Has ECCO Crossed the Line?

The controversy over the proposed Lake and Knox development has taken the Uptown area by storm. As one would expect, the NIMBY-dominated neighborhood organizations have banded together to protest the recent Minneapolis Planning Commission ruling in favor of the development. If nothing else, recent neighborhood board activities highlight the dysfunctional nature of these organizations, and the need for real and substantial change in either the role or the implementation of neighborhood board activities. The recent allegations over ECCO’s recent activities are a good case study.

First, some background. The ECCO board previously voted to oppose the project due to concerns about height. It was not a unanimous decision, and several recent debates (including several letters and commentaries in the Uptown Neighborhood News) have led to heightened tensions at the board level. A difference in opinion in itself is not a bad thing; neighborhood residents seldom share the same view on something, and it’s only reasonable that the board members would also have differing ideas.

Fast forward to July. The Planning Commission met, approved the project, Lara Norkus-Crampton resigned in protest, and the NIMBYs rose up to declare the Uptown Small Area Plan (USAP) dead. The neighborhood boards and nine individuals are appealing the decision. This, however, is where things in ECCO get complicated and possibly cross both ethical and legal lines. Nancy Ward, ECCO’s board president, sent an email to ECCO board members asking if they would support an appeal, and, if so, would they be willing to contribute ECCO funds to do so. (I should note right here that I am not on the ECCO board, have never been on the ECCO board, and have not seen the email in question. If someone has the text and understands the situation differently, feel free to add your comments below.) It was not couched as a formal vote, and was never formally debated, discussed, or approved. A slim majority of respondents were favorable to the appeal, and the board (or at least a few members of the board) moved forward.

Assuming the allegations are true, this should be taken seriously by both the city and the neighborhood. ECCO is a nonprofit organization, and as such is expected to abide by certain laws and regulations. There is no excuse for ignoring legal obligations or for failing to follow the organization’s own bylaws. The bylaws, for example, state that “any action that may be taken at a meeting of directors may be taken without a meeting if authorized in writing and signed by all the directors.” An informal email poll hardly qualifies. The bylaws also clearly state “only the ECCO board of directors may make a binding commitment for the ECCO area.” An informal, non-binding email non-vote is clearly not sufficient.

There are many problems at play here. Local neighborhood boards are grassroots politics at the micro-level. ECCO’s own bylaws also state that one of their objectives is to “act as a spokesperson for the ECCO neighborhood before city boards, commissions, etc. and as otherwise needed.” If the ECCO board is going to assume that responsibility, and if the city and state are going to recognize it as speaking for the neighborhood, then it need to follow the rules.

I have little hope that the issues facing Uptown neighborhood boards will ever going to be fully fixed, but there are some potential actions that could help alleviate some of the problems. An open letter of suggestions for current and potential board members:

Take board membership seriously. A board is not just a social club or even a group of like-minded neighborhood activists meeting to discuss local issues. Boards have legal obligations, and as a director or trustee a member of the board it is your responsibility to know the law, as well as to read and understand (and follow!) your board’s bylaws. ECCO is a “duly authorized nonprofit organization under the laws of the State of Minnesota,” as ECCO’s own bylaws remind board members and residents. That status comes with rights and regulations. Board members – and especially officers – need to be conversant with their bylaws, and to fully understand just what they’re taking on when they join a board.

Board education is key. Obviously there are a lot of board members out there who quite possibly have never even read their own bylaws. Bylaws are boring. I understand that; I have plenty of personal experience both serving on boards, answering directly to boards, and attending board meetings as a non-voting participant. Still, every new board member should receive adequate orientation before assuming the mantle of “director” or “trustee.”

Boards shouldn’t ethically be allowed to speak as the “voice” of a neighborhood unless improvements are made. I don’t know about the legal issues involved, but if an Uptown-area board consists almost entirely of white, middle-class, middle-aged homeowners then I think it’s safe to say there are some potential problems. You can’t make people participate, and there’s no reason why a white, middle-class, middle-age homeowner can’t also take into account the potentially different needs of a young renter or an old renter subsisting on social security checks. Still, boards need to take a more active role when it comes to adding board diversity. A nominations committee should focus on outreach efforts, and the board as a whole should work to address the issue of lack of representation.

Board members are public officials, and need to be treated as such. If board members are going to assume representative powers then the residents – all residents (or eligible stakeholders) – in the neighborhood need to know just who these people are and where they stand on relevant issues. Realistically not all (or even many) residents are going to pay any attention to this, but neighborhood organizations could at the very least post candidate statements on websites prior to neighborhood elections, publish them (as paid advertisements, if necessary) in the relevant local neighborhood newspapers, and send them out via email.

Boards need to acknowledge their weaknesses. I’ve read and heard statements to the effect that if you don’t care enough to participate yourself, then you have no right to complain. I think this is hogwash. It is the boards’ duty to think about the needs of all residents, participants or not. It would be nice if everyone in the community could and wanted to participate in local issues, but that’s not the reality. That in no way means that the needs of non-participants do not matter. A good board acknowledges both its strengths and its weaknesses, and endeavors to consider the needs of the broader community.

Accountability is a good thing. Politics are obviously not perfect, and board members should be able to vote based on their conscience, not due to fears of political repercussions. But board members do need to be reminded that their decisions can have a significant impact on the development of the neighborhood. If, for example, a board member does something in his or her board capacity that is unethical or illegal or otherwise violates the public’s trust, then he or she needs to be held accountable for that action. Similarly, even if an action does not violate ethics – CARAG President Aaron Rubenstein’s comments in the Southwest Journal about the “very significant, long-term damage” to the Uptown Small Area Plan by the Planning Commission, for example – neighborhood residents should be aware of just what it is that their neighborhood representatives are saying on their behalf, and be prepared to boot those officials out of their board membership role if they decide that those opinions do not, in fact, represent the view of the neighborhood.

To bring this back to the situation in ECCO, it sounds like things are pretty seriously amiss if the allegations hold true. Bylaws and regulations aren’t perfect, but they are an attempt to protect people from potential misuse of power. In this particular case the NIMBYs are in the position of power; if the political makeup changes in the future and they represent a minority of board members then they, too, will appreciate why there are checks and balances in place to keep a few activists from making all of the important decisions. This is democracy at the micro-level, and it can only work if residents – and board members – take it seriously. If ECCO has indeed run amiss of ethics and the law then it’s time for a major shakeup, potentially a board recall, or at the very least some major internal soul-searching.

ECCO Thinks You're Stupid

The April 2009 ECCO Board meeting was more heated than normal. Not fist-fight heated, but pretty exciting by ECCO standards. Voices were raised. Words were had. So what happened to cause this group of mostly middle-aged and relatively mild-mannered Minnesotans to resort to, well, not violence, but a shouting match? Given that this is ECCO, I bet most of you can guess the root cause of the argument in one try - yep, development issues.

Kay Anderson, an ECCO resident (although not a current Board member) showed up at the meeting ready for action. The way things went down, as described in the ECCO minutes:

“Kay Anderson read a prepared statement regarding letters that appeared in the March and April issues of the UNN [Uptown Neighborhood News]. The March letter was written by Robert Kean, who was identified as an ECCO Board member. The April letter was written by Tim Prinsen who was identified as an ECCO Board member and chair of the Zoning committee. Kay was concerned that these letters would be perceived as an official statement of the board, and, as such, would represent a violation of the bylaws (since they were opinions of individuals, not the consensus of the board). After lengthy discussion, a motion was made and passed to hopefully resolve the issue. The motion states that when publically expressing personal opinions, current or former board or committee members should include a disclaimer clearly indicating that the statement represents their personal opinion and does not represent the position of the board.”

Both letters should definitely be on the reading list for anyone interested or concerned about current or future development issues. Kean’s letter appeared in the March Uptown Neighborhood News under the banner “Save the Uptown Small Area Plan,” and argued that the proposed Lake and Knox development was in violation of the USAP. Prinsen’s letter came the following month, running under the headline “Responsible Common Sense Development,” and was a direct response to the issues raised by Kean. Prinsen supports both the Knox development as well as the USAP-guided process, and disagreed with Kean’s conclusions – certain to get him in hot water with some of ECCO’s most vocal residents. The author descriptions, the ones that Kay Anderson and her friends thought were so confusing? “Robert Kean is on the ECCO Board and lives in ECCO” and “Tim Prinsen is a member of the ECCO Board, chairs the Zoning Committee, and lives in ECCO.”

I suppose that the headline of this post shouldn’t really be “ECCO Thinks You’re Stupid.” It would perhaps be more accurate, although not as pithy, to say “Some ECCO Residents and Board Members are Mad at Tim Prinsen Because he Dared to Suggest That Not EVERY ECCO Board Member Believes New Development is ALWAYS Inherently Evil.” Because really, that’s what happened here. Word on the street (I was, unfortunately, not able to attend the meeting itself) is that the real discussion at the meeting was not about the letters written by Kean and Prinsen; it was specifically about Prinsen and his letter.

I don’t have the exact wording of the new motion (note to all boards: good minutes always record the formal wording of the voted-upon motion, as well as record who voted for it and who voted against it), but based on the description I think it’s a ridiculous rule. ECCO Board members shouldn’t, of course, represent their personal opinions as that of the Board without Board approval. Besides the fact that it was the Uptown Neighborhood News that added the descriptions to the bottom of the letters, and not the authors themselves, there was nothing in either to suggest that the authors were expressing official ECCO Board opinions. A formal disclaimer is a waste of time and a waste of newspaper space. Most Uptown Neighborhood News readers aren’t stupid; they don’t need Kay Anderson’s burdensome regulations to help them identify formal ECCO stances versus the viewpoint of individual neighborhood residents who also happen to be on the ECCO Board.

Even more concerning, this motion attempts to force this new motion on former Board members. Presumably that means only future former members; anyone (including Kay Anderson) who has previously served as an ECCO Board member should be able to ignore the motion, as it didn’t apply to them while they were involved. ECCO might be within bounds to force this silly rule on current Board members, but is it really realistic to think that every ECCO Board member will have to slap this disclaimer on every neighborhood-related opinion piece or letter for the rest of his or her life?

I believe that this sort of public debate, meaning discussion in the form of publicly-available letters and writings accessible to all residents, not just those who can or want to attend meetings, can only be a good thing for the neighborhood. It’s important for residents, developers, politicians, and every other local stakeholder to realize that there is a diversity of opinions out there. Debate, as long as kept civil, could also encourage increased community involvement at the neighborhood level. It serves as a reminder that neighborhood Boards aren’t just casual social clubs, and that local residents, board members or not, can have an impact on decisions that will shape the future of the neighborhood. That’s powerful stuff, and should be encouraged, not stamped out.

I do believe, though, that board members should be recognized as such in their public statements; given that they are given power to vote on decisions impacting the neighborhood and that official Board resolutions carry some weight with the city it’s only fair that neighborhood residents know exactly who it is that they’re trusting to carry out this duty. That doesn’t mean that a formal disclaimer is needed every time someone expresses his or her opinion in public. The Uptown Neighborhood News’ author descriptions were sufficient. But then, of course, this motion isn’t really intended to clarify things for a presumed-stupid or easily confused public. It’s about trying to crack down on discussion and to punish an ECCO Board member who spoke his mind. Protest a new building, fine; write anything in opposition to the NIMBY crowd’s viewpoint, get yourself censured.

ECCO Board Member Speaks Out in Favor of Lake & Knox Development

Those of you interested in the proposed development at Lake and Knox, or about the ins and outs of the Uptown Small Area Plan and the Shoreland Overlay District, should check out ECCO resident and neighborhood board member Tim Prinsen's opinion piece ("Responsible Common Sense Development") in the April issue of the Uptown Neighborhood News. It's refreshing to see a local activist speak out in such a calm, reasonable, and well-reasoned way about the development issues facing the Uptown area. Too often these issues get blown into major storms, with the resulting confusion, tangents, and politics distracting from the actual issues. As Prinsen writes, "please do not allow a vocal minority to dictate what happens in our neighborhood."That's solid advice, and something we should all heed.

Lake Calhoun: Build, Baby, Build

Lake Calhoun. It’s one of Minneapolis’s most unique assets, as well as one of the defining features of Uptown. It’s even the inspiration for the name of one of the Uptown-area neighborhood groups – CARAG (Calhoun Area Residents Action Group) – even though even the westernmost borders of CARAG are still at least four blocks from the lake (and is, of course, the namesake for lake-adjacent ECCO, or the East Calhoun Community Organization). The lakes are a major draw for most Uptowners, and one of the reasons people are willing to shell out some big bucks (comparatively) to live in the area. It’s also the source of much ongoing controversy, serving as a lighting rod of sorts for practically any and all development issue in Uptown. Take, for example, the Uptown hotel proposed a few years ago; opponents complained that they might be able to see the top floor when walking around the lake. Needless to say, any development taking place on or across from the lake attracts even more neighborhood ire.

None of this is new news, but it might be dragged up again during the course of the Ward 10 City Council race. At the recent debate (“forum”) between Wedge residents and candidates Meg Tuthill and Matt Filner, Tuthill once again pulled out that oh-so-popular development card. While answering a question about the relationship between new development and local Small Area Plans (Uptown has one; Lyn-Lake’s is being finalized) she referred to the danger of Lake Calhoun looking like “Miami Beach.” She’s not the only or the first one to say this. Participants in the Uptown Small Area Plan process also referred to the Miami Beach concern, while developer Clark Gassen was slammed locally when a 2006 New York Times article quoted him as referring to his vision of making Uptown – and presumably some of the land by Lake Calhoun (his company was responsible for the controversial Edgewater project) – a “little Manhattan.”

I’m treading on sensitive ground here, but I think Meg Tuthill (along with the active and outspoken NIMBYs who fill many, although not all, of the seats on our local neighborhood boards) is wrong to excessively limit development by Lake Calhoun. The stretch of land between Lake Street heading northwest towards St. Louis Park could, if anything, use more development. Sensitive, well-done development could add housing to the neighborhood, potentially add useful retail, and decrease the car-dependent nature of the development along the northwest portion of the lake. There are already tall buildings in the area, so it’s not as though short, single-family homes would be converted into towering apartment buildings.

Not every lake needs to provide local residents with a “pure” nature experience. These are urban lakes, and I love the fact that I can see the downtown skyline from Lake Calhoun. Buildings such as the Calhoun Beach Club are certainly a visual presence on the lake, but that doesn’t detract from the overall experience. I would not advocate for tall buildings along Lake of the Isles or Lake Harriet, or for the ECCO portion of Lake Calhoun, for that matter, but I think it’s appropriate and desirable for part of the lakeshore. Increased housing options also means more opportunities for people – and not just rich people – to live within close proximity to the lake and its amenities. I know what the NIMBYs think; now I’d like to know what other Uptown – and Minneapolis – residents and visitors think about Lake Calhoun-adjacent housing development. As for me, I say build, baby, build.

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.

The Edgewater Irony

When the historic Edgewater apartment building was demolished and a fancy new condo built in its place, Uptown residents had a fit. I can understand - I liked the old Edgewater apartments, and wish that they were still there (in livable condition, of course). I know that there were legitimate concerns and questions raised during the broader community discussions. Still, some of the controversy really rubs me the wrong way, and illustrates some of the conflict bubbling under the neighborhood's surface.



Take, for instance, a January 2007 Uptown Neighborhood News article titled "The Edgewater: Gateway to Uptown or Uptown's First Gated Community?" The article, although filled with details about the new Edgewater project, never actually explains how it qualifies as a "gated community." Given the attention lavished by the authors on the condo building's luxury finishes, I'm guessing it's because the condos were to be inhabited by rich people.



I'm not going to get into the details of the Edgewater itself or whether or not it should have been built. I just think it's rather silly for a group of ECCO residents, most of them homeowners, few, if any, exactly poverty-stricken, bashing the Edgewater for being expensive. Prices for other ECCO lakeview homes, if they hadn't noticed, were also sky-high. In some ways one could argue that a condo building is more egalitarian than are the large single-family homes lining the lake; at least at the Edgewater more people can be stacked in the same land footprint.


Uptown does have a housing problem. It can be difficult for some people to afford to buy or rent in the neighborhood. But for the residents of ECCO to bash, even indirectly, the future owners of Edgewater condos for being elitist or too flush with cash is simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Booze is Bad. Bad, Bad, Bad!

Alcohol has long been a hot topic in Uptown. The issue has only grown in stature as Uptown's daytime/evening balance has tipped increasingly towards more bars and restaurants and fewer daytime retail shops and amenities. There have been alcohol-related incidents of vandalism, not to mention loud and messy drunks on the sidewalks, sloshed drivers on our streets, and other negative impacts of too much booze.


There is a balance to be struck. Minnesota still has remnants of its teetotaler (dare I say uptight?) past, and a knee-jerk aversion to alcohol and its evils can still be readily found. Perhaps as a result of this it becomes clear when looking back over recent Uptown history that the neighborhood's internal conflict over the appropriate role of alcohol in the neighborhood is alive and well.


Alcohol is a part of Uptown life, for both good and bad. Wine tastings are a regular occurrence, with revenue from one such event going to benefit the neighborhoods themselves.

I think that most Uptowners are pretty understanding about liquor. We realize that responsible adults should be able to enjoy beer or wine with a meal or have a drink at an area bar. We also know that there are those who abuse alcohol. Rather than putting all of the blame itself on the booze - not an inherently bad or even unhealthy drink if consumed in reasonable amounts - let's focus on making sure that area restaurants and bars are following the relevant laws. Definitely crack down on drunk drivers. If problem drunks seem to be originating from one place, then by all means let's address that specific issue. But periodic hysteric and ridiculous statements of the "booze is bad" type simply distract from the bigger issues.

Take, for example, the 2006 debate over whether to allow the sale of beer and wine at the Tin Fish restaurant by Lake Calhoun. The Tin Fish claimed that their liquor license application came at the request of neighborhood customers themselves. The ECCO Board had mixed feelings on the matter, with at least one board member noting the appeal of a nice glass of wine with dinner. One board member, however, voiced an all-too-common viewpoint of the booze-is-bad crowd:

Do we really need to have alcohol in the park, where kids have to sit and watch?

(Uptown Area News, May 2006)

Heaven forbid a child actually observe an adult sip a glass of wine or a light beer. Luckily for the most part Uptown area boards and residents are trying to take a somewhat fair approach, acknowledging the benefits of alcohol in moderation and trying to reduce the negative impacts that come with too much of it. It can be a tricky balance, but with open communication, a willingness to see multiple sides of an issue, and continued close relationships with the various constituencies involved (businesses, police, neighborhoods, etc.) Uptown should be able to tackle the booze problem.

Now just imagine the sparks that would fly if someone were to announce the construction of a highrise lakeside building with a rooftop open-air bar...

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.

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.

"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.