is for some sort of half-baked "open space" that isn't that useful to anyone (and where there is ample park space nearby), I hope the Park Board rejects the plan and requires the dedication fee.

"Discussion" about shoreland overlay district height limitations.
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mp ... yQbU0ibLO/

I lived in Bryn Mawr but like many residents of Minneapolis, I felt a responsibility to preserve our natural resources from being exploited. When a 24 story tower was proposed on the CBC's property across from Lake Calhoun, the residents of Minneapolis revolted. We did not want the profit motive converting Lake Calhoun into another Miami or Chicago with a ring of high rises dominating the lake.

Why not? What if current stakeholders don't concur with this assessment? I want more high rises around Lake Calhoun, as do plenty of other folks.

(I'm not going to post on E-Democracy, but man these people go on like everyone agrees with them...like it's all residents of Minneapolis vs. evil developers and evil elected officials)

I was thinking the same thing.... Sounds like a great place for a few tens of thousands of residents, so close to our natural amenities.

Here is the 7-story rentals at Lake St and Holmes:

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 191906.pdf

(I'm not going to post on E-Democracy, but man these people go on like everyone agrees with them...)

It's a good thing this only happens on the E-Democracy forum.