Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Can someone confirm that this is the nutshell version of events?
The Minneapolis 2040 plan will...
* Allow for triplexes anywhere in the city
* Allow for even more density on all of the major bus route roads
People are concerned that...
* Developers are going to start buying up single-family homes and replacing them with triplexes
* New triplexes are going to be out of character with their SFH neighborhoods
* Big new buildings on roads like 28th Avenue are going to quickly dwarf the existing housing stock
* More renters are going to come in and ruin SFH neighborhoods
Urbanists, meanwhile, contend that...
* Triplexes must fit the same size requirements as current housing stock
* Renters and smaller multi-family housing are already pretty common in most neighborhoods, having been grandfathered in
* The economics make it highly unlikely that developers are going to sweep in and buy up SFHs in mass to convert them into triplexes
* These changes will *gradually* increase the density throughout the city, which will improve racial equity, keeping housing costs down and be better for the environment by limiting sprawl and reliance on cars
Is that basically what's up? Or are there big parts I'm missing or understanding?
The Minneapolis 2040 plan will...
* Allow for triplexes anywhere in the city
* Allow for even more density on all of the major bus route roads
People are concerned that...
* Developers are going to start buying up single-family homes and replacing them with triplexes
* New triplexes are going to be out of character with their SFH neighborhoods
* Big new buildings on roads like 28th Avenue are going to quickly dwarf the existing housing stock
* More renters are going to come in and ruin SFH neighborhoods
Urbanists, meanwhile, contend that...
* Triplexes must fit the same size requirements as current housing stock
* Renters and smaller multi-family housing are already pretty common in most neighborhoods, having been grandfathered in
* The economics make it highly unlikely that developers are going to sweep in and buy up SFHs in mass to convert them into triplexes
* These changes will *gradually* increase the density throughout the city, which will improve racial equity, keeping housing costs down and be better for the environment by limiting sprawl and reliance on cars
Is that basically what's up? Or are there big parts I'm missing or understanding?
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
If by "urbanists" you means city staff and elected officials, sure.Urbanists, meanwhile, contend that...
* Triplexes must fit the same size requirements as current housing stock
I'd also add that slightly more density is more customers for business in the neighborhood, but otherwise, yeah.* These changes will *gradually* increase the density throughout the city, which will improve racial equity, keeping housing costs down and be better for the environment by limiting sprawl and reliance on cars
Mostly. The plan also eliminates parking minimums, which causes people to be concerned about parking and "urbanists" noting how not requiring parking helps reduce costs and the market will provide parking if there's demand for it.Is that basically what's up? Or are there big parts I'm missing or understanding?
- VacantLuxuries
- Foshay Tower
- Posts: 974
- Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
All the 'NYT Highlighted Comments' are people who are 'afraid they'll have to start locking their doors.' When the newspaper of the densest city in the country is siding with the NIMBYs, something's seriously messed up.
- Mooglemuffins
- Nicollet Mall
- Posts: 145
- Joined: April 26th, 2017, 7:36 am
- Location: Longfellow
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Right? You'd think they'd realize this kind of stuff in New York. I used to live in Seoul South Korea and while I wasn't super familiar with whatever housing debates were going on over there while I lived there I absolutely loved the density of that city. I could get literally anywhere in the city and country as a whole on public transport, everything I needed for day to day life was within a block or two thanks to all the density. I miss that.All the 'NYT Highlighted Comments' are people who are 'afraid they'll have to start locking their doors.' When the newspaper of the densest city in the country is siding with the NIMBYs, something's seriously messed up.
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
I find it fun to see how other cities are reacting to the 2040 plan. Here’s Philadelphia. They put together a panel of people to discuss if it could work there, where the median house value is much lower and density is already higher:
www.philly.com/news/minneapolis-single- ... 81220.html
And Los Angeles, where, well, they’re just a whole different kind of city:
www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-e ... story.html
www.philly.com/news/minneapolis-single- ... 81220.html
And Los Angeles, where, well, they’re just a whole different kind of city:
www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-e ... story.html
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
- Location: Minneapolis
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Unlike Minneapolis, Philadelphia constantly expanded its borders through annexation. So while the central areas of Philly are mostly single family attached (i.e. rowhomes, which at about 18' wide lots are already as if every Minneapolis single family home was a duplex), there are large single family detached neighborhoods to the northwest and northeast. Especially to the northwest, there are expensive single family homes that are just steps from excellent transit service, and like Minneapolis there is a lot of legacy multi-family in these areas as well.I find it fun to see how other cities are reacting to the 2040 plan. Here’s Philadelphia. They put together a panel of people to discuss if it could work there, where the median house value is much lower and density is already higher:
www.philly.com/news/minneapolis-single- ... 81220.html
Now, Philly just completed a big comprehensive planning process, so that's unlikely to be immediately repeated. What can happen, however, is that any city councilmember could try to push something like this in their wards. The city councilmembers here have enormous power over land use in their wards, for good and (more commonly) for bad.
Is it needed? I certainly wouldn't say no to good policy, but it's probably not as urgent in Philly as it is in cities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Austin, or even Minneapolis. Philly is growing slowly and there are a huge number of vacant lots throughout the city where housing can still be developed. Philly's housing affordability issues are less about zoning and more about poverty, a lack of available city funds, and absurd and onerous union-pushed additions to the building code. On that last point as an example, Philly is currently debating a terrible bill that would require yearly in-person checks on a city's fire surpression system that are not necessary (the systems can be checked electronically) and would add tremendous expenses to large buildings. You still can't build a tall building with PVC plumbing in this city because the plumbers union have fought to mandate only more expensive metal pipes, just this year a compromise was reached that exempts only some buildings from that requirement.
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
San Francisco is hard because the city proper is already at or above the density in question, pretty much everywhere. It actually raises two interesting and hard questions in terms of how this approach can be adapted to other regions or to future conditions in the Twin Cities:Is it needed? I certainly wouldn't say no to good policy, but it's probably not as urgent in Philly as it is in cities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Austin, or even Minneapolis.
1. How well does the general approach (citywide raising of minimum zoning) work at higher densities? Is there an argument for raising caps from 2-3 stories to 4-5 stories that's as compelling as the triplex argument in Minneapolis? How do we address the architectural concerns when there's a much more well-defined style and fewer McMansions to provide as evidence that similar forms to what's desired are already widely present but underutilized?
2. How do you deal with the problem at the scale of many municipalities? San Francisco is tiny, just 49 mi[sup]2[/sup], and is only about a tenth of the region's population. The Bay Area has huge tracts of relatively dense but detached single-family housing similar to South Minneapolis, in prime locations--they're just not in San Francisco, but in suburbs and cities with their own agendas and politics, and much less incentive or desire to densify. The biggest impact would come from applying a triplex-type policy regionwide, sweeping up San Bruno and Palo Alto and Berkeley and San Jose and all these other urban and semi-urban areas that somehow escape criticism despite being less developed and more exclusionary than San Francisco. In the absence of a strong regional government, the Bay Area will probably only be solved through state legislation. The closest thing we've seen is Scott Wiener's bill which would have automatically upzoned within a half-mile of rapid transit and a quarter-mile of frequent buses, but that was less sweeping and died in committee anyway.
How/whether they handle the first question will be useful for understanding how to handle future cycles when we start hitting diminishing returns from triplex conversions, and how to accommodate growth in the areas that were/are already zoned above the Urban Neighborhood designation.
How/whether they handle the second question will be super relevant for MN given the natural parallels between Oakland and St. Paul, Berkeley and Edina, etc. It's great that Minneapolis is making progress, but like San Francisco it makes up only around a tenth of the region's population, and the much harder fight will be in these first-ring suburbs (and St. Paul) that aren't that different in terms of built form from semi-urban Minneapolis neighborhoods, but that are worlds apart in terms of local politics and priorities.
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/a-deca ... and-rapids
Article from NextCity in response to Minneapolis 2040 Plan - basically Grand Rapids MI saying they did it first
I wish it had more info about the consequences 10 years later, but still interesting quick read.
Article from NextCity in response to Minneapolis 2040 Plan - basically Grand Rapids MI saying they did it first
I wish it had more info about the consequences 10 years later, but still interesting quick read.
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/ ... 40/584227/
Fun citylab article that says the snow parking ban is a peak into our 2040 future.
Fun citylab article that says the snow parking ban is a peak into our 2040 future.
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
The caption of the main photo in that article is perfectly cromulent!
My flickr photos.
-
- City Center
- Posts: 46
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:02 pm
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Fun article, yes, but the 2040 plan mostly addresses off street parking requirements. I guess there could be more demand for residential parking as more triplex density is added in neighborhoods but I'm not sure that the winter restrictions really portray what the realized 2040 plan would be like since it will mostly affect new construction.
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Anyone know where the whole process is with the Met Council? Their website says they'll review in the first half of 2019, is that done? When do the actual rezoning laws go into effect?Council voted 12-1 to approve it.
http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis- ... 502178121/
So rezoning comes next. So does the transportation action plan. What else, and on what timeline?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6388
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning is a totally separate process from the Comp Plan. Per state statute, I believe cities have 9 months to update zoning to match the Comp Plan, after it has been accepted by the Met Council. Since Minneapolis' Comp Plan contains such a large amount of change, to nearly every parcel in the city, I'm guessing CPED is taking the path of writing entirely new zoning districts (presumably moving in the direction of a form-based code), rather than doing minor tweaks/rewrites of the existing code. That is a very, very complex and highly-detailed process, so I'd expect it won't be truly complete until closer to the end of the 9-month window. Late '19 / early '20 most likely. That doesn't necessarily mean they won't bite off certain issues in separate, smaller chunks (i.e. replacing the R1/R2 districts with a new residential area code that allows up to 3 units, establishes bulk/height/setback regulations for that district, etc.) or possibly adopt some interim ordinances to allow development per the Comp Plan, while the final language in the zoning districts is still being written.
For example, what if a development was proposed near 46th St Station (west side of Hiawatha) in the near future? The 2040 plan says Corridor 6, but the lots are all still zoned R1. A developer would have to request a rezoning to C3A or R6 (current zoning code), since the future districts have not been adopted yet. The City is unlikely to wholly turn away a development proposal that meets the 2040 plan, even if the area isn't zoned appropriately yet today.
For example, what if a development was proposed near 46th St Station (west side of Hiawatha) in the near future? The 2040 plan says Corridor 6, but the lots are all still zoned R1. A developer would have to request a rezoning to C3A or R6 (current zoning code), since the future districts have not been adopted yet. The City is unlikely to wholly turn away a development proposal that meets the 2040 plan, even if the area isn't zoned appropriately yet today.
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
They're working on the triplex change. Hopefully someone with a better knowledge of city workings than me can take a guess at how long it will take based on where it currently is in the process.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]
[email protected]
-
- Block E
- Posts: 23
- Joined: May 1st, 2018, 9:06 am
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Good. I'd love for a developer to take some underutilized land and build a row of beautiful triplexes for people to drool over and then realize the world is not ending.
Also, the triplex issue was so cOnTrOvErSiAl that so many awesome steps forward in the plan snuck on by without much scrutiny.
Also, the triplex issue was so cOnTrOvErSiAl that so many awesome steps forward in the plan snuck on by without much scrutiny.
-
- IDS Center
- Posts: 4670
- Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
- Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
I’d love to hear from people with knowledge in this area of law explaining what next steps are available for the “environmental groups) *cough* who brought the suit and what chance of success they have.
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Per state statute, I believe cities have 9 months to update zoning to match the Comp Plan, after it has been accepted by the Met Council. Since Minneapolis' Comp Plan contains such a large amount of change, to nearly every parcel in the city, I'm guessing CPED is taking the path of writing entirely new zoning districts (presumably moving in the direction of a form-based code), rather than doing minor tweaks/rewrites of the existing code. That is a very, very complex and highly-detailed process, so I'd expect it won't be truly complete until closer to the end of the 9-month window. Late '19 / early '20 most likely.
So, it's late(ish) 2019: does anyone know where the City of Minneapolis is in the process of writing updates for the zoning code? I'm particularly curious what the minimum setbacks and floor area ratios will be in each new zoning district. Does anyone know?
-
- Union Depot
- Posts: 327
- Joined: July 12th, 2013, 8:42 am
Re: Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan
This article in SWJ elucidates what steps are next in implementing the plan. City undertaking a zoning review beginning next year.
I'm also quoted saying “The 2040 plan really isn’t that radical in some ways.” (specifically in regard to downzoning neighborhood interiors)
https://www.southwestjournal.com/news/2 ... first-day/
I'm also quoted saying “The 2040 plan really isn’t that radical in some ways.” (specifically in regard to downzoning neighborhood interiors)
https://www.southwestjournal.com/news/2 ... first-day/
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests