urbanMSP

I guess a reason to care is that the Gateway line is headed this direction. Maybe this sort of development cast doubt to the wisdom extending Gateway past 694/494.

Tough to control every and all development in every suburb. But at least when major infrastructure is going somewhere it is reasonable to expect a level of seriousness in deserving it.

Let's hope Woodbury tells these developers to come back with a more serious proposal befitting the goals of the Gateway line at least.

I agree. I would MUCH rather see something more pedestrian friendly with a more park like setting to soften it up but I guess this is the reality of it. I guess I'm just used to the sea of parking here and have accepted it.

Here's what it looks like today (well, how it looked a year ago):



And here's the proposal again:

I usually think something has gone awry when the area being allocated for asphalt/parking approaches and goes beyond a 1:1 ratio compared to the area occupied by buildings. In this case it seems closer to a 2:1 ratio. Even for suburbia, I'd say that's pretty bad. Developers and property owners are just dropping money on the floor when they do that, because that area could be used for other buildings, or you could put just as much square footage on a smaller footprint. They're tossing away revenue.

It's still not clear to me where the Gateway Corridor line is supposed to cross over from the north side of I-94 to the south side. It would potentially make a lot of sense for it to come in on Hudson Road from the west and go straight through this site (the eastern portion of Hudson Road could be realigned to go straight to the west part, rather than dumping everyone into the Tamarack shopping center, though the roadway would need to be calmed somehow and streetified.

I would say Woodbury suffers from a lack of transit service right now. There are a few express routes that serve the northwest area of the city, but primarily only feed from park-and-ride lots (route 351 gets closest, but wouldn't be of any use to most people trying to get here). Woodbury really ought to get some local service running.

This really reminds me of my favorite old Kunstler talk, particularly around 4 minutes in where he talks about an area a few miles from where he lives:

Ah, the Tragedy of Suburbia. I think that's what got me into urbanism in the first place.

A specific tragedy of suburbia is that these massive developments fail to integrate... this could have been done in a way that would have connected two developments in Woodbury to each other with a potential (existing) office complex and future transit stop as the centerpiece. It could easily extend the (Faux) New Urbanist Woodbury Lakes west and southward to the corner of Hudson Rd. and Radio Dr. where Tamarack Village and outlot-style development could slowly be retrofit to provide for walkability that would actually justify someday investing in transit that terminates in this area.

But no, that would be too "city"

Reminds me of Maple Grove, with its four Faux New Urbanist "main streets," three of which are within about a mile of each other.

Nearly approved by city.

http://m.bizjournals.com/twincities/mor ... roval.html

Oh goodie! What a beautiful bastion of corporate Eden State Farm has planned for themselves! But why can't they have planned this in say, I don't know......Hibbing instead?

Just to be clear... it is the OLD State Farm Corp Campus. This plan is for the REDEVELOPMENT of the space left vacant for 7 years.

Yes it is.

This was approved the other night: "The Woodbury City Council unanimously approved the mixed-use plan for the 100-acre City Place project Wednesday"

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/b ... rcial.html

I just noticed the last link by Anondson was just saying that it was up for approval. The one I just posted has the result.

100 acres. 100. Even by Woodbury standards, calling this "City" anything is a farce.

I think they meant to call it Parking Place.

I feel like you guys are just hating on Woodbury now and not seeing the forest for the trees. I personally am glad to see a large, long vacant parcel of land next to two major freeways be revitalized and reused again.

(I can only imagine how much you must hate the unofficial plans for the TCAAP in Arden Hills. Don't discuss it here, go to that thread if you want to. Too many threads get side tracked...)

Something better than nothing? Well... Possible, but it doesn't hurt to want and expect better, much like huffing that random towers downtown aren't taller.

West metro suburbs are investing in true mixed use developments, higher density housing, and alternative transportation modes. Woodbury just doubled down on cars and parking. Congrats.

I feel like you guys are just hating on Woodbury now and not seeing the forest for the trees. I personally am glad to see a large, long vacant parcel of land next to two major freeways be revitalized and reused again.

(I can only imagine how much you must hate the unofficial plans for the TCAAP in Arden Hills. Don't discuss it here, go to that thread if you want to. Too many threads get side tracked...)

I'm hating on this development because I found living in Woodbury thoroughly unpleasant precisely because of these sorts of developments - unwalkable, overparked, underdeveloped, and incorporating a sort of Vegas/Disney attempt at "nature". Yes, it's better than an abandoned lot. But you'll have to excuse me if I'm not thrilled that this plan has passed the absolute lowest conceivable bar short of "not being redeveloped into a crack house".

West metro suburbs are investing in true mixed use developments, higher density housing, and alternative transportation modes. Woodbury just doubled down on cars and parking. Congrats.

I grew up in the northern suburbs of Milwaukee, which allows me to see things a little differently than others who have only lived here. Every major metro area has these types of suburbs. To compare what's happening in the west metro to Woodbury isn't really something that is apples to apples. Sure, they're both suburbs, but from there, there are so many variables.

Those differences are reality and part of every major metro. Sure, we have Met Council that helps the 7 county metro area try to have similar future plans, but each area still has its own identity. Woodbury and its residents like their cars. To claim Minnetonka doesn't though would be false. Aside from less parking and more buildings, (which, if there was a need for more buildings, I truly believe the developer would be proposing them...) what would you really propose that Woodbury do with this 100 acres?

I feel like you guys are just hating on Woodbury now and not seeing the forest for the trees. I personally am glad to see a large, long vacant parcel of land next to two major freeways be revitalized and reused again.

(I can only imagine how much you must hate the unofficial plans for the TCAAP in Arden Hills. Don't discuss it here, go to that thread if you want to. Too many threads get side tracked...)

I'm hating on this development because I found living in Woodbury thoroughly unpleasant precisely because of these sorts of developments - unwalkable, overparked, underdeveloped, and incorporating a sort of Vegas/Disney attempt at "nature". Yes, it's better than an abandoned lot. But you'll have to excuse me if I'm not thrilled that this plan has passed the absolute lowest conceivable bar short of "not being redeveloped into a crack house".

You have every right to hate on this development because of your stated reasons. But that doesn't mean "Woodbury sucks" because of it. There are thousands of people - about 65,000 in fact - who clearly don't think it sucks. I am a city man through and through, and I grew up in a rural suburb. I know that for every 1 of someone like me, there are 2 or 3 who don't want dense urban living. That's reality. I know it's hard not to hate on Woodbury for redeveloping a long-vacant property into a tax-paying area again, with more business infill, but it's overall a better situation for the metro as a whole.

To reply to the west suburbs vs east suburbs. I am guessing their density is a result of age....

Woodbury was incorporated in 1967. Yes it was first settled long before that but it's so far behind. It takes time. As of the 2000 census the population density was 1327.7 people per sq mile.

Compare that to Hopkins, which was incorporated in 1893. They had street cars over 100 years ago. They were truly a town. Their 2000 census pop density was 4205.9/sq mi. 3.2x what Woodbury had.

I would argue that you can't plop a mixed use urban development in the middle of corn field and have it be successful. I believe density had to grow organically over time. Give Woodbury a break, at least they aren't corn fields.

To reply to the west suburbs vs east suburbs. I am guessing their density is a result of age....

Woodbury was incorporated in 1967. Yes it was first settled long before that but it's so far behind. It takes time. As of the 2000 census the population density was 1327.7 people per sq mile.

Compare that to Hopkins, which was incorporated in 1893. They had street cars over 100 years ago. They were truly a town. Their 2000 census pop density was 4205.9/sq mi. 3.2x what Woodbury had.

I would argue that you can't plop a mixed use urban development in the middle of corn field and have it be successful. I believe density had to grow organically over time. Give Woodbury a break, at least they aren't corn fields.

Corn fields serve a purpose. Why is replacing them with the least dense sprawl possible a good thing?

Which is besides the point anyway since there are no cornfields anywhere near this site. It's already developed.