Page 14 of 57
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: July 28th, 2014, 12:40 pm
by Rich
That's great! Just don't go dumping on urban schools when you don't understand the context.
I apologize David. Dumping on urban schools was never my intent. It’s just that since I’m a suburban person with first-hand knowledge (and since this is the suburbs thread) I was compelled to point out that the notion of excellent suburban schools isn’t mythology, as some here might be led to believe.
It’s also clearer than ever to me that a school isn’t just teachers in a building with a budget and a curriculum - it’s the entire community. You can have lots of money, great teachers and a great administration, but if your community has a lot of disfunction, your schools will suck. Conversely if your community is heavily involved and supportive, your schools will thrive.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: July 28th, 2014, 1:01 pm
by MNdible
Remember that, in a ranking that doesn't prove anything, except perhaps that wealth and parental support has an out-sized impact, Southwest High School was pegged as the top public high school in the state of Minnesota.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: July 29th, 2014, 7:20 am
by min-chi-cbus
Since everyone seems to think I'm arguing that suburban schools have some sort of inherent intangible quality that renders them more effective, perhaps as a result of their proximity to white picket fences, let me spell out what I'm saying here in very simple terms:
-When a school is 10% poor kids, the poor kids perform worse than the rich kids, but not too bad overall.
-When a school is 80% poor kids, the poor kids perform abysmally, and everyone else performs worse than they would otherwise.
-The same holds true for all the other groups associated with reduced performance -- racial, special ed, etc.
-The way to minimize the number of poor kids in any given school, and therefore minimize the effect of their poverty on their performance, is deconcentrate poverty as much as possible -- e.g., pursue economic integration.
-As long as the richest schools are in the suburbs, this requires suburban integration. The reverse situation -- poor kids in the suburbs and the cities as a bastion of wealth -- is totally conceivable, and if it were the case, I'd want to find ways to move lower incomes the other direction! It's just not the reality of the Twin Cities right now.
More people at lower income levels are moving to the suburbs....in droves. Apparently, according to
http://www.startribune.com/business/268974471.html, the Twin Cities are national leaders in gentrification INTO the cities.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 8th, 2014, 9:50 am
by acs
While west metro suburbs are retrofitting mixed use developments, housing density and alternative transportation into their cities, Woodbury just doubled down on parking lots and cars. Congrats.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 7:20 am
by WHS
While west metro suburbs are retrofitting mixed use developments, housing density and alternative transportation into their cities, Woodbury just doubled down on parking lots and cars. Congrats.
Curious about this. Link?
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 8:07 am
by min-chi-cbus
How about the State Farm Campus thread, for starters?
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 8:14 am
by acs
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 8:42 am
by mattaudio
There are cities and there are suburbs. There is urbanism and there is suburbanism. People confuse the suburbs with suburbanism, which is a land use model and not a relationship to a larger city.
Many small towns and suburbs have urbanism, either old or new. Shakopee, Hopkins, Stillwater, etc. Many big cities have suburbanism, such as the Quarry or Midway Marketplace. Suburbs build urbanism, such as Excelsior on Grand, Burnsville HoC, 98th/Penn, etc. Suburbs also build suburbanism, such as the Woodbury State Farm campus redevelopment.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 9:18 am
by Rich
The comparison between the two is almost laughable.
Hopkins has the promise of light rail around which to plan, Woodbury doesn’t. Isn’t that the primary difference?
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 9:20 am
by twincitizen
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 9:32 am
by mattaudio
The comparison between the two is almost laughable.
Hopkins has the promise of light rail around which to plan, Woodbury doesn’t. Isn’t that the primary difference?
The difference dates back a century or more.
Hopkins started as its own town, or rather a streetcar suburb of Minneapolis. It had its own industry and job base, from grocery wholesaling to chemicals to manufacturing Minneapolis Moline tractors. It has a genuine mixed-use downtown, owned by numerous landowners, and it is structured on a street grid that is inherently walkable and transit compatible.
Woodbury started as a bedroom suburb, facilitated by Interstate 94 and 494, attracting residents who commute by automobile to affordable homes in subdivisions, connected by a hierarchical road network inherently hostile to non-auto mobility.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 9:43 am
by David Greene
Hopkins started as its own town, or rather a streetcar suburb of Minneapolis.
It started as a railroad town. The streetcar came much later. The name "Hopkins" comes from the railroad putting its depot on land Harley Hopkins owned. Hopkins insisted that the depot bear his name. The town was renamed from West Minneapolis some time later.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 9:45 am
by Rich
I get that the two towns evolved differently. But I was just commenting on their respective development plans going forward. Hopkins can now plan for people arriving via rail. Woodbury still has to plan exclusively for people arriving via car.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 9:45 am
by mattaudio
Yes, I just meant it flourished into the suburb it is today largely because of the streetcar. Just as Woodbury flourished into the suburb it is today after the advent of the interstates. Interesting history, though.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 9:45 am
by mattaudio
Woodbury still has to plan exclusively for people arriving via car.
Woodbury still chooses to plan exclusively for people arriving via car.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 10:09 am
by seanrichardryan
Stupid Woodbury. Stupid suburbs. Wah.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 10:18 am
by twincitizen
Stop these elitist assaults on my hometown!
(I'm just kidding...please continue)
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 11:15 am
by Snelbian
I get that the two towns evolved differently. But I was just commenting on their respective development plans going forward. Hopkins can now plan for people arriving via rail. Woodbury still has to plan exclusively for people arriving via car.
Woodbury decided against light rail along the Gateway Corridor, if I recall correctly.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 11:23 am
by twincitizen
LRT was never going to happen with the projected ridership in this corridor. It was always going to be BRT if they actually wanted it to get built. Woodbury, for some undisclosed reason, chose to reject the chosen alignment, sending the route through Lake Elmo on the north side of I-94 instead. The reporting on this particular happenstance has been pretty poor.
Re: Suburbs - General Topics
Posted: August 11th, 2014, 12:05 pm
by Rich
Regardless of how we arrived at this point, the citizens of Woodbury are now the happy recipients of a new medical center, offices, a hotel, multiple restaurants, a grocery, and most importantly, well over 2,000 new jobs in their community. Should we advise the City of Woodbury to reject these jobs? Should Woodbury tell State Farm that they can’t sell their own land until they find a buyer with plans that don't accomodate cars?