By now everyone has heard that Lara Norkus-Crampton has resigned her seat on the Planning Commission in protest over the Commission’s support of the project at Lake and Knox. What? You haven’t heard? You haven’t heard of Norkus-Crampton, and didn’t realize that she’s doing this for you, the people of Uptown? That, of course, is part of the problem, and is yet another reason why it’s so frustrating when people like Norkus-Crampton and her merry band of NIMBYs claim to speak for all Uptown residents and stakeholders. While it would be nice if every resident or other Uptown property owner, business owner, employer, visitor, or other Uptown regular was actively involved in discussions about the neighborhood and its future, that’s not the reality. Norkus-Crampton and the NIMBYs are one faction of the neighborhood; a vocal faction, of course, but just one group out of many.
Most of the readers of this blog probably do know Norkus-Crampton and her history, but then again, readers of this blog are, like the NIMBYs, not necessarily a representative cross-section of Uptowners. Norkus-Crampton has been an active figure in local development issues, and is one of the leading proponents of the concept that tall buildings, or even slightly tall buildings, are single-handedly going to destroy Uptown’s “character.” Norkus-Crampton and the NIMBYs have a vision of Uptown as a quieter place, a less-dense neighborhood where they can “see the sky.” And while I certainly think diversity of opinions is a good thing, and value a good community discussion as much as the anyone, the NIMBYs are, to adapt Norkus-Crampton’s description of the Planning Commission (“I have come to the conclusion that the Planning Department, and the Planning Commission, as a whole, are part of the problem”) the real problem facing Uptown today. Norkus-Crampton’s actions sum up the general attitude in a nutshell: my way or the highway.
Norkus-Crampton claims that the Planning Commission’s vote in favor of the Knox development shows a “complete disregard” for the Uptown Small Area Plan. More specifically, she says it destroys what she calls “the Grand Compromise,” a compromise she alleges the USAP allowed for higher density and height in the core of Uptown in return for lower height. The reality is not that simple. Uptown business leader and USAP steering committee member Thatcher Imboden described his view of things in a recent post on the Minneapolis Issues Forum:
“Height was a component, but it was intentionally not elevated to supreme status. Height itself, determined through our planning process, was not the main issue. It was the height’s relationship with people… meaning how it made you feel on the sidewalk and how it impacted other properties…. But, that’s not quite 100% the way everything ended. A pre-draft came out and was distributed to the Steering Committee. It supported a little more height than the adopted plan. But mysteriously, that height was stripped out a week later without any reason given. The official draft had every district recommended for 3-5 stories with potentially a little more between the Greenway and Lake between Dupont and Hennepin. Otherwise it said that height may be increased from time to time and it left the doors open for that discussion…. The public was told very clearly that staff would not make a recommendation on height and that the Planning Commission would resolve it after taking public comments in writing during the draft response phase and during the Planning Commission official proceedings. Lots of people gave feedback, some saying it’s a good plan, some saying less height, and some people saying more height would be fine, and others saying making it clear that the plan is flexible. BUT, the Planning Commission stated after the public hearing that a compromise had already been reached and they didn’t want to reopen the conversation. Except it hadn’t really been resolved.”
Was this the “Grand Compromise?” Does Norkus-Crampton really think that the Commission’s recent vote was a referendum on the USAP? The approved USAP itself even spells out the potential ambiguity of situations such as the Lake and Knox project. “On occasion, variances and conditional use permits within the Shoreland Overlay District may be appropriate,” (47) for example, and “a broader public discussion that evaluates and weights the overall public contributions and merits of an individual project should be expected on occasion in the future in the even that a taller building is proposed.” (74) I find it outrageous that Norkus-Crampton and her allies have the nerve to proclaim the USAP dead. “This kills the compromise,” said Norkus-Crampton in her resignation press release, “how do you say ‘yes’ to one 56 foot high proposal and ‘no’ to others who will follow this new precedent?” Well, Lara, it’s easy. You go with the plan and evaluate each proposal in turn, just like the USAP suggests. Norkus-Crampton calls the Commission’s willingness to follow the USAP’s flexibility as “cavalier;” I call her disregard for the plan and differing views cavalier.
I’m not sure exactly what to think of Norkus-Crampton’s actions. On one hand, I’m tempted to write it off as a childish reaction to not getting her way. The NIMBYs, after all, have enjoyed a great deal of power in recent years. On the other hand, maybe she really does believe in what she says. I’m not sure which is worse. Is it better to set yourself up as a martyr for the cause when you know full well that the plan was designed to be flexible (in a political move designed to further your overall agenda), or is it better to have such tunnel vision that you honestly don’t understand the details of the plan? To put it in a non-Minnesota “nice”way, is she calculating, is she dumb, or is she oblivious? I think it’s the case of well-meaning tunnel vision, myself. I don’t think she’s stupid and I doubt she’s particularly Machiavellian, but I do think she’s not spending enough quality time engaging in meaningful, sometimes uncomfortable, debates (internal or external) about Uptown and its past, present, and future. I think she honestly does believe that her view of Uptown and its potential is shared by the vast majority of local residents, or, if they don’t share it, then they must have somehow sold out to the evil developers who are out to destroy the neighborhood. In any case, I’m glad to see Norkus-Crampton go, but hope that it doesn’t newly energize an already energized bunch of vocal residents who already enjoy a disproportionate amount of political power.
“This proposal was opposed by the East Isles, ECCO, and CARAG neighborhoods,” said Norkus-Crampton in her press release. It’s this disregard for the people of Uptown, or at least for those who don’t share the NIMBY viewpoint, that really gets me steamed. The NIMBYs often claim to speak for entire neighborhoods. The problem, of course, is that the project was opposed by the neighborhood boards (and not all board members), and boards should not be considered the same thing as neighborhoods. The neighborhood boards are not particularly representative of the neighborhood residents, and are easily dominated by small groups of people with special interests. Neighborhood boards have their strengths and weaknesses, and certainly have a role to play in Uptown, but they have a lot of work to do if they want to become true representative bodies. The NIMBYs have nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to lose, by becoming more diverse and encouraging a broader range of opinions, so unless a slate of new neighborhood activists bursts onto the scene in coming years (and are willing to put up with the process and the frustrations of dealing with the current status quo day in and day out) it appears that the NIMBYs will continue to shape the dialogue as the “official” spokesmen and women for Uptown-area neighborhoods.
It remains to be seen what new role Norkus-Crampton will play in the ongoing debate about the future of Uptown, but I, for one, pledge to do my part to place Norkus-Crampton and her allies in their proper context: a group of neighborhood residents who have one concept of what Uptown is and should be, but not a group that has the authority to speak on behalf of all, or even most, Uptown residents and stakeholders. As for Norkus-Crampton herself, I appreciate her love of the neighborhood and her dedication to making it a better place to live (although our opinions differ on the details), but hope for the sake of Uptown that she channels her new free time into bird watching and planning block parties instead of resuming her role of ECCO and Uptown’s Queen NIMBY.
Showing posts with label Lara Norkus-Crampton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lara Norkus-Crampton. Show all posts
Monday, July 27, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
News Flash: Uptown and Lyn-Lake Character Dependent on Building Height, Say Some
Local Uptown-area NIMBYs, led by the Queen NIMBEE (and Minneapolis City Commissioner) Lara Norkus-Crampton, have led a mostly successful campaign to firmly establish the belief that the terms “character” and “height” are virtually synonymous.
Take this new passage from the revised Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan, for example:
“Building height and character is discussed within context of each character area below… higher heights should be concentrated in the Activity Center, and height above four stories should be substantially set back from the lower floors.” (41)
The Plan went before the Minneapolis City Planning Commission on Monday; its earlier attempt at approval, back in April, was delayed by the efforts of Norkus-Crampton (she wanted to slow down the process to better evaluate issues relating to height and the pedestrian character of the plan) and – no surprise here – CARAG, which expressed concerns over “character, scale, context, and transitions,” according to the Southwest Journal. And as for the above quote, yes, building height and character are discussed, but so are a lot of other things. The singling out of these two particular elements, used together in the same sentence, is not an isolated example of “height” and “character” being lumped together as one topic; read enough of the local plans and attend enough public meetings and you’ll see and hear dozens, if not hundreds, of similar statements.
The fuss over height and character in the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan is pretty minor in comparison to the controversy relating to the Uptown Small Area Plan, and to new proposed developments in Uptown, for that matter, but it does highlight the near constant refrain of “preserve the character of the neighborhood – limit height.” If you say it enough it must be true, right?
Height is only one element of neighborhood character. Sure, a skyscraper is going to alter the character of Uptown, but the occasional tall(ish) building isn’t necessarily going to harm things. There are many different aspects of neighborhood character, and a limited primary focus on just one thing is one of the biggest dangers being pressed on us by a small but vocal group of neighborhood activists. In some cases a tall building may offer other elements that actually enhance the neighborhood’s character; a knee-jerk reaction based purely on height is illogical and misguided.
Why don't the NIMBYs complain about too-short buildings? The Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan does encourage buildings along Lake Street to be more than one story, thank goodness. Still, how often do we hear people complain when someone comes along and wants to build yet another one-story building on one of our valuable major commercial streets? This is just as potentially damaging to neighborhood character as a five-story building (if not more), yet I rarely, if ever, hear many people complaining about anything being too short.
I’m going to repeat it again, as I think it’s that important: height does NOT equal character. It is something to consider, certainly, and an appropriate height and design can have a major impact on the character of a street, block, or even neighborhood. But it is not the only consideration, and I don’t even think the most important consideration. The NIMBYs (and yes, Lara Norkus-Crampton and certain CARAG activists, I’m talking to you) need to broaden their horizons a bit for the sake of the neighborhood and the true preservation of its character.
Take this new passage from the revised Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan, for example:
“Building height and character is discussed within context of each character area below… higher heights should be concentrated in the Activity Center, and height above four stories should be substantially set back from the lower floors.” (41)
The Plan went before the Minneapolis City Planning Commission on Monday; its earlier attempt at approval, back in April, was delayed by the efforts of Norkus-Crampton (she wanted to slow down the process to better evaluate issues relating to height and the pedestrian character of the plan) and – no surprise here – CARAG, which expressed concerns over “character, scale, context, and transitions,” according to the Southwest Journal. And as for the above quote, yes, building height and character are discussed, but so are a lot of other things. The singling out of these two particular elements, used together in the same sentence, is not an isolated example of “height” and “character” being lumped together as one topic; read enough of the local plans and attend enough public meetings and you’ll see and hear dozens, if not hundreds, of similar statements.
The fuss over height and character in the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan is pretty minor in comparison to the controversy relating to the Uptown Small Area Plan, and to new proposed developments in Uptown, for that matter, but it does highlight the near constant refrain of “preserve the character of the neighborhood – limit height.” If you say it enough it must be true, right?
Height is only one element of neighborhood character. Sure, a skyscraper is going to alter the character of Uptown, but the occasional tall(ish) building isn’t necessarily going to harm things. There are many different aspects of neighborhood character, and a limited primary focus on just one thing is one of the biggest dangers being pressed on us by a small but vocal group of neighborhood activists. In some cases a tall building may offer other elements that actually enhance the neighborhood’s character; a knee-jerk reaction based purely on height is illogical and misguided.
Why don't the NIMBYs complain about too-short buildings? The Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan does encourage buildings along Lake Street to be more than one story, thank goodness. Still, how often do we hear people complain when someone comes along and wants to build yet another one-story building on one of our valuable major commercial streets? This is just as potentially damaging to neighborhood character as a five-story building (if not more), yet I rarely, if ever, hear many people complaining about anything being too short.
I’m going to repeat it again, as I think it’s that important: height does NOT equal character. It is something to consider, certainly, and an appropriate height and design can have a major impact on the character of a street, block, or even neighborhood. But it is not the only consideration, and I don’t even think the most important consideration. The NIMBYs (and yes, Lara Norkus-Crampton and certain CARAG activists, I’m talking to you) need to broaden their horizons a bit for the sake of the neighborhood and the true preservation of its character.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Lara Norkus-Crampton Drops Out
Hot off the press - the Southwest Journal reports that Ward 10 candidate Lara Norkus-Crampton plans to officially drop out of the race. She will continue her role on the City's Planning Commission, and doesn't discount the possibility of running for City Council at some point in the future.
I have mixed feelings about this news. On one hand, I think Lara Norkus-Crampton is not the right person to represent Ward 10. While certainly involved and committed to the neighborhood, her views are often extreme, and reflect only the opinions of a small percentage of the Ward's residents. On the other hand, her exit leaves only two people left in the race. While I believe that Meg Tuthill and Matt Filner are both solid choices, I am uncomfortable with the lack of significant choice in politics at the local level.
I'm a little fuzzy on the current ins and outs of the DFL endorsement process; in the last City Council race there was no endorsement, leading to more options for voters and a more robust debate. With three plausible candidates in the mix it would have been more difficult for one candidate to get the endorsement. I'm not sure what it means to the endorsement process if only two candidates remain. While at this point in the game I believe both remaining candidates to be good City Council material, I still hope that the residents of Ward 10 - including those who aren't actively involved with the local political party - will have the opportunity to enjoy some actual choices.
Both Tuthill and Filner have promised to abide by the DFL's endorsement, should there be one. That means that the show could well be realistically over and done with months before the actual voting begins. Sure, there might be a Republican or a third party candidate, but they're going to have a hard time overcoming the Democratic nominee. Norkus-Crampton had also promised to abide by the endorsement, but at least in the meantime she offered an alternative view for the neighborhood, and her participation may have sparked some important debates.
I might not agree with much of Lara Norkus-Crampton's vision for Uptown, but I don't doubt her love for the neighborhood or her good intentions. I wish her the best of luck in her future non-City Council endeavors.
I have mixed feelings about this news. On one hand, I think Lara Norkus-Crampton is not the right person to represent Ward 10. While certainly involved and committed to the neighborhood, her views are often extreme, and reflect only the opinions of a small percentage of the Ward's residents. On the other hand, her exit leaves only two people left in the race. While I believe that Meg Tuthill and Matt Filner are both solid choices, I am uncomfortable with the lack of significant choice in politics at the local level.
I'm a little fuzzy on the current ins and outs of the DFL endorsement process; in the last City Council race there was no endorsement, leading to more options for voters and a more robust debate. With three plausible candidates in the mix it would have been more difficult for one candidate to get the endorsement. I'm not sure what it means to the endorsement process if only two candidates remain. While at this point in the game I believe both remaining candidates to be good City Council material, I still hope that the residents of Ward 10 - including those who aren't actively involved with the local political party - will have the opportunity to enjoy some actual choices.
Both Tuthill and Filner have promised to abide by the DFL's endorsement, should there be one. That means that the show could well be realistically over and done with months before the actual voting begins. Sure, there might be a Republican or a third party candidate, but they're going to have a hard time overcoming the Democratic nominee. Norkus-Crampton had also promised to abide by the endorsement, but at least in the meantime she offered an alternative view for the neighborhood, and her participation may have sparked some important debates.
I might not agree with much of Lara Norkus-Crampton's vision for Uptown, but I don't doubt her love for the neighborhood or her good intentions. I wish her the best of luck in her future non-City Council endeavors.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Ward 10 Precinct Caucus (Un) Endorsements
Those of you involved in Ward politics know what March 3 means: the first step towards selecting the official DFL-endorsed Ward 10 City Council candidate. Given the one-party dominance of this neighborhood, the endorsement of a candidate will in all likelihood mean that the contest is over, especially if the other Democratic candidates in the running step aside if they don't receive the endorsement.
Those not involved with politics at the local level might be lulled into thinking that one candidate is as good as the next; they're all Democrats, right? And yes, certainly at some level there are shared values. But the reality is that these candidates have very different approaches and visions, and the general public (and local delegates) deserve the opportunity to understand what each candidate brings to the table.
Before I go any further, let me fully disclose that there's still a lot that I have yet to learn about the candidates. Things are starting to move along quickly, though, so I'm sure we'll all have the opportunity to get more questions answered in the coming month. I don't, however, feel ready at this time to make a formal decision about where to throw my support. That said, I do know enough to be able to state definitively that there is one candidate that the Uptown Urbanist and the Uptown Musings blog will NOT be endorsing: Lara Norkus-Crampton.
Lara "I like to be able to see the sky" Norkus-Crampton is not the right person to represent Ward 10. Her record to-date has shown her to be an active NIMBY, focusing on issues of height at the expense of providing a broader, more useful vision for Uptown. I don't know Norkus-Crampton, and assume that's she's a nice, caring person who does passionately care about the community, but she is not the right person for this job at this time.
Rather than embrace Uptown for what it is - an exciting urban neighborhood - Norkus-Crampton instead all-to-often focuses her energies on the dangers of building height and excess traffic, with the goal of shoehorning Uptown into a quieter, different kind of place. Yes, there are some in Ward 10 who share her (tunnel) vision, but a great many others do not. Her platform also includes references to engaging the community in city affairs, but her stated approach - attending all neighborhood board meetings - fails to acknowledge that the neighborhood organizations do not necessarily reflect the majority of neighborhood residents.
Minneapolis and Ward 10 are facing more pressing issues right now than whether or not a building two blocks from Lake Calhoun is three, four, or even five stories tall. Yes, of course these topics are important to local residents, and do need to be discussed. But we also need someone who both shares a love of Uptown and Ward 10 for what it is now, as well as what it can be in the future. We need a representative who can better balance the many nuances of city life. Lara Norkus-Crampton represents only a small percentage of the Ward and therefore receives the official Uptown Musings un-endorsement.
Meg Tuthill versus Matt Filner: I haven't made up my mind between these two candidates yet. I've heard great things about Filner, and especially appreciate both his acknowledgement that there are many in the Ward whose voices are seldom heard, as well as his knowledge and understanding of the larger Minneapolis and Twin Cities political situation. He's a smart guy who knows his way around the political landscape, and I believe he would serve both Ward 10 and Minneapolis well. His references to the issue of Minneapolis and Ward 10 poverty and political exclusion highlights Norkus-Crampton's lack of commentary on those same subjects, furthering my impression that Norkus-Crampton, while undoubtedly well-meaning, will not represent all the people or be as in-tune with some of the serious issues facing many Minneapolis residents.
While Filner hasn't been around long as a local community force, his educational and professional experiences are impressive and completely relevant to the job. I feel comfortable that he understands Ward 10 - and not just one small subgroup of Ward 10 residents - and would make a true effort to put his skills and knowledge to work on behalf of all Minneapolis residents.
Meg Tuthill also seems like a solid candidate. She's been actively involved in the community for decades. Her experience as both a resident and a small-business owner would serve her well. I'd like to know more about her vision for Uptown - as well as her take on changes and development - but I feel comfortable that she understands the balancing act between "character" (and NOT simply the character=height arguments of Norkus-Crampton and the NIMBYs) and change necessary to keep the neighborhood thriving. I like that she's been long been active in the schools, and I also appreciate her interest in and work on behalf of the preservation of Uptown's historic housing stock. I think she'll work hard, get things done, and do what it takes to make both Uptown and Minneapolis a better place to live and work.
I'd like to see Meg Tuthill and Matt Filner have the opportunity to continue to discuss their opinions on issues (and solutions) relevant to both Ward 10 and to the city as a whole, while I'd like Lara Norkus-Crampton to find another outlet for her service to the community. (I'm thinking official City ornithologist might be right up her - low-rise and quiet - alley...)
Those not involved with politics at the local level might be lulled into thinking that one candidate is as good as the next; they're all Democrats, right? And yes, certainly at some level there are shared values. But the reality is that these candidates have very different approaches and visions, and the general public (and local delegates) deserve the opportunity to understand what each candidate brings to the table.
Before I go any further, let me fully disclose that there's still a lot that I have yet to learn about the candidates. Things are starting to move along quickly, though, so I'm sure we'll all have the opportunity to get more questions answered in the coming month. I don't, however, feel ready at this time to make a formal decision about where to throw my support. That said, I do know enough to be able to state definitively that there is one candidate that the Uptown Urbanist and the Uptown Musings blog will NOT be endorsing: Lara Norkus-Crampton.
Lara "I like to be able to see the sky" Norkus-Crampton is not the right person to represent Ward 10. Her record to-date has shown her to be an active NIMBY, focusing on issues of height at the expense of providing a broader, more useful vision for Uptown. I don't know Norkus-Crampton, and assume that's she's a nice, caring person who does passionately care about the community, but she is not the right person for this job at this time.
Rather than embrace Uptown for what it is - an exciting urban neighborhood - Norkus-Crampton instead all-to-often focuses her energies on the dangers of building height and excess traffic, with the goal of shoehorning Uptown into a quieter, different kind of place. Yes, there are some in Ward 10 who share her (tunnel) vision, but a great many others do not. Her platform also includes references to engaging the community in city affairs, but her stated approach - attending all neighborhood board meetings - fails to acknowledge that the neighborhood organizations do not necessarily reflect the majority of neighborhood residents.
Minneapolis and Ward 10 are facing more pressing issues right now than whether or not a building two blocks from Lake Calhoun is three, four, or even five stories tall. Yes, of course these topics are important to local residents, and do need to be discussed. But we also need someone who both shares a love of Uptown and Ward 10 for what it is now, as well as what it can be in the future. We need a representative who can better balance the many nuances of city life. Lara Norkus-Crampton represents only a small percentage of the Ward and therefore receives the official Uptown Musings un-endorsement.
Meg Tuthill versus Matt Filner: I haven't made up my mind between these two candidates yet. I've heard great things about Filner, and especially appreciate both his acknowledgement that there are many in the Ward whose voices are seldom heard, as well as his knowledge and understanding of the larger Minneapolis and Twin Cities political situation. He's a smart guy who knows his way around the political landscape, and I believe he would serve both Ward 10 and Minneapolis well. His references to the issue of Minneapolis and Ward 10 poverty and political exclusion highlights Norkus-Crampton's lack of commentary on those same subjects, furthering my impression that Norkus-Crampton, while undoubtedly well-meaning, will not represent all the people or be as in-tune with some of the serious issues facing many Minneapolis residents.
While Filner hasn't been around long as a local community force, his educational and professional experiences are impressive and completely relevant to the job. I feel comfortable that he understands Ward 10 - and not just one small subgroup of Ward 10 residents - and would make a true effort to put his skills and knowledge to work on behalf of all Minneapolis residents.
Meg Tuthill also seems like a solid candidate. She's been actively involved in the community for decades. Her experience as both a resident and a small-business owner would serve her well. I'd like to know more about her vision for Uptown - as well as her take on changes and development - but I feel comfortable that she understands the balancing act between "character" (and NOT simply the character=height arguments of Norkus-Crampton and the NIMBYs) and change necessary to keep the neighborhood thriving. I like that she's been long been active in the schools, and I also appreciate her interest in and work on behalf of the preservation of Uptown's historic housing stock. I think she'll work hard, get things done, and do what it takes to make both Uptown and Minneapolis a better place to live and work.
I'd like to see Meg Tuthill and Matt Filner have the opportunity to continue to discuss their opinions on issues (and solutions) relevant to both Ward 10 and to the city as a whole, while I'd like Lara Norkus-Crampton to find another outlet for her service to the community. (I'm thinking official City ornithologist might be right up her - low-rise and quiet - alley...)
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Is the Uptown Small Area Plan in Danger of Dying?
Those of you following Uptown development news have probably heard about the four to six story building proposed for Lake and Knox. The land lies within the Shoreland Overlay District and is also addressed in the Uptown Small Area Plan (USAP). Needless to say, the anti-height people are having a fit. I’ll go more into the building itself in a future post, but for now I want to look at the issue from the viewpoint of what this means for the USAP. It appears that battle lines are being drawn, the opposition is gearing up, and this is going to in all likelihood be an issue in the coming Ward 10 City Council races.
ECCO board member Robert Kean has a recent opinion piece on the issue, published in the March issue of the Uptown Neighborhood News. He frames the Lake and Knox building issue in terms of the Uptown Small Area Plan, an argument that on the surface makes a lot of sense. In short, he says that the USAP was created so that the community did not need to constantly fight the same battles over and over, and that the USAP would serve as a “guiding rule for Uptown development.” He warns his readers that the USAP will be “rendered pointless” if the height suggestions are not enforced – pretty potent stuff.
Similarly, Ward 10 City Council candidate Lara Norkus-Crampton, an active member of the USAP process and now a Minneapolis Planning Commissioner (and a dedicated opponent to height at all costs), seems to take a similar stance on her campaign website. She states emphatically that “together, neighborhoods working with their partners in City Hall can make sure that two years of work on the Uptown Small Area Plan and the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan are fully and consistently implemented with every development proposal, every time.” (emphasis mine)
The problem? The USAP is not a zoning document. It offers suggestions, and presumably carries some weight with the Planning Commission and other government bodies, but it does not mandate that every project within Uptown must conform to its standards. Councilmember Ralph Remington understands this; he recently reminded Southwest Journal readers that the plan “has built in flexibility,” and that “if the plan were rigid and finite, it would never have been approved.” Norkus-Crampton’s comments are particularly concerning, given her current political goals. It shows either a lack of understanding of the USAP’s purpose, or – more likely – a willingness to subvert the process to ensure that the end result meets the needs of a small but vocal minority, rather than those of the neighborhood (and not just their boards) and the city as a whole.
The Shoreland Overlay District itself offers the City plenty of flexibility. While it does limit the height of buildings near the water, it also gives the City the opportunity to provide conditional-use permits to taller projects. The USAP, too, is not set in stone. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a useful or worthwhile document. It is, again, not a formal zoning document.
The rigid positions of Lara Norkus-Crampton, Robert Kean, and other NIMBY-types such as Aaron Rubenstein (CARAG board president) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all, or even most, Uptown residents and business owners. I, too, want new developments in Uptown to be carefully considered and to meet the needs of the neighborhood. In this case, maybe a mid-height building, done well, would be just the ticket for that particular location. If approved, it doesn’t mean the end of the Uptown Small Area Plan or its goals. It just means that the plan worked. It will have provided a framework for discussion, and if the project is indeed approved it will have been done so only after careful consideration of how this specific site and this specific project fit into the larger picture. Yes, it could be devastating if this balloons into a huge controversy that leads some to decry the ruin of the USAP. But it's a two-way street, and just as developers should be willing to listen to the neighbors, so must the neighbors be willing to listen to the developers. In the end it's the open communication that matters, and it's open communication that's really at risk when the threats start flying.
ECCO board member Robert Kean has a recent opinion piece on the issue, published in the March issue of the Uptown Neighborhood News. He frames the Lake and Knox building issue in terms of the Uptown Small Area Plan, an argument that on the surface makes a lot of sense. In short, he says that the USAP was created so that the community did not need to constantly fight the same battles over and over, and that the USAP would serve as a “guiding rule for Uptown development.” He warns his readers that the USAP will be “rendered pointless” if the height suggestions are not enforced – pretty potent stuff.
Similarly, Ward 10 City Council candidate Lara Norkus-Crampton, an active member of the USAP process and now a Minneapolis Planning Commissioner (and a dedicated opponent to height at all costs), seems to take a similar stance on her campaign website. She states emphatically that “together, neighborhoods working with their partners in City Hall can make sure that two years of work on the Uptown Small Area Plan and the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan are fully and consistently implemented with every development proposal, every time.” (emphasis mine)
The problem? The USAP is not a zoning document. It offers suggestions, and presumably carries some weight with the Planning Commission and other government bodies, but it does not mandate that every project within Uptown must conform to its standards. Councilmember Ralph Remington understands this; he recently reminded Southwest Journal readers that the plan “has built in flexibility,” and that “if the plan were rigid and finite, it would never have been approved.” Norkus-Crampton’s comments are particularly concerning, given her current political goals. It shows either a lack of understanding of the USAP’s purpose, or – more likely – a willingness to subvert the process to ensure that the end result meets the needs of a small but vocal minority, rather than those of the neighborhood (and not just their boards) and the city as a whole.
The Shoreland Overlay District itself offers the City plenty of flexibility. While it does limit the height of buildings near the water, it also gives the City the opportunity to provide conditional-use permits to taller projects. The USAP, too, is not set in stone. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a useful or worthwhile document. It is, again, not a formal zoning document.
The rigid positions of Lara Norkus-Crampton, Robert Kean, and other NIMBY-types such as Aaron Rubenstein (CARAG board president) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all, or even most, Uptown residents and business owners. I, too, want new developments in Uptown to be carefully considered and to meet the needs of the neighborhood. In this case, maybe a mid-height building, done well, would be just the ticket for that particular location. If approved, it doesn’t mean the end of the Uptown Small Area Plan or its goals. It just means that the plan worked. It will have provided a framework for discussion, and if the project is indeed approved it will have been done so only after careful consideration of how this specific site and this specific project fit into the larger picture. Yes, it could be devastating if this balloons into a huge controversy that leads some to decry the ruin of the USAP. But it's a two-way street, and just as developers should be willing to listen to the neighbors, so must the neighbors be willing to listen to the developers. In the end it's the open communication that matters, and it's open communication that's really at risk when the threats start flying.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Remember When Uptown Was "Bad"?
Remember back when people were scared to visit Uptown? When it was seedy and scary and "bad?" When people with kids moved away to "safer" neighborhoods? No? Well, I don't either, and I've been around more than a couple of decades.
This is a common enough refrain, though. I suppose each person has his or her own definition of what makes a neighborhood "bad." Still, despite occasional pockets of crime or problem houses, the main Uptown neighborhoods - CARAG, the Wedge, East Isles, and ECCO - have never been considered scary places to live or visit. Well, maybe they were by some people, but those people probably think everyone in city limits packs heat anyway.
So who is saying this and why do they continue to do so? A 2006 Uptown Neighborhood News profile of ECCO board member Tim Prinsen, a "born and bred" Minnesotan who moved to Uptown in 2001, remembers the '90s as a time when "people used to be nervous about coming into Uptown." While that is undoubtedly true, I think it's also fair to say that many of those people were basing their fear not on facts, but on misperceptions. And, unfortunately, perceptions take on the mantle of reality, especially when it comes to city neighborhoods. I doubt that many people actually living in Uptown at the time considered it to be scary or dangerous.
Although I don't fault Prinsen for that statement (yes, some people were nervous about Uptown although unjustifably so), I don't agree with him on his next point: "Tim remembers a time when young couples would move to the area, but once they had children they would move out. Tim and his wife are an example of how that is no longer the case."
I was born in Uptown. I grew up in Uptown, as did many other kids on my block, in my neighborhood, and at my school. If anything, Prinsen has it backwards. Young couples used to come to Uptown because they could afford to raise a family here. In more recent years young couples with children are moving away, not because they don't want to raise their kids here, but because they can't afford to buy a home in the neighborhood. I think it's wonderful that he and his family are able to live here, and hope that more families will have the opportunity to follow in their footsteps. An integrated community filled with people from all stages of life will make this a better place for all of us.
It would be one thing if this was just one isolated example of a reference to Uptown's scary past, but the revisionist history of Uptown's bad years is still around. Take Lara Norkus-Crampton's recent comments to the Southwest Journal, for example. I've discussed it in prior posts, but it bears repeating. "This area wasn't always seen as such a perfect place," attests Norkus-Crampton, There were parts of Uptown considered borderline." Norkus-Crampton is an ECCO resident and, unfortunately, a Minneapolis Planning Commissioner (as well as a newly-announced Ward 10 City Council candidate). I don't know what her definition of "borderline" is, but her comments only reinforce my impression that she is either unaware of Uptown's true history, or, possibly, finds the very attributes that made Uptown so popular to so many people - the "weird" and the artsy, the economically, age, and racially diverse, people who work blue collar jobs - to be uncomfortable.
In Lara Norkus-Crampton and other's defense, I suppose, I should note that Uptown in the 1960s and 1970s had its issues. It was, in fact, a very controversial designation of Hennepin and Lake as "blighted" that paved the way for the creation of Calhoun Square. Maybe Norkus-Crampton is talking about this era, although to many people Uptown wasn't "borderline" even then, it was just dumpier and and not as yuppified. What I just can't understand, as much as I think about it, is how anyone can make an argument that Uptown of the late '80s into the '90s was somehow a dangerous or even borderline neighborhood.
I'm tired of revisionist history. Uptown has had its ups and downs, but there's no point in highlighting a "bad" or "borderline" past that just doesn't exist. Why, then, do people insist on perpetuating this myth? Perhaps they like to envision themselves as urban cowboys, living in a tough neighborhood, turning it around through the toils of their labor. Or perhaps they just think living in a neighborhood without a North Face was really slumming it.
This is a common enough refrain, though. I suppose each person has his or her own definition of what makes a neighborhood "bad." Still, despite occasional pockets of crime or problem houses, the main Uptown neighborhoods - CARAG, the Wedge, East Isles, and ECCO - have never been considered scary places to live or visit. Well, maybe they were by some people, but those people probably think everyone in city limits packs heat anyway.
So who is saying this and why do they continue to do so? A 2006 Uptown Neighborhood News profile of ECCO board member Tim Prinsen, a "born and bred" Minnesotan who moved to Uptown in 2001, remembers the '90s as a time when "people used to be nervous about coming into Uptown." While that is undoubtedly true, I think it's also fair to say that many of those people were basing their fear not on facts, but on misperceptions. And, unfortunately, perceptions take on the mantle of reality, especially when it comes to city neighborhoods. I doubt that many people actually living in Uptown at the time considered it to be scary or dangerous.
Although I don't fault Prinsen for that statement (yes, some people were nervous about Uptown although unjustifably so), I don't agree with him on his next point: "Tim remembers a time when young couples would move to the area, but once they had children they would move out. Tim and his wife are an example of how that is no longer the case."
I was born in Uptown. I grew up in Uptown, as did many other kids on my block, in my neighborhood, and at my school. If anything, Prinsen has it backwards. Young couples used to come to Uptown because they could afford to raise a family here. In more recent years young couples with children are moving away, not because they don't want to raise their kids here, but because they can't afford to buy a home in the neighborhood. I think it's wonderful that he and his family are able to live here, and hope that more families will have the opportunity to follow in their footsteps. An integrated community filled with people from all stages of life will make this a better place for all of us.
It would be one thing if this was just one isolated example of a reference to Uptown's scary past, but the revisionist history of Uptown's bad years is still around. Take Lara Norkus-Crampton's recent comments to the Southwest Journal, for example. I've discussed it in prior posts, but it bears repeating. "This area wasn't always seen as such a perfect place," attests Norkus-Crampton, There were parts of Uptown considered borderline." Norkus-Crampton is an ECCO resident and, unfortunately, a Minneapolis Planning Commissioner (as well as a newly-announced Ward 10 City Council candidate). I don't know what her definition of "borderline" is, but her comments only reinforce my impression that she is either unaware of Uptown's true history, or, possibly, finds the very attributes that made Uptown so popular to so many people - the "weird" and the artsy, the economically, age, and racially diverse, people who work blue collar jobs - to be uncomfortable.
In Lara Norkus-Crampton and other's defense, I suppose, I should note that Uptown in the 1960s and 1970s had its issues. It was, in fact, a very controversial designation of Hennepin and Lake as "blighted" that paved the way for the creation of Calhoun Square. Maybe Norkus-Crampton is talking about this era, although to many people Uptown wasn't "borderline" even then, it was just dumpier and and not as yuppified. What I just can't understand, as much as I think about it, is how anyone can make an argument that Uptown of the late '80s into the '90s was somehow a dangerous or even borderline neighborhood.
I'm tired of revisionist history. Uptown has had its ups and downs, but there's no point in highlighting a "bad" or "borderline" past that just doesn't exist. Why, then, do people insist on perpetuating this myth? Perhaps they like to envision themselves as urban cowboys, living in a tough neighborhood, turning it around through the toils of their labor. Or perhaps they just think living in a neighborhood without a North Face was really slumming it.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The Sky is Falling! (Or is It Just Hidden?)
In the spirit of revisiting longstanding disputes, let's take a moment to consider the issue of height in Uptown. Or, more specifically, to address the idea that somehow Uptown's sky is under constant threat of disappearing behind a wall of skyscrapers if it were not for the ongoing neighborhood vigilance.
You may remember a few years ago when a small but vocal group of angry Uptown residents rose up in anger about the proposed Mozaic development on Lagoon and Girard. The building, originally designed to be 13 stories high, had a twisted shape designed to minimize its shadow or impact on other buildings. The location, too, was tucked behind the Lagoon Theater and the Midtown Greenway; it was not exactly towering over local homes.
The problem? Uptown residents - even those living five or more blocks away - were afraid that they wouldn't be able to "see the sky." The building's design became a flashpoint for that year's City Council race.
The great irony of this controversy seems to be that the building was designed in a way to minimize excess bulk and to best preserve views. While not completely up on all of the details of the way the project evolved, my understanding is that the current, approved version is a shorter, squatter design. And again, this building is in the center of the commercial core of Uptown - it is NOT sitting in a residential block or on the edge of Lake Calhoun. It's negative visual impact would be minimal, and to some it would have even served as a welcome addition to Uptown's built environment.
To Norkus-Crampton and her fellow neighborhood activists, however, this fight was about one thing: height. The trend unfortunately seems to have continued. What they fail to realize, or perhaps just simply disregard, is that height is one aspect of many when it comes to good urban design. Unfortunately these sky-is-falling types have focused all of their attention on one element of Uptown life at the expense of the bigger picture. With luck the Uptown Small Area Plan, hashed out after 18 months of meetings, will provide some relief on the height/development argument front, and will allow this upcoming Ward 10 City Council race to move on to other, pressing concerns.
Norkus-Crampton is far from the only Uptowner worried that tall buildings anywhere in the vicinity will slowly but surely destroy the neighborhood. She is, however, arguably the most successful: she was nominated in 2006 by Major Rybak (and subsequently approved) to serve on the City's Planning Commission (noticeably missing from the new Commission was veteran Judith Martin, former Commission President, University President, and all-around urban planning guru. -Seriously, Norkus-Crampton over Martin?!?). I have nothing against Norkus-Crampton personally; I'm sure she's a friendly and an intelligent person and I know that she loves the neighborhood and the city. But her sky-is-falling comments about Uptown's presumably one-slip-up-from-Manhattan skyline and her ongoing concern about "overdevelopment" in Uptown show that she has a massively different opinion on the subject than do the majority of other, quieter, city-loving residents. Unfortunately she and the other loud anti-development types have an inordinate clout when it comes to presenting the public face of the neighborhood's hopes and desires.
You may remember a few years ago when a small but vocal group of angry Uptown residents rose up in anger about the proposed Mozaic development on Lagoon and Girard. The building, originally designed to be 13 stories high, had a twisted shape designed to minimize its shadow or impact on other buildings. The location, too, was tucked behind the Lagoon Theater and the Midtown Greenway; it was not exactly towering over local homes.
The problem? Uptown residents - even those living five or more blocks away - were afraid that they wouldn't be able to "see the sky." The building's design became a flashpoint for that year's City Council race.
"I like to be able to see the sky."
-Lara Norkus-Crampton, ECCO resident and
current Minneapolis Planning Commissioner
The great irony of this controversy seems to be that the building was designed in a way to minimize excess bulk and to best preserve views. While not completely up on all of the details of the way the project evolved, my understanding is that the current, approved version is a shorter, squatter design. And again, this building is in the center of the commercial core of Uptown - it is NOT sitting in a residential block or on the edge of Lake Calhoun. It's negative visual impact would be minimal, and to some it would have even served as a welcome addition to Uptown's built environment.
To Norkus-Crampton and her fellow neighborhood activists, however, this fight was about one thing: height. The trend unfortunately seems to have continued. What they fail to realize, or perhaps just simply disregard, is that height is one aspect of many when it comes to good urban design. Unfortunately these sky-is-falling types have focused all of their attention on one element of Uptown life at the expense of the bigger picture. With luck the Uptown Small Area Plan, hashed out after 18 months of meetings, will provide some relief on the height/development argument front, and will allow this upcoming Ward 10 City Council race to move on to other, pressing concerns.
Norkus-Crampton is far from the only Uptowner worried that tall buildings anywhere in the vicinity will slowly but surely destroy the neighborhood. She is, however, arguably the most successful: she was nominated in 2006 by Major Rybak (and subsequently approved) to serve on the City's Planning Commission (noticeably missing from the new Commission was veteran Judith Martin, former Commission President, University President, and all-around urban planning guru. -Seriously, Norkus-Crampton over Martin?!?). I have nothing against Norkus-Crampton personally; I'm sure she's a friendly and an intelligent person and I know that she loves the neighborhood and the city. But her sky-is-falling comments about Uptown's presumably one-slip-up-from-Manhattan skyline and her ongoing concern about "overdevelopment" in Uptown show that she has a massively different opinion on the subject than do the majority of other, quieter, city-loving residents. Unfortunately she and the other loud anti-development types have an inordinate clout when it comes to presenting the public face of the neighborhood's hopes and desires.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Who ARE These People, and Why Do They Live Here?!?
I've been spending more time combing through the Uptown Small Area Plan - both the main document and its appendices. The USAP is a must-read for anyone interested in Uptown. You, like me, might wish you had had the opportunity to fully participate in the formation of the plan, but that doesn't mean that the future of Uptown is a done deal. It's never too late to get involved, or too late to have your voice heard.
OK, enough with the lecture. Let's move on to some of the most intriguing elements of the USAP: the meeting summaries in the appendix. Specifically, to a November night back in 2006. Yes, that's more than two years ago, but most of the same people are still around, and as I've said before, I bet most of them have the same opinions now as they did then. Before getting into the meat of my complaints (expressions of amazement?) let me first acknowledge that diversity of opinion can be a great thing. I think it's wonderful that so many residents and stakeholders came out to express their vision for the future. That said, there's some scary opinions in there - and I think it's an even scarier thing that these viewpoints are most likely held by a small but vocal (and influential) minority.
On November 8 and 8, 2006, approximately 160 people came together to lay out their vision for Uptown. They gathered in groups of five to eight people and together dreamed about the future. They then shared their visions with the group, and through the finalized Uptown Small Area Plan's appendices, to the rest of us.
The Question: What do you want Uptown to look like and feel like in the future?
The Answers: I agree with most of the answers. I won't go into details here (read it for yourself online), but generally people wanted a mix of business and residential offerings, good transportation, green space, a diversity (in all senses of the word), and a sense of distinct place. Some people, however, had some more extreme views. Some of the highlights:
OK, enough with the lecture. Let's move on to some of the most intriguing elements of the USAP: the meeting summaries in the appendix. Specifically, to a November night back in 2006. Yes, that's more than two years ago, but most of the same people are still around, and as I've said before, I bet most of them have the same opinions now as they did then. Before getting into the meat of my complaints (expressions of amazement?) let me first acknowledge that diversity of opinion can be a great thing. I think it's wonderful that so many residents and stakeholders came out to express their vision for the future. That said, there's some scary opinions in there - and I think it's an even scarier thing that these viewpoints are most likely held by a small but vocal (and influential) minority.
On November 8 and 8, 2006, approximately 160 people came together to lay out their vision for Uptown. They gathered in groups of five to eight people and together dreamed about the future. They then shared their visions with the group, and through the finalized Uptown Small Area Plan's appendices, to the rest of us.
The Question: What do you want Uptown to look like and feel like in the future?
The Answers: I agree with most of the answers. I won't go into details here (read it for yourself online), but generally people wanted a mix of business and residential offerings, good transportation, green space, a diversity (in all senses of the word), and a sense of distinct place. Some people, however, had some more extreme views. Some of the highlights:
No LRT station in Uptown.
What? Who in their right mind would prefer there NOT to be a light rail station in Uptown? They would prefer to leave Uptown out of the greater long-term train transit grid that will - one hopes - once again cross the city? This wasn't just one group, either; several groups expressed this hope. I think some of these people have some romantic notion of streetcars connecting Uptown with other transit points. I doubt that these residents actually take public transportation themselves. I can't imagine an actual Minneapolis transit rider based in Uptown actually preferring to decrease their public transportation options. I'll have to post more on this later, but in the meantime let me just say that Uptowners need to unite and make one last push to ensure that the next LRT line comes through Uptown.
Dinner and movie destinations close up at midnight on the weekend and 10 pm on weeknights.
Who are these people? Why do they live here? There are many other nice options in town, many of them also in close proximity to the lakes. I certainly don't want an environment where people drink too much, drive drunk through the streets, drunkenly sing as they stagger their way home, or otherwise cause a public nuisance, but this idea that dinner and movies should close up early is crazy. Bonkers. Bad for the neighborhood. I can't imagine that there are more than a few people in Uptown who feel like this, but unfortunately their participation in this exercise probably gives them a greater statistical importance than they deserve. What's next, a ban on dancing?
Uptown is a place that Linden Hills is envious of. [sic]
Ha, I knew it. Proof that there are people in Uptown who would prefer that their supposedly beloved, "unique" neighborhood turn into another Linden Hills. Linden Hills is a wonderful neighborhood. It offers a great deal to its residents and to visitors. It is, in short, an all-around fabulous place to live. So why don't these Uptown residents choose to live there? I certainly don't follow the "if you don't like it you can just leave" model of neighborhood planning; everyone has a right to his or her opinion about where they live, and can and should work to make their visions a reality. But that still doesn't explain why someone would purchase a home in Uptown - knowing full well that Uptown is a busier, louder, more urban kind of neighborhood - and then complain about it.
Linden Hills is not better or worse than Uptown, and Uptown is not better or worse than Linden Hills. The two neighborhoods offer different amenities and lifestyles. They each have their pluses and minuses. Uptown has no reason to be envious of Linden Hills, and I don't know why Linden Hills would ever be envious of Uptown. These are two complementary neighborhoods that, taken together, offer Minneapolis residents (well, those who can afford it - which I have feeling the Uptown complainers probably can) two distinct lifestyle and housing options.
I agree with those who argue that one of Uptown's problems is that local government - in this case the neighborhood boards - do not fully represent the population as a whole. These boards are dominated by older, white homeowners. Certainly many of them do share the interests and opinions of many of their constituents. But others don't. I believe that the boards would be more than willing to open their ranks to those who don't the standard profile. It's not an instance of intentional freezing out of the masses. That doesn't make it any less of a problem, though. It's therefore up to all of us to speak out, become involved whenever possible, and let it be known that most Uptowners moved here because they like Uptown. They like urban neighborhoods. They like public transportation. They like being able to meet up with friends or family for dinner, a movie, even maybe a cocktail (!).
Join your neighborhood board, or at least attend meetings. Read the local papers. Send letters and emails to local politicians. Talk to your friends. Follow the upcoming city council races and demand answers from the candidates. Invite Lara Norkus-Crampton out for a late night beer to discuss planning issues. Uptown is for everyone, and it's time that the silent majority rises up to make their voices heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)