DTE: Wells Fargo, Radisson Red, Edition Apts & Millwright Building

[woofner]

Someone want to ask him? I'm not in his district. I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but his rhetoric so far doesn't really leave room for it, considering the existing Chicago Ave alignment would work just as well for ambulances if any textured, very occasionally closed facility would.

This is probably a bit too fussy, but I think that placing a water feature in the Park Ave right-of-way for a terminal vista for an actually park-like Park Ave would be really cool.

[RailBaronYarr]

Would an 11' wide, one-way (each for P&P), brick paved street with access only for emergency vehicles and bicycles please people? I have a very hard time believing that navigating around the 3-block area (which would mean traveling at most 2 blocks laterally out of the way of the previous open path given the one-way nature of Park & Portland today) would take minutes. Remember, these are emergency vehicles - it would more likely be 15-30 seconds difference. How many pedestrians are hit per year on downtown streets per block that could be avoided per year? Just opening up the discussion to include all possible costs/benefits of closing these streets off vs keeping them open..

[mnmike]

I know you will probably not like this, because you seem to not want cars downtown at all(I know, that is an exaggeration)...but I really have to say our downtown is already more difficult for vehicles to get around than most...and I really don't think it has to be made anymore difficult( at least with regards to streets not going through). Sure, I am for traffic calming, and widening sidewalks and improving the pedestrian environment, but I really don't want to see the street grid disrupted anymore. As our downtown is, sometimes you have to drive 6 blocks just to get back to where you were if you pass something, because of all of the one ways, Nicollet mall, highways, the dome, convention center, railroad tracks, and just the fact that it is offset from the grid of the rest of the city... That is one of the reasons I was so pleased to see Henn go two way! As a general rule, I think the street grid should be left intact as much as possible, which, for varying reasons, I think many on here could agree with. One thing I would like to see are more conversions to two ways as a means of calming.

Personally, the only variations here I would likely support would be:

A: Leaving both streets open to all, perhaps somewhat narrowed with gates and decorative pavement (like Chicago by the dome)
B: One street being closed and the other being converted to a full width two way through downtown (also hopefully with decorative pavement and gates).

I don't really see either of those being converted to two way all the way through downtown, so B is probably the way to go:) All speculation of course, just my thoughts. And like I mentioned, I could be swayed if an absolutely amazing park plan came forward, I am just not betting on that.

[RailBaronYarr]

I guess I drive downtown a lot, particularly to pick up my wife from Target HQ at peak rush hour times, and never find downtown Minneapolis to be difficult to get around. By that I mean waiting more than one light cycle for any light I'm stopped at, extremely tight traffic making moving lanes difficult, getting in or out of downtown, etc. I pick her up from the sidewalk with no issues. I agree the one-way nature of all the streets makes getting back to a destination a 6-block journey, but if you are ending at something (not picking someone up or trying to nab that perfect on-street parking spot for free), I don't know how this really comes up as an issue unless people are dead-set on parking in a specific lot or garage with their car and unwilling to walk the extra block or so.

And yes, it's a pretty big exaggeration to say I don't want cars downtown at all. I just really don't think that we should subsidize their storage or give preference (in funding or space) to them over the many other more environmentally friendly modes that build better places than 35 mph cars and parking garages/lots.

[martykoessel]

Two things:

--I get nervous anytime a big corporation or company with tons of money starts asking for significant public money and/or imposes conditions that can greatly reduce a project's value to the public.

--Assuming a project like this can be put together in a way that sufficiently benefits the public interest, why not go for a compromise on the through street? Namely, reconstruct it as a mall-like passageway open to emergency vehicles only?

[MNdible]

A different compromise that wouldn't create a giant superblock downtown would be to close Portland completely at The Yard and have Park Avenue become a two way between Washington and 7th Street. Park Avenue could still be closed on game days.

Seems like this would respond fairly well to the actual need to get around downtown.

[Viktor Vaughn]

Ryan's request for millions of city funds for skyways is frustrating.

I'm conflicted about skyways in general. As a downtown worker bee I enjoy walking to lunch and running errands all over downtown without going outside during a cold November rain. I SOMEWHAT agree with the claim that skyways slowed down the exodus to the suburbs and encouraged downtown to develop more compactly than it would have otherwise. I love how the little skyway spots have allowed countless immigrant entrepreneurs a low-cost place to set-up shop and try their hand at business. At the same time, I'm dismayed by skyway's downsides such as their limited accessibility and hours, public/private awkwardness, and tendency to zap street life and ground level retail.

Given this cognitive dissonance, I've been impressed with Minneapolis' emerging consensus regarding skyways. 1) Accept them as reality because they're here to stay, 2) Build transparent and publically open connections between the street and skyway and encourage longer and more consistent hours of operations. 3) Restrict the skyway system to the central business district.

To ask the city to pay for this long skyway finger extending off the business district is almost vulgar.

[mattaudio]

Agreed. If we want to actually get value out of this park, the skyways need to end west of the park. I could see extending the skyway to the Armory if it gets redeveloped provided it creates a natural transition to the street level. But there's no reason for it to extend east of Portland, or especially off of the Haaf ramp north of 4th St.

The extreme northeast corner of the skyway system is already multiple blocks from anything useful in the skyway network... 3+ blocks to Dagwoods by way of the Gateway ramp, or 3+ blocks from the 701 Bldg or the Pillsbury Center by way of the jail block and the county ramp where the skyway isn't even climate controlled. This is already outside the skyway zone by a significant degree.

This is a fresh start for a significant part of the DTE neighborhood. We can either decide we want people in skyways, or we want people on our streets and in our future park.

[RailBaronYarr]

I'm conflicted about skyways in general. As a downtown worker bee I enjoy walking to lunch and running errands all over downtown without going outside during a cold November rain. I SOMEWHAT agree with the claim that skyways slowed down the exodus to the suburbs and encouraged downtown to develop more compactly than it would have otherwise.

Exodus of businesses or residents? The fact that the majority of downtown residents live in Loring Park, Elliot Park, or across the river in St Anthony say to me the skyways did more to encourage exodusto a lifestyle where the commute is a comfy car-ride in to a parking garage connected directly to a building by climate-controlled skyway. People living very close to downtown don't get in by skyway unless the consciously enter the system.

I love how the little skyway spots have allowed countless immigrant entrepreneurs a low-cost place to set-up shop and try their hand at business.

Seems like this could have happened without them as many cities (big and small) I've been to have tiny little shops at street level selling crepes, donerkebab, wares, etc. Food trucks could have been an earlier popular attraction.

Given this cognitive dissonance, I've been impressed with Minneapolis' emerging consensus regarding skyways. 1) Accept them as reality because they're here to stay, 2) Build transparent and publically open connections between the street and skyway and encourage longer and more consistent hours of operations. 3) Restrict the skyway system to the central business district.

I think Joe Urban's take on skyways is a good one - let's not take on the early cost of tearing them all out right now. But as they need big maintenance or replacement, let's instead remove them over the next 50 years. I would add on that in the meantime, a few very critical entrances from street level (near Nicollet, etc) can help solve some of the access issues at a not so high cost.

Matt articulated the ridiculousness of having these skyways this far east, particularly given the cost to the public (and the fact that we're not even legislated in to them).

[Viktor Vaughn]

Exodus of businesses or residents?

Businesses. The skways are loved by the vast majority of people with offices within the system. Office location decision makers often demand to be in the skyway system. I think this has allowed the downtown core to keep more jobs and develop more densely.

I SOMEWHAT agree with the claim that skyways slowed down the exodus to the suburbs and encouraged downtown to develop more compactly than it would have otherwise.

I typed the word "somewhat" in all caps just so you wouldn't miss it. I was trying to say I think there' truth to the claim even if it might be overstated.

I think Joe Urban's take on skyways is a good one - let's not take on the early cost of tearing them all out right now. But as they need big maintenance or replacement, let's instead remove them over the next 50 years. I would add on that in the meantime, a few very critical entrances from street level (near Nicollet, etc) can help solve some of the access issues at a not so high cost.

Well, I think this view is attractive from a theoretical urban design standpoint, but we have to be careful when our philosphical preferences are overuled by reality. In real life, people who work downtown overwhelmingly love the skyways. That's because they're useful. And you can't just start dismantling them one-by-one because together they form a system.

That's why we must reinforce the positive aspects and mitigate the negative side affects of skyways as follows.

1) Accept them as reality because they're here to stay, 2) Build transparent and publically open connections between the street and skyway and encourage longer and more consistent hours of operations. 3) Restrict the skyway system to the central business district.

[tabletop]

A: Leaving both streets open to all, perhaps somewhat narrowed with gates and decorative pavement (like Chicago by the dome)
B: One street being closed and the other being converted to a full width two way through downtown (also hopefully with decorative pavement and gates).

How about a C: Build a land bridge over Park and Portland. Have continuous park space for 3 blocks and keep Park and Portland open. I'd wager you could sell it to the developer and the city as an Art Walk and have commissioned art work and sculpture similar to that of Millennium Park, which crosses a roadway with a pedestrian bridge.

Driving for a living has has opened me up to the best six streets for getting in, through and out of downtown without dealing with downtown: Lasalle, 11th ave, Park, Portland, 3rd and 4th streets. It would be a shame to loose the direct connection to 4 of those amazing streets. And I wonder if it wouldn't be against the city's river access priorities by cutting off the Mill District from Elliot Park, although I'm sure the Mill District wouldn't mind it so much.

[Nathan]

I was thinking it could be kind of cool if Park and Portland could come together in a round about, so there is only one intersection when you are walking east to west... kind of like when you walk the Champs Elysee... big fountain or art in the middle, slows traffic, but keeps it open...

[twincitizen]

I guess I'm not seeing why it's so important to keep Park & Portland open. If you're going to sever the park in half with moving traffic, then just have a single block of park, call it a day, and properly develop the other block with tax-paying structures.

If we are doing this as advertised though, I want Hennepin County to revise their projected traffic counts for Washington RIGHT NOW before they decide on a design that retains 3 westbound lanes (and a bitchload of turn lanes). Blocking off P & P will keep at least some traffic from reaching Washington.

On 2nd thought, keeping Park open (and making it a 2-way) makes sense, because I really don't see the current underground ramp triangle being very park-like. Just look at it. What could be done with that to even resemble a park? Barren windswept plaza would be a step UP from what it is currently. Plus, wasn't the whole point of that to put a building on top? Wouldn't Ryan like, want to maybe do that?

[RailBaronYarr]

And I wonder if it wouldn't be against the city's river access priorities by cutting off the Mill District from Elliot Park, although I'm sure the Mill District wouldn't mind it so much.

Unless you count walking or biking as getting to and from places.

[RailBaronYarr]

I typed the word "somewhat" in all caps just so you wouldn't miss it. I was trying to say I think there' truth to the claim even if it might be overstated.

I was just challenging the part you gave a little credence to. I certainly didn't think you're invested in skyways financially or anything.

Well, I think this view is attractive from a theoretical urban design standpoint, but we have to be careful when our philosphical preferences are overuled by reality. In real life, people who work downtown overwhelmingly love the skyways. That's because they're useful. And you can't just start dismantling them one-by-one because together they form a system.

Continuing to enhance the system's hours and access certainly addresses two of the major challenges skyways present, but will never solve the issues entirely and will never allow our streets to be the primary places that people identify with. They'll also still close at a certain time and be patrolled by private security, reinforcing their semi-private nature. And I don't think it's just philosophical to suggest they could be dismantled from the outside inward to limit the effect on the system as a whole. Furthermore, that people enjoy them is not a reason to continue subsidizing them at the expense of street-life (I'd put the parallel to subsidized sprawl and parking - people sure like it, but it doesn't make it good policy). Just my take, I guess.

A good start would be not building more of them out on the edge of the network with no meaningful connections, especially when surrounded by a proposed park and mixed-use activity at ground level.

[mnmike]

And I wonder if it wouldn't be against the city's river access priorities by cutting off the Mill District from Elliot Park, although I'm sure the Mill District wouldn't mind it so much.

Unless you count walking or biking as getting to and from places.

Edit...Nevermind...it isn't worth it in this thread anymore. I know, I know, cars are evil...

I do get the points about making it easier for people walking and biking, and I agree that is important...but everyone doesn't live within walking distance, and I really feel like people are being unfairly judged in some of these threads sometimes just for wanting to drive downtown. It feels that way sometimes. I want people to be able to drive downtown and spend their money! I am not going to judge them for not taking public transit or not walking an extra 6 blocks, even if I think they should....and I certainly, within reason, don't feel like we need to make it more difficult for cars to get in and out. We can make downtown more pedestrian and bike friendly without doing this...that is all I am sayin'.

[MumfordMoses]

A: Leaving both streets open to all, perhaps somewhat narrowed with gates and decorative pavement (like Chicago by the dome)
B: One street being closed and the other being converted to a full width two way through downtown (also hopefully with decorative pavement and gates).

How about a C: Build a land bridge over Park and Portland. Have continuous park space for 3 blocks and keep Park and Portland open. I'd wager you could sell it to the developer and the city as an Art Walk and have commissioned art work and sculpture similar to that of Millennium Park, which crosses a roadway with a pedestrian bridge.

Driving for a living has has opened me up to the best six streets for getting in, through and out of downtown without dealing with downtown: Lasalle, 11th ave, Park, Portland, 3rd and 4th streets. It would be a shame to loose the direct connection to 4 of those amazing streets. And I wonder if it wouldn't be against the city's river access priorities by cutting off the Mill District from Elliot Park, although I'm sure the Mill District wouldn't mind it so much.

This has become a stunning thread of nonsense.

I fully endorse C:elevate the blocks for a seamless flow of creative landscaping, build nice and wide land bridges, high enough for essential vehicles to pass under, plant some beautiful year round evergreens on them, adorn them with timeless art, etc. JHF Christ.

Shutting these avenues down, esp near HCMC, give me break! I'm not a big fan of cars at all, but the HCMC argument is valid. One second can make a difference in an ambulance run. Bottom line, you can't shut down these streets. We don't need another Nicollet-Kmart.

This park is not going to be some crown jewel - constantly serving a bustling set of entertainment venues, esp at 9 acres. The new stadium will be used plenty, but not on the level of the Hennepin corridor & Nicollet Mall, thus the RiverFirst project, my opinion, is more essential to fast track, esp the vacant blocks near the library. It's about time this city starts pushing RiverFirst to greater heights and actual, wide scale development. In the yesteryear era of WPA and American expansion, this massive undertaking would be done in 5 years, not the decades-long timeline currently proposed.

Back to the Strib park, it can be a rather nice space, but not worth killing off two vital street sections. Beautiful land bridges and crafty landscaping can make it work, without shutting off Park and Portland. What Ryan is proposing is plain stupid and those so-called Wells Fargo towers are brutal looking, not to be confused with Brutalism, which might be an improvement over these ugly twins. There have simply been too many bland, cheaper looking buildings erected in dt Mpls the past 5 years & I'm with those arguing for taller towers & and an end to the IDS' mediocre height. We don't need a Tower of Babel, but the fact that this city has yet to build a 1000 ft tower by the 21st Century is a bit disappointing. I get the landfill arguments, esp over surface parking, but taller is sometimes better and certainly more efficient than say a sprawled campus of two to three hundred foot towers.

As for the person on here complaining about Gold Medal Park's lack of use - I bike by it often enough. Its use has increased plenty since opening & it will be used more and more, esp as the trees grow & more housing is added to the area, which seems to be the present case. Parks are a long-term vision and organism. If you preferred say an alternative of even more expensive, modern cookie cutter lofts-condos in place of the park - then you're simply lost in my book. Greenspace must accommodate the tremendous housing growth in this area.

[tabletop]

Shutting these avenues down, esp near HCMC, give me break! I'm not a big fan of cars at all, but the HCMC argument is valid. One second can make a difference in an ambulance run. Bottom line, you can't shut down these streets. We don't need another Nicollet-Kmart.

You said it, granted I was reaching with the river first thing. But for first responder's, Park and Portland ARE vital. I had a conversation with a Paramedic a few weeks back about the reconstruction of the Park and Portland over 94 and he lamented about how it was making things tricky. Park and Portland do service to Phillips and Powederhorn in way's Cedar and Bloomington could only dream of (well maybe not Cedar... and ok, Bloomington's cool too), they offer a way through the city, not just downtown but Northeast, Southeast and if your smart St. Paul, without being bogged down in the freeways and such at rush hour.

Don't get me wrong RailBaronYarr, I'm all for closing down streets to serve the needs of cyclists and pedestrians if it's the right street to close, I just don't think severing Park and Portland from 3rd, 4th and Washington is the best idea.

If Ryan was proposing to cut off 5th and 4th avenues from Washington, 3rd and 4th streets i'd be ok with, but who do you think would be questioning the closure? People from 38th and Oakland who work at the Guthrie or a Season Ticket holder at the Guthrie from 110th st and Xerxis?

[mullen]

yea sorry, i take that back. gold medal park is just a beehive of activity. yep it sure is.

[Rich]

Regarding HCMC, will closing Park and Portland make it any harder for ambulances to cross the river? And won't travel to any destinations to the east, west or south be completely unaffected? It seems like the only place that'd experience slower ambulance response would be the Mill District, and the response would only be seconds slower. Am I missing something?