urbanMSP

Another article on the temporary flower garden:
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... erted-into

Vote for Pedro.

This actually looks really cool. the garden is nice in an interesting way and this mural is pretty bold for stp!

20140820_183254 by fotoapparatic, on Flickr

Saw that this morning and was taken aback! It looks HUGE in person, and it's great.

Even as the flower field (which is now actually starting to grow a bit) this park is getting quite a bit of use. Most times I walk by this, which is daily, there are a couple people sitting, chatting. Considering there isn't much to actually do here, I think it bodes very well for the future park being highly successful. I do think the park will be immensely better if they are able to claim the whole parcel, though.

Lacy Shelby posted this on twitter today, cool shot of the park

The building to the west of the current park will be demolished:
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... storiesrot

But, that's not really news, is it? I guess the funding for the new facility was required before this one could come down. I think it's the daycare facility (and horrible surface lots) on the rest of the block that are the next real hurdle. And, more money, of course.

So, we're going to spend millions to tear down a four-story mid century building with good urban bones. And then move the land use to a four acre site in the East Side Stroad and Port Authority Automobile-Oriented Urban Renewal District (ESSPAAOURD)? Great :p

So, we're going to spend millions to tear down a four-story mid century building with good urban bones. And then move the land use to a four acre site in the East Side Stroad and Port Authority Automobile-Oriented Urban Renewal District (ESSPAAOURD)? Great :p

This is why I can never be excited for this park.

Some news on this:

https://www.twincities.com/2018/10/22/s ... w0nVXmZXHc#

This looks really nice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... V4d3Fm6L48

On a side note, I think opponents to keeping the annex are focusing on getting rid of the wrong building. It's Union Gospel Mission Daycare, a suburban style building, that is out of place. Move the UGMD into the lowest level of the annex building (with doors opening onto the park). UGMD could donate the land, or sell at a deep discount, to the park in exchange for rent free space in the annex.

I like that idea, but is it realistic? How much would they need to spend on renovation?

On a side note, I think opponents to keeping the annex are focusing on getting rid of the wrong building. It's Union Gospel Mission Daycare, a suburban style building, that is out of place. Move the UGMD into the lowest level of the annex building (with doors opening onto the park). UGMD could donate the land, or sell at a deep discount, to the park in exchange for rent free space in the annex.

The strongest argument for a bigger Pedro Park is that the city is backing out of promises that it made. Other than that, there's no real physical, urban design/landscape architecture reason why Pedro Park should be a half block instead of a quarter block. As that video walk-through demonstrates, you could fit a great park in the current Pedro Park footprint.

Just as is the case with the Annex site, the best use for the UGMD site is for a building. What Pedro Park needs most of all (and the same for all of downtown St. Paul) is for more people to live, work, and shop around it. So yeah, it's a shame that the better of the two buildings on this block was the one that was promised for the park expansion. But the real thing that should be at issue is the park expansion itself.