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.

A Sign of the Times: Lowry Hill East's Neighborhood Sign Project

Above: A Lowry Hill East (the Wedge) sign on Hennepin Avenue

Neighborhood signs seem to be a big deal in the community-building world. The general concept seems to be that they help build a shared sense of community, establish a sense of boundaries, create a sense of place, and generally contribute to a better neighborhood and a nicer place to work and live. To this end, cities and neighborhoods across the country have been hard at work creating sign programs, often fully funded through public or private grant money. Minneapolis is no exception; most neighborhoods have a smattering of signs around their edges, in some cases multiple sign designs dating from different eras. In CARAG, for example, I’ve seen both those older orange goose signs, as well as the newer cartoon version; the modern CARAG sign is not bad for what it is, but admittedly not to my taste – I much prefer something more elegant and streamlined. And that brings me to the topic of this particular post: the Wedge (LHENA) and its NRP-funded signage program.

The Wedge’s original NRP plan designated $15,000 in funds to “utilize neighborhood artists and their skills to create new signs for the neighborhood.” Artist Linda Strand Koutsky (coauthor of a wonderful series of illustrated books related to Minnesota popular culture, including restaurants and the State Fair) was selected to design and create the signs. She served as a visiting artist at Jefferson School, where she helped lead the students in creating graphic icons representing various elements of neighborhood life. She then took the student’s work, “refined” it, and designed and created the final product. The signs themselves were installed throughout the neighborhood, with the strongest concentration along the boundaries of Hennepin, Lyndale, and Lake. The NRP Phase I evaluation cites the project as a success, although does note that there have been difficulties with maintenance – presumably keeping the signs clear of graffiti, stickers, and other acts of vandalism.

I’m a strong supporter of nearly anything that can be seen as building a feeling of community and promoting a sense of place, so my conflicted feelings about these (and other) signs leave me feeling a little guilty. But ultimately, I have to wonder: are these signs really worth the money and the time? Was this project truly a success? Some thoughts on the project:

The signs are attractive.

I give the Wedge – and Linda Strand Koutsky and the Jefferson students – kudos for the final design. They are by far the most attractive of the Uptown neighborhood signs. I like the simple lines, the use of color, and, especially, the elegant choice of cutout graphic icons. I also enjoy the fact that not all signs are the same; seeing the different designs makes each one special and more interesting than they would be if all identical. I have no problems with the design itself, and wish all neighborhood signs were as attractive.

The use of “Lowry Hill East” could be confusing.

The Wedge has a more complicated name issue than do the other Uptown-area neighborhoods. It’s commonly referred to as the Wedge, many people simply call it “Uptown,” and the official neighborhood organization is the Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association, or LHENA. Yes, I suppose some people know the neighborhood as Lowry Hill East, but I would guess that the vast majority of people do not. Does the Wedge want to be known as Lowry Hill East? If there was a concentrated effort to change the unofficial name then that would change things, but assuming that they don’t, I do wonder if the signs sometimes cause unnecessary confusion.

Neighborhood signs can contribute to sign pollution.

Yes, this is a nice sign. And yes, everyone else does it, too. But given that Minneapolis’s official neighborhood boundaries are often located along busy streets (in this case Hennepin, Lyndale, and Lake) pedestrians get bombarded with a streetscape filled with signs of all types. The visual clutter means that these signs don’t get the attention that they deserve. One alternative would be to move this type of signage into the neighborhoods themselves, posting them along quieter residential streets instead of along busy border streets; they wouldn’t designate the boundaries of the neighborhood, but I think they might gain more community-building power through the quieter viewing area. They would no longer announce that you were entering a neighborhood, but would serve the equally valuable function (and more effectively, at that) of reminding residents and visitors that they are within (and not at the edge of) the Wedge neighborhood.

Is this project really worth nearly $15,000?

I don’t know if the signage value itself – especially when used primarily on the edges of the neighborhood, and on extremely busy streets – is worth the high cost. On the other hand, this could be considered the support of a local artist and our local school. As a community-enhancing visual arts project linking school with neighborhood, well, maybe it was worth the money.

I realize that topics like this are pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but the little things really add up. The details of neighborhood life can make a large impact on quality of life, and it behooves us all to take the time to carefully consider the world around us, and to contemplate what works, what doesn’t, and what we can do in the future to make Uptown (and its individual neighborhoods) the best place possible to live, visit, and work.

Granny Flats: Coming to an Alley Near You?

Adding density to Uptown is vital if the neighborhood wants to support the kind of walkable, urban lifestyle that so many residents desire. That doesn’t mean we need to line the streets with high-rise apartments, or tear down single-family homes to clear space for multifamily residences. A balance can, and should, be struck between the neighborhood’s traditional “character” (and I’m talking OVERALL character, not just height) and the need to provide more housing for more people.

I particularly like the idea of “granny” or “alley” flats (also called “accessory dwelling units,” or ADUs). These are smaller residences found in the backyards of homes. Some parts of Minneapolis, particularly the big mansions with surviving carriage houses, still have these. For the most part, though, the only structure found in most Uptown backyards is a garage.

Alley flats have a lot of benefits:

• These units tend to be smaller, providing housing options for single people (including the “granny” looking to downsize to smaller digs) who don’t want or need to live in a big place.


• The smaller size often also translates to cheaper rent, broadening at least the possibility of affordable (or semi-affordable) housing in the neighborhood.


• The property owners – who often live in the main, front house – get some extra income to help pay their mortgage. This would assist larger families who would prefer to live in a house, but have a hard time paying an Uptown-sized mortgage.


• We’ve all heard about the importance of “eyes on the street” in preventing crime; this would bring more eyes and ears to Uptown’s alleys.


• Alley flats increase a neighborhood’s density without significantly altering its outwards appearance.
  

There are some potential negatives, too:

• Increased density is going to impact parking. More people probably translates into more cars, although ideally it also means the population necessary to support a greater variety of daily essentials in the neighborhood, as well as increased access to both public transportation as well as car share programs – thereby making it easier for individuals and families to live a car-free life, or at least reduce the number of cars needed per household.


• Increased density means more people, which could mean more noise, more traffic, more garbage, and possibly decreased green space. These issues could be alleviated with good planning, and are counteracted by the positives associated with increased appropriate density in Uptown.
  

Although these types of housing have always been popular in some parts of the country, communities sometimes see them as a negative. That’s been changing in recent years, as more and more cities and towns (including some wealthy enclaves filled with even more NIMBYs than Uptown) face the need for increasing density and housing options, and as baby boomers start to age, retire, and consider the benefits of moving to a smaller space.

Minneapolis has embraced the concept of alternative accessory dwellings in some of the neighborhoods along the Hiawatha Light Rail line, as well as in several other overlay districts throughout the city (North Phillips/Ventura Village, for example). While not necessarily allowed in Uptown, they are supported by many area residents. And while the Uptown Small Area Plan does not specifically address granny flats, the CARAG Master Plan does – a positive sign, as CARAG in particular is a hotbed of anti-development activists. I’m hoping that this means that granny flats and ADUs are something that we can all get behind. I called the City to get some more information on the current situation, and was reminded that although a specific residence may not currently meet current zoning requirements for a granny flat it is possible to be granted a variance. I hope that the City code will continue to be tweaked to make it easier for these types of residences to be built; perhaps this will be spurred along if Uptown gets its LRT line. I’m not in the market to construct a granny flat anytime soon, but the possibility is intriguing, and it will certainly be something I at least ask about when I start the process of purchasing an Uptown-area home.

Should Neighborhood Activists Be Required to Take Logic 101?

Combing through old neighborhood board minutes, newspaper articles, and other documents, one thing is crystal clear: there are a lot of people in Uptown who are, to put it nicely, not taking the time to think things through.

I'd like to give them some credit. Newspapers, minutes, and other written documents don't always give the full story. Things are edited, taken out of context, and can otherwise distort otherwise logical questions. (Remember that scene in My Cousin Vinnie? The one where "I shot the clerk?!?!" became "I shot the clerk" in the courtroom?)

That said, here's another bit from the annals of recent Uptown history. I can't get over this height stuff. I agree that Uptown isn't downtown, but don't think a few tall buildings - done appropriately and in the right context - are going to send the neighborhood free falling into darkness, either. Apparently that opinion is not shared by many of those holding neighborhood board positions.

So, with no additional fanfare, here's some tidbits taken from the reactions to the 2007 unveiling of the as-then still uncompleted Uptown Small Area Plan:

Howard Verson, CARAG President and therefore someone with neighborhood clout, was wearing his height-colored glasses. "Has there been enough discussion about height and character?" he asked in the Uptown Neighborhood News. Um, yes, Mr. Verson, just the MILLION comments that you and the other "height=character" folks have brought up again and again over the years.

Verson then went on to share his logic with the readers of the Uptown Neighborhood News. Verson, no surprise, "doesn't buy" the "concept of taller buildings on a retail basis": "He [Verson] cited Laurel Village, on Hennepin between downtown and Loring Park, as having a poor retail environment and a dead street zone/life. He also noted that the Village Green apartment/retail projects on Lake Street at Aldrich and at Fremont have had a very limited retail success." (Uptown Neighborhood News, June 2007)

So the logic here, broken down, seems to be as follows:

Laurel Village is (sort of) tall.

Laurel Village is boring and has no street life.

Therefore, tall buildings mean a boring, dead street life.

and

Village Green is (sort of) tall.

Village Green has had limited retail success.

Therefore, tall buildings have limited retail success.

Am I missing something? It's admittedly been awhile since I took a logic class. Apparently it's been a few years for Verson, too. If he was in my class, though, those theorems wouldn't pass muster.

Height is but one factor of many in the larger picture of what makes up a successful neighborhood environment. Height should absolutely be factored into any discussion of a new development and its impact on the street, on the block, and on the neighborhood. But it's illogical to write off tall buildings simply because they are tall, or to place Laurel Village's problems on height alone. By focusing so narrowly on one aspect these neighborhood activists - who do, like all of us, want a nice, livable neighborhood (even if we sometimes have different definitions) - run the risk of missing the bigger picture. Or, as the saying goes, of not seeing the forest through the trees. Or of not seeing the vibrant, attractive, interesting neighborhood through the building height.

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:

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.

Uptown's "Clash of Cultures"

I've been going over the Uptown Small Area Plan, a wonderful and comprehensive document produced after many, many hours of meetings, discussions, interviews, research, and a lot of compromises. While the planning process took place a few years ago, the information is still relevant. What's more, the conflicts and opinions expressed are undoubtedly still bubbling away under the surface. One issue in particular struck me while reading the appendices. During the September 11, 2007 meeting, several unnamed committee members brought up what they called a "clash of cultures" in the neighborhood, pitting those "drawn to Uptown because of its entertainment options" against those who "view it as a traditional neighborhood." Thank goodness several committee members pointed out the common sense view that "Uptown can be both."

This "clash of cultures" remains one of the primary issues facing the neighborhood. I have a feeling that if we pulled together a similar group of people today this issue would still be raised. It is, at the heart of it, two ideologically different views of what Uptown has been, and what it could and should be in the future. I have some strong opinions on the matter myself:

The "clash of cultures" should be redefined. While I agree that there are people who are drawn to Uptown because of its nightlife, I heartily reject the notion that these same people cannot appreciate a "traditional neighborhood." I would redraw the two camps between "people who prefer a quiet, less-traditionally urban neighborhood" and "people who want a city neighborhood with all of the associated amenities."

What the heck does "traditional" mean? Who are these people who think that bars, nightclubs, and other "entertainment" options can't have a place in a traditional neighborhood? "Traditional" is purely subjective. And, in the case of Uptown, it's often misused to suggest a mythical past in which the neighborhood was quiet and went to sleep at 7:00 pm. The reality was much richer and more interesting. Uptown of the past offered plentiful evening entertainment options (for both residents and visitors alike) as well as a wide array of daytime offerings like shops, offices, schools, and basic services and amenities.

Uptown residents should be able to enjoy a night out without getting on the bus or in the car. Well-managed nightlife can benefit residents, too. It brings business to the neighborhood, gives local residents some local nightlife options, and keeps people out on the streets at night. The trick is in getting the balance right: Uptown doesn't want drunks puking in yards, revelers singing in the streets in the early morning, or entertainment-focused businesses to push out other daytime retail and service businesses. If done right, Uptowners can walk to the store and the pharmacy during the daytime, then meet up with friends for a drink later that night.

The Traditionalists are anything but traditional. Their vision of traditional is not a good fit for Uptown. Uptown is - and has been - an urban city neighborhood. Minneapolis has many other wonderful options for quieter neighborhoods with nice neighborhood coffee shops and plentiful parking. Linden Hills and Kenwood both come to mind. Uptown used to be a vibrant, around-the-clock kind of place; why not revitalize it back to its former glory rather than shoehorn it into something that doesn't fit?

I grew up watching Sesame Street, reading Jane Jacobs, and visiting cities around the United States and the world. My ideal urban neighborhood has a full range of business and residential offerings. In other words, I want what I consider to be a "traditional" city neighborhood, one that offers something for everyone and manages to blend it all together to serve residents of all ages and backgrounds. The Traditionalists are the ones who are also most likely to start talking about Uptown's "character" and "uniqueness" - why not truly live up to those standards and not try to turn Uptown into another Linden Hills? Many of us want and deserve a safe and vibrant, and dare I say, traditional, urban neighborhood that - gasp - includes some nightlife. It's time for those of us who support this vision (one that is supported by Uptown's history) to stand up and let our voices be heard.