Lake of the Isles Grapefruit

Yes, I have fallen behind -- waaaay behind -- on posts lately. I'd like to pretend it's because I've been so busy living the good life, hanging out outside in the warm spring weather, grilling up a storm. It's not, alas, but if you, too, are antsy for getting on with the summer, here's a local recipe to add to your collection. It comes to you from Betty Crocker's Outdoor Cook Book, published in 1961. Betty Crocker is General Mills, but you don't typically come across Minneapolis references in their cookbooks. It was a pleasant surprise to come across, then, this recipe for "Lake of the Isles Grapefruit":

Lake of the Isles Grapefruit

Remove seeds from grapefruit halves. Cut around sections, remove center. Place each half on single or double thickness of heavy-duty aluminum foil depending on method used for cooking. (Cooking on briquets requires double thickness; cooking on grill requires only single thickness.) Pour over grapefruit a mixture of 1 tsp. honey and 1 tsp. sherry flavoring. Sprinkle with 1/4 tsp. nutmeg. Wrap foil securely around fruit. Cook on briquets 5 to 8 min. or on grill 15 to 18 min., turning once. Serve one-half grapefruit per person.

I haven't tried this yet, so would be curious to hear from anyone who has/does make it. If you'd like to expand the menu and enjoy what the authors named the "Midwest Special", it's a breakfast meal consisting of orange juice, blueberry pancakes with syrup, grilled pork chops, scrambled eggs, toasted English muffins, and coffee. Or, in what I think sounds like it is, or should be, a Midwestern recipe, fry up some "Darn Goods," (page 152), which are "crisp-fried doughnut-like crips coated with cinnamon and sugar." Yum.

Fun fact: on the same shopping trip that netted me this cookbook I also picked up one of Amanda Arnold's former books. (her name was on the inside) Small world. Well, not that small; this was, after all, the Richfield Value Village, and it was a city-related book. But still...

"Super Green" Lake of the Isles Bungalow

Today's Star Tribune has an interesting article about a Lake of the Isles LEED Platinum home. It's an interesting story, and it's an attractive house, but the more I read the more I started to wonder about how "green" we can really consider a project of this sort. First, let me admit that I don't know the details. As of right now all of my information is coming from the Star Tribune article. So please, if you have updates, go ahead and post them. All that said, let's get into the issue. First, some basic points drawn from the article:

• This is a new home. And more significantly, it's not just a new home: it's a new home sitting on a lot that was, until recently, housing its original 1926 bungalow.
• Hicks is quoted as saying she had intended to "fix" the original house, but "when she discovered how much it would cost to fix what needed to be fixed, including the foundation, the electricity, the plumbing, and the outdated 6-by 12-foot kitchen with three doorways, Hicks decided it made more sense to build a new house -- one that didn't look new."
• The original house was "just under" 2000 square feet; the new home is 3,300 square feet, including the finished basement. The new space does, however, cost only one quarter of what the original did to heat.
• Final quote from the architect: "you should be able to take any style house and make it green."

I tend to be firmly on the side of historic preservation, but at the same time readily acknowledge that not every house can or should be saved. But this article really has me wondering: did the original house REALLY need to be destroyed? Maybe it did; I don't know the extent of what needed to be fixed. And I know it's not fair to start questioning without having all the details. But I'm always wary whenever people start throwing around things like "fixing" a small kitchen. A dangerous foundation or broken plumbing or other serious issues might indeed need fixing, but throw in mention of a small kitchen and my skepticism radar starts going up. Did all of those things really need to be fixed? Was the house in such bad shape that it required demolition? Sometimes houses do, and that's part of a neighborhood's evolution. But it's also true that there's a history of wealthy homeowners out there who want a house that looks old, but they don't really want the older house. They want the big kitchen, the enlarged square footage, and yes, the added energy efficiency and other similar perks. I don't have a problem with that, as long as they're not tearing down existing homes that don't need to be torn down. And by "need" I don't just mean they need to have a kitchen with an island. And if they do unnecessarily tear something down because they want a new house, then they'd better not call label themselves green. (Again, apologies to Jennifer Hicks, as I don't know if this applies to her situation or not.)

This isn't an attack on Jennifer Hicks or her architect; they did a nice job with the house, and it fits in well (although I'd be equally fine with a well-designed modern house, too) and shows that new construction doesn't have to look like a McMansion in Eden Prairie. I would, however, be curious to know just how uninhabitable the previous home was when she bought it. Mostly, I'm tired of reading all of the rah-rah puff pieces on LEED certified buildings and "green" consumerism. Again, not Hicks' fault, but where's the story of the many, many other people who buy existing homes? (rhetorical question: yes, I know, that doesn't make a good story. It's old news.) That's more environmentally friendly than ripping something down and building new, even if the old house was in terrible shape and the new house built to LEED platinum standards. Modern society seems to think that we can all just buy our way into "greenness;" just put up some low-VOC paint, an Energy Star refrigerator, and some bamboo flooring. All of this is great, of course, and new construction should absolutely seek to be as environmentally-friendly as possible. But all this attention on the new stuff distracts from the bigger issues. At risk of looking really grumpy, the article makes me ask: does it really make sense for one person to live in 3,300 square feet of space in the city, for one? (I wouldn't typically bring that up, but it seems a relevant question in the context of an article about a "super-green" project)

Or, when the architect says "you should be able to take any style house and make it green," I'm really not all that interested in how that works for new construction. That's fine, and someone has to be concerned about it, but the environment would be far worse off if everyone in Minneapolis rushed out to demolish their homes and build new "green" historic-looking homes in their places. It would be nice to see a bit more attention paid to existing houses retrofitted to make them as energy efficient as possible, as well as some debate or guidance over which environmental upgrades to existing properties are worth it (from a green perspective -- both the cash and the environmental kind of green) and which ones aren't. Because really, with the large number of houses already standing -- just take a look at all the empty foreclosures around (although admittedly not by Lake of the Isles) -- it's hard to get really excited about the environmental credentials of someone knocking down something old and putting up something new.

Dupont Residents Protest Street Paving

Paved roads: the curse of CARAG? An old photo, obviously (as in: pre-snowbanks), but just imagine what it looked like in 1915!

Did that headline catch your eye? Yes, I know I've fallen behind on posting, but I haven't fallen THAT far behind, "that far" being the year 1915. Still, given that the odds are slim to none that anyone reading this blog was around to remember the debate back the first time around, I thought it would be interesting to give it some second life in 2010.

Highlights from an article in the December 29, 1915 Minneapolis Journal ("Citizens Unite to Fight Dupont Paving"):

"Concerted opposition to the plan to pave Dupont Avenue from Lake Street to Thirty-Sixth Street South was voiced last night at a meeting of about a hundred residents of the Eighth Ward at the Calhoun Commercial Club. They oppose the plan on the ground that the paving of Dupont, which is strictly a residential street, would divert to it most of the traffic which now reaches the Lynnhurst district by way of Lyndale and Hennepin Avenue and parallel avenues, giving Dupont more traffic than should traverse it."

A committee was appointed to report back to the city.

Sort of puts things in perspective, doesn't it? People were complaining about traffic one hundred years ago, and unless things dramatically change they'll still be complaining about it next century. The modern solution of paved roads and regular stop signs seems to work pretty well. I'm not concerned about traffic volume, but definitely don't like the speeders. For more recent Dupont history, the neighborhood fought to put in a stop sign at 34th and Dupont back in the late '70s and early '80s to cut down on the speeding problem. I only remember life post-stop sign, but I do recall a few years ago (2006? 2007?) when the city temporarily removed it. It is now, thank goodness, back in place, and traffic along Dupont moves along at a reasonable speed.

Hmm... do you think we'd be restoring "character" to the neighborhood if we ripped out all the pavement and replaced it with dirt? My son would LOVE it... (or we could just flood it, let it freeze, and strap on skates to get around. Now that's an idea I could get behind...)

Save Lake Calhoun!

No, not from the dangers of tall buildings or even milfoil. Here's a taste of some of the big issues facing local residents in the winter of 1901. From the Minneapolis Journal, January 4, 1901:

"'Save Lake Calhoun' is the watchword of a movement inaugurated this morning.

Residents of the growing community on the east shore of Calhoun have awakened to the fact that two-thirds of the expanse of the lake has been staked off by the ice companies, and ice fifteen inches thick will be cut off in this whole area. The lake is fed only by subterranean springs, and is now sixteen inches than it was ten years ago. Two companies, the Boston Ice Company and the Cedar Lake Ice Company, have been cutting there for several years, but this winter, it is announced, will cut ice on the lake for commercial purposes. They have already staked off more than twice the area taken any previous winter, and the situation is getting serious. Ice boating is practically ruined for this winter, in itself sufficient grievance, but the danger of reducing the city's beauty spot to a marshy pond has aroused the neighborhood."

"Put a stop to the evil."

Outraged residents circulated a petition to put a stop to the excesses. According to Secretary Ridgeway of the Park Board, the ice companies owned property on the shore, and were thus entitled to do as they liked out on the ice. "Our jurisdiction extends only to the shore," he told the Journal, "and we have no rights on the lake."

The scene is set

What did the lake look like when carved up by so many ice cutters? It was quite a different scene than today, certainly. According to the Journal, "each ice company has staked off a tract of ice, planting small evergreens about thirty feet apart to make the limits plain. Then, to prevent ice boats and skaters from crossing, the tract is fenced in with blocks of ice."

Frosty Relations

Approximately fifty ice boats were kept docked up at Ewing's dock; the paper notes that the owners used to "tie them up on the bank wherever they pleased," but ice workers allegedly began to cut their ropes and even "used some of the boats roughly." Meanwhile, the employees of the ice companies depended on their access to the lake for their livelihoods, and presumably weren't always sympathetic to the recreational needs of those lucky enough to own ice boats.

Civil Discourse

One of the things that impresses me most about this story isn't the sheer magnitude of the ice cutting operations, although obviously that's significant. From a more modern perspective, I appreciate that the opponents of the ice cutters generally seemed to be taking the high road when it came to voicing their opposition. A sample quote from one of the local petitioners, Dr. J.W. Penberthy of Calhoun Boulevard:

"It is a downright shame to see one of the beauty spots of Minneapolis so despoiled. It is of the interest of every one in Minneapolis to see that it is preserved. I do not want to see a hardship inflicted on any one, and as the companies have begun their winter's work and have money invested in their plants, it might not be just to stop the work this winter. But eventually the work must come to a stop. The sentiment of the whole community must be aroused against it."

I like this. Short, to the point, doesn't resort to talking about evil outsiders out to destroy the community in the name of commercial gain. It seems a legitimate attempt to balance, or at least acknowledge, the varied needs of the community (the article also cites the many jobs created by the ice cutters), while still standing firm on the proposed ultimate solution. The ability to look at the issue as a whole, and to at least consider the various implications of action, is something that today's residents can take to heart. We might not agree on final solutions (and today's aren't as pressing -- and uncontreversial -- as the obvious dangers of draining a lake), but we should be able to find at least some common ground when talking about the pros and cons of current issues.

Are YOU Happy? CARAG Residents Speak Out

You may remember last August when CARAG gathered community input for use in making NRP funding decisions. You may have even filled out one of the surveys yourself. The final results have been tallied and are being discussed; check out the full report for yourself on the CARAG website. While voluntary and therefore not fully representative, a respectable 409 respondents filled out the surveys, including a decent number of traditionally underrepresented younger people and renters. You can read the details for yourselves, but some highlights that I found interesting:

• Nearly everyone (98.5%, to be exact) said they were somewhat or very satisfied with the neighborhood. The numbers did vary a bit with age, with younger people (18-34) more satisfied than the 55+ crowd.
• Crime was the number one issue. No surprise there, I don't think. While I think some people's perception is off ("crime is high"), obviously while CARAG isn't a high-crime neighborhood it's also not without its problems.
• Transportation was cited as important by three quarters of respondents, but the written comments made it clear that people defined "transportation" in very different ways. Some took it to mean light rail or public transportation, others read it to mean parking, while others focused on speeding on residential streets.

And now to the good, or at least interesting part... the comments. I love reading these, as it's interesting to see how drastically opinions can vary. Most of them were reasonable or straight-forward (i.e. petty crime is a problem, street lights are out, etc.), but there were a few that deserve to be pulled out for special consideration.

"Gang graffiti is everywhere." I'm not criticizing this one; I just have a question. I've been meaning to look more into this myself, but is gang graffiti really everywhere? Graffiti does seem to be an increased problem and while the weather was still warm and sunny I wandered the streets and took what seemed like hundreds of photos of examples in CARAG and other Uptown neighborhoods. But is it gang-related? Any gang experts out there? I know there's gang activity in neighborhoods like Lyndale, but how far over does it reach? Is CARAG's graffiti problem gang-related in nature? If so, what gangs are most active in the area? I'll have to do some more research into this, as I have some major gaps in my knowledge here.

"Neighborhoods look old and run down." There are some individual properties that look run down, but I think that as a whole the neighborhood looks pretty good. Then again, I'm happy with places looking "old," although not "run down." (would be worse to be new and run down, though!)

“The increased density may lead to crime issues and transportation issues which may cause long time residents to relocate.” Ah, the old density equals crime argument. Facts need not apply. As far as transportation issues, I'm guessing the person means parking. My honest opinion? If long time residents don't like increased density then maybe they should leave. Uptown has been busier in years past, so it's not like this was every some quiet little village (at least not in most of our lifetime) that suddenly exploded in population; why would anyone move to an urban neighborhood and then complain about still relatively population density levels? I know I've said it before, but I just don't get it.

“Too many rental buildings being built. Buildings too tall now. Utter disregard for home owners.” Not to be negative or mean-spirited, and kudos to this respondent for being totally honest, but this attitude needs to be singled out as a problem in the neighborhood. "Utter disregard for home owners"? HA! Because CARAG's homeowners are oh-so-underrepresented in local politics.... Seriously, what could they possibly mean by this? Home owners are the kings of the CARAG castle. They have nothing to complain about in that regard. I'm crossing my fingers that one day (soon, I hope!) I'll be one of those poor CARAG homeowners who are so disregarded. As to the rest of it: typical. Another anti-height person. Because a five story building on Lake Street is going to bring down the neighborhood, as we all know. And rental buildings... god forbid we provide opportunities for more people to live in Uptown, including those who can't or don't want to buy. What an elitist.

In general, though, anti-renter, anti-density, anti-renter respondents aside, the results were quite interesting and useful. Everyone seems to have a shared concern for making the streets and alleys safer, so maybe we can focus more attention to addressing those issues and less time zeroing in on building height. It's also great news to see that so many people are happy with the neighborhood, despite having some legitimate concerns about livability issues. It's clearly a neighborhood worth fighting for, and this survey does its job in identifying some common ground for how to move forward in the years ahead.

Updated 3005 Emerson Renderings

Hoyt Properties has provided an updated rendering of the proposed 3005 Emerson site, although they note that this, too, is subject to change. While I still can't say I like the design itself, I will concede that this rendering is far more attractive than the previous version. Clark Gassen noted that these were intended to demonstrate scale of the building more than final design details, so I'm still hopeful that whatever goes into this location will be a valuable asset to the neighborhood, both in terms of aesthetics and function.

3005 Emerson: CARAG's Next Controversial Building

Image from OurUptown.com (additional renderings and specifics can be found there as well)

What's a neighborhood to do without a good building controversy to keep things interesting? Some CARAG residents certainly seem to follow that train of thought. I'm not criticizing, by the way; I might not agree very often with the Aaron Rubensteins and Howard Versons of the world, but I have as strong opinions as anyone else when it comes to discussing the built environment of Uptown's neighborhoods. The latest controversial project seems to be the proposed building at 3005 Emerson. Developer Clark Gassen and local firm BKV Group envision the site as a restaurant, and some preliminary renderings also show a rooftop deck in the back.

Neighbors are not, as you can imagine, happy. There's a petition going around; I haven't seen it and am not sure what is being protested, but since the site is zoned commercial I can only assume that the neighbors are protesting the requested parking variance (they're asking for only six parking spots, not eight), and probably the roof patio.

I have mixed feelings on this, and can see the pros and the cons. Let's address the negatives first:

Hideous architecture. Yeah, I know not everyone agrees with me; I know some people actually like this, and some people think while it's not exactly beautiful, it's not atrocious, either. I think it's absolutely terrible, and looks like an architecture clip art book vomited up its contents onto the rendering page. It's going to look dated in about a year, and has absolutely zero architectural charm. I know it's subject to change, but that horrible blend of brick coupled with that dark siding (or is it metal sheeting?) on top, plus those weird jutting outcroppings just scream dated-upon-arrival. Please, please, BKV Group, don't make us live with this atrocity in our neighborhood.

Do we really need another restaurant? I love restaurants, and wish I could afford to eat out more often. I don't have a problem with restaurants, necessarily, but enough already. What Uptown really needs is more daytime uses; what about an office, or maybe a medical building? Useful retail space would be okay, too. A daytime-focused use would bring more workers to Uptown during the day, while a restaurant would inevitably contribute to making Uptown and Lyn-Lake even more of an entertainment/nighttime destination. I have no problem with plentiful evening options, including restaurants and bars, but I'd really prefer not to have one on this specific site.

On to the positives:

Filling in the parking lots is a good thing. More businesses closer to housing is a good thing. It's not really a corner store, and it's not in the heart of the residential areas, but I like to have lots of businesses within walking distance. I also am happy to see surface parking lots disappear.

Potential. I hate the building, but admit it could be worse. At least it's not a drive-through credit union or a strip mall-like building with parking in front. Even an ugly building is better than a parking lot. It's also exciting to think about what new business might move in to the location, and hope it's something good.

Some final thoughts:

Parking. This is always a big one. Permit parking is the name of the game in that section of CARAG, and I'm sure parking is going to be one of the big reasons many of the critics oppose the project. I admit that I don't care much about parking, other than to admit that parking issues are important to the economic viability of most local businesses. Maybe I should say that I don't care about the parking issues for residents. If you want guaranteed parking then buy or rent a place that comes with a garage or parking spot, otherwise join the rest of us and look for street parking, take the bus, walk, or bike. Free parking shouldn't be considered a right, and parking problems for people who choose to live so close to Lake (their location certainly comes with plenty of other perks) shouldn't be something that concerns any of us. That's another topic, though. Still, parking remains an issue in Uptown and will undoubtedly continue to be a hot topic for years to come, so at least a daytime-focused business would help spread the parking needs throughout the day.

Height. Height is, of course, always another hot topic. This project is short, so the usual cries of "it's too tall!" aren't going to be heard. My complaint is that it's too short. As currently proposed, it's a one-story building with a rooftop patio. Let's skip the patio (I can see why neighbors aren't thrilled with that, and I think they have a legitimate complaint there) and put apartments or additional small office space on the second floor. A one-story (even one-story with rooftop additions) single-use property is a wasted opportunity.

So, what do you think?

"Historic" Photos

I was going through some loose photos when I came across a handful of old photos ("old" as in mid- to late-1990s or early '00s), probably all taken as I tried to finish up a roll of film before dropping it off for developing. Nothing of any quality, unfortunately, but I'm posting them as both a glimpse back at those not-so-distant days, as well as a reminder to myself and encouragement to others to go out there and photograph not just the people, but also the places, that make up your lives. I wish I had taken more pictures, and had spent a bit more time thinking about the images.

I have an actual date on this one: July 1997, taken from the roof of the Calhoun Square parking garage.

I've done the classic "don't" bar across the subject's face here, as I don't have his permission to publish this photo, and he might not like being splashed across the internet sporting both a Hypercolor shirt and a Yankees cap.

Same intersection, different year, different season.

So there you have it; a sampling of some "historic" photos from relatively recent times. Thank goodness for digital cameras; I have a nice new one now, complete with vast amounts of memory, so I can wander the neighborhood taking hundreds of images so that in ten or twenty years I won't be limited to looking at a handful of random filler photo from the late 2000s.

How to Give a Servantless Dinner

December is a busy time for many of us, and I'm guessing that at least some of you will be doing some entertaining over the next several weeks. I think it's also a safe bet that most of Uptown residents don't have servants. If that describes you, you might enjoy some tips from the former Uptown-based Buzza Company, the one-time second largest greeting card company in the United States. With that in mind, here are their top eight tips for a smooth do-it-yourself dinner party:

1. Do not attempt to serve more than eight persons until you are sure you can do it successfully.



2. Invite guests who are congenial.



3. Avoid serving things that are too elaborate and fussy.



4. Eliminate the necessity of passing things to your guests -- if they are good sports they will enjoy the informality and want to be of assistance.



5. Have everything piping hot that is supposed to be hot. The same applies to cold dishes.



6. Iced drinking water, rolls, and butter should be conveniently near at hand.



7. Never attempt more than three courses, the salad to be served with the dinner.



8. Table should be faultlessly set, according to directions for the informal dinner. Decorations very simple.

Sounds easy, right? Time to move on to the big decision: what to serve for dinner. Never fear, the party planners at Buzza have advice for that, too. Their suggested menu:

• Cream of minced clam soup, garnished with wafers, celery, olives, and radishes



• Crown roast of lamb



• Peas, sweet potatoes en casserole, pickles, relish, jelly, rolls



• Asparagus tip salad, mayonnaise



• Chocolate ice-box pudding, whipped cream



• Coffee, salted nuts, candy

Worried? Don't be: "There is no reason in the world why the independent women of today [1927]," reassures the author, "young brides and housekeepers (provided they know anything at all about cooking), should hire some Martha-by-the-day to do what they themselves can do with such a degree of satisfaction -- (and incidentally save five dollars or more) !

Just don't forget the place cards.

Green Metropolis, Part II (Chapters 2 and 3)

Chapter two of Green Metropolis ("Liquid Civilization") isn't as directly relevant to Uptown as most of the other chapters, but there's still some good topics for discussion. In short, Owen argues that oil is a, if not the, primary environmental issue today. Even those issues not directly caused by oil are created, or at least enabled, by the existence of oil and its use in modern technology and the ways in which it has shaped the modern world. "Driving is driving," writes Owen, and he argues that if society is really going to tackle the tough environmental problems it's going to take a lot more than just switching over to hybrid cars. More fuel-efficient cars (or use of alternative energy sources) are part of the solution, but an auto-centric society leads to increased sprawl, as well as less incentive for public transportation or communities compact enough for easy walking or biking.

It was in this chapter that I once again started thinking about HOURCAR's role in Uptown. I think HOURCAR is a great program; car sharing does help more people live without a car, yet still have easy and affordable access to one when they do need it. I think that makes both economic and environmental sense. Still, HOURCAR has at times seemed to be too focused on the use of hybrids at the expense of seeing the big picture (although that does seem to have shifted a bit). As recently as May 2009, for example, HOURCAR was saying that they were not going to purchase a pickup truck because hybrid trucks were too expensive. I can understand why they might choose to focus their money elsewhere, but at the same time the most important thing is not that the cars themselves are hybrid (although that's certainly a bonus), but that these cars help more people live without a car. They're obviously still driving, but are probably doing far, far less of if than they would if they had a car of their own. There's a blend to be struck between quality and quantity, and I think at this point the priority of car share organizations should be to blanket the city with these cars. If more cars means going with a non-hybrid then so be it. (In defense of HOURCAR, I should note that their current fleet of cars has expanded, and now includes a wider range of options than in the past. They seem to be trying to find that balance, and given their recent expansion it seems to be somewhat successful.)

Moving on to chapter three, "There and Back," there's a lot good stuff that fits in well with discussions about the greater Uptown area. Some of the chapter focuses on more suburban-style zoning, new sprawl, and long commutes, but Owen also makes some arguments that are more immediately relevant to the city and neighborhood. Some interesting bits from this chapter that caught my eye:

• There can be contradictions in what a neighborhood or city says it wants and what the actual regulations allow. This is obvious, of course, but among other things Owen asks why "restrictive" regulations are often considered protective, when in fact they often restrict the very features they're intended to protect. This seems to be at the core of many, many discussions about Uptown and any future development. Locals want an urban neighborhood filled with lots of local businesses and services, walkable, great public transportation, safe, and all the rest, yet frequently turn around and in the next breath talk about concerns about too much traffic and a dislike of density, among other topics. To support all those local independent businesses, for example, we either need to have a big enough local resident customer base (which translates into a need for increased density), or we have to bring in a lot of customers from elsewhere, and realistically they're not all going to arrive by bus, bike, or foot. There are ways to balance these various issues, but that means going beyond simply focusing on vague terms like "character" or "green" and instead defining what exactly it is that we want, and what we're willing to compromise or change in order to get it. Recent discussions about some local zoning changes (like the upzoning along the Greenway and along Hennepin and Lyndale) highlight some of these issues.
• Difficult parking and bad traffic can be a good thing. Tough to find or expensive parking or frustrating traffic jams are a strong incentive to choose alternative methods of commuting. In New York City, Owen writes, reducing congestion "would be a loss for the environment, not a gain." In Uptown, things get a bit more complicated. Uptowners can't hop on a subway (or LRT line) and skip the traffic jams; we sit in buses that get stuck in that same traffic. Traffic congestion might increase the appeal of walking or biking, but it doesn't necessarily help with the bus. On the other hand, I'd rather be sitting on a bus and reading (assuming I can get a seat) than behind a wheel, but that's not the case for many people. So, while bad traffic might increase the incentives for people to choose to live closer to their work, or to stop commuting to Minneapolis from Lakeville, I don't think it has a great impact on Uptown specifically. The parking situation, however, could be a different story. I have no problems with Uptown having increasingly tight parking in the residential neighborhoods. I think the commercial areas need to have appropriate parking available (although not free), but as far as residential parking goes, locals can either rent or buy a place with a garage, deal with street parking, rent a garage space from someone else, or go without a car. Increasingly inconvenient parking coupled with increases in availability of options such as HOURCAR, as well as improved public transportation, could provide the incentive for more local residents to either live without a car, cut down numbers of cars within a family, or otherwise reduce the numbers of trips taken by car. That would be good for both the neighborhood and for the environment.
• "Public transit itself can be bad for the environment if it facilitates rather than discourages sprawl." This isn't Uptown-specific, but I think it's worth discussing. The Southwest LRT line does exactly that; it bypasses dense urban areas and encourages yet more development in places like Eden Prairie. Another Owen quote: commuter lines (which is what the proposed SW line will essentially be) enables sprawl at the end of the line and does "almost nothing to reduce car use in the central city." LRT might not be coming to Uptown, but I hope we can actually see some movement towards getting real transportation solutions in the city itself. It's also not as if there isn't room for significant transit ridership increases in Uptown and Lyn-Lake; despite the plentiful existing public transportation options the majority of residents are still making most of their trips by car. There is a lot of room for improvement.
• Free-flowing traffic should not be considered a public entitlement. I like this one. Unfortunately, Uptown once again runs up against the bus problem: slow traffic means buses sit in traffic, too, so slow traffic in the city isn't doing much to encourage switching to other forms of transportation. Still, I think it's an interesting point. Keeping traffic moving should be a consideration when it comes to urban planning, but putting it first and foremost in development concerns (which seems to often be the case) is putting the needs of cars before the needs of people. It would be ironic if it became faster for someone from a more suburban (and less walkable) neighborhood or city along the Southwest Corridor or the Northstar Line and commute into downtown than for someone to live in Uptown and commute downtown. And that brings me to my final thought: commuting to and from work is not everything. Reducing commuting trips by car is important, and does have environmental benefits, but it's only one (relatively small) part of the larger environmental puzzle.

Green Metropolis, Part I

David Owen’s Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability, suggests that the best American model for urban environmentalism is New York City. “Green” living, argues Owen, is not best served by open space, solar panels, or hybrid cars, but is instead achieved through dense urban living. It’s an interesting concept, and one that I, for the most part, agree with. The book is worth reading in its entirety, but in the interest of being able to pick out specific topics to highlight for discussion I’ll post individual entries about each chapter (starting now, with chapter one). While some of the issues are more relevant when discussing larger city or regional planning, much of Owen’s ideas are directly relevant to debates over Uptown and its future. Many Uptowners like to consider themselves environmentalists, and as such, should give Green Metropolis and its argument careful consideration.

Owen’s argument can be summed up as follows:

Live Smaller. Americans live large. Big houses and their trappings are wasteful. New Yorkers live in smaller homes, and use a lot less energy than the average American.

Live Closer. New Yorkers often live close to where they live, work, shop, and play; Americans in general need to embrace this if we are going to make significant positive progress on environmental issues. High density mixed-use buildings and neighborhoods can and should be discussed as an environmentally-friendly housing and planning option.

Drive Less. “Miles matter than miles per gallon.” Owen spends a lot of time on this point. Driving is driving, and from an environmental standpoint focusing on fuel efficiency or form of power isn’t addressing the other major environmental problems contributed to or created by cars, including the many issues relating to sprawl.

In short, high-density urban living is ideal from an environmental standpoint. More people living in dense urban neighborhoods means less sprawl and an overall reduced environmental footprint. It means less driving. Environmentalists need to stop considering getting “back” to nature as the environmental ideal, and start looking at cities as the model for a truly green future.

So how does Uptown fit into all of this? While I don’t doubt the environmental good intentions of some of my fellow Uptown supporters, anyone who has followed local neighborhood issues knows that there’s a great deal of lip service paid to “green” issues like open space, trees, native grasses, organics recycling, and parks. I certainly approve of some of these issues, but I agree with Owen that they cloud the bigger environmental issue. Given the vocal nature of some of the anti-density but self-proclaimed eco-minded crowd, such as former City Planning Commissioner Lara Norkus-Crampton, it’s time that we start to discuss issues like density as an environmental framework. Green living is not just about seeing eagles on the lake or looking at the sky. Adding density doesn’t have to give up livability or “character” or look like Manhattan.

I do appreciate Uptown’s character, meaning its blend of uses, its historic architecture (commercial, industrial, residential, and civic), and its tree-lined streets (less so following years of Dutch Elm disease, unfortunately). I don’t want to see the area’s homes all destroyed and replaced by high-rise apartments. But, despite the “sky is falling” opponents who would suggest otherwise, high density (and yes, high buildings) can and should be integrated into the greater Uptown area. The feeling of the neighborhood may change in parts, but it’s unrealistic to think that Uptown’s “character” will always remain the same. The area has changed dramatically over the years, and despite even the most stringent zoning and area plans will continue to do so, like it or not. We might as well embrace change, encourage it in appropriate areas, and allow Uptown to become, if demand allows, a truly urban neighborhood. While I believe increased density to lead to more livable communities, it’s also the environmentally-correct thing to do. How can we in good conscience call ourselves environmentalists yet not advocate for increased density in Uptown and in the city?

Or, to put it bluntly, why can’t more people (ahem, certain local board members and former planning commissioners) understand that density, including mid-rise buildings on busy streets, has positive environmental implications? (or, conversely, that lack of density can have a negative impact?)

I, for one, find Green Metropolis to be energizing. I’m going to do my part to take back the urban environmental message. “Green” should not just mean support of parks, bike trails, solar panels, composting, or other such endeavors (however worthy); it should also mean something substantial. If someone wants to wear the mantle of “environmentalist” yet oppose projects such as the proposed Mozaic (the controversial proposed mixed-use building behind the Lagoon Theater), for example, then they need to be able to fully explain their reasoning. Everything has its positives and negatives and not all neighborhood goals are compatible, but it’s our responsibility to at least be aware of the implications of our decisions.

What do you think? Can Uptown handle more density? Should Uptown become more dense? Where does increasing urban density fall in Uptown’s list of priorities, environmental or others?

David Owen. Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability. New York: Riverhead Books, 2009.

Up next: Chapter Two, "Liquid Civilization," or "Driving is Driving."

Coming Soon: Green Metropolis Virtual Book Club Posts

I've been missing in action lately, but am now fully caught up from "real world" issues, and eager to get back to discussing life in the greater Uptown area. For those of you who are reading along with the Uptown Urban Studies Virtual Book Club, I'll be posting something on David Owen's Green Metropolis in the very near future. He has a lot of interesting points that are very relevant to Uptown/Lyn-Lake/Minneapolis, so there should be lots of good issues to ponder.

I was unable to check my email for a few weeks, so I apologize to anyone who has emailed me and has not yet received a response. I'm catching up on all of that, too.

Chains in Uptown?

Penzeys Spices: A chain, yes, but not exactly a Walmart, either. What is the role of chains in Uptown? Are there "good" and "bad" chains?

A lot of locals (both those who live in Uptown, as well as those who like to visit) like to bash Uptown for its "corporate culture" and "suburban" design. Yeah, I know, I complain about chains plenty myself. Still, I think we could all use a little more time spent in thoughtful debate about the role of chains in Uptown (and Lyn-Lake).

Here's a representative comment from the anti-chain crowd, or what I think of as the "I hate suburbanites" subsection of anti-chain people, written by "Lisa" on the City Pages' blog posting about the Uptown Bar's closure:

"This is the further suburbanization of Uptown, bringing in suburban-style chain retail designed for suburbanites. Destined to fail, as most have: Gap, Limited, Garden of Eden, TCBY, etc. Maybe the city planners should think about THAT. People who live in the city do not want to patronize suburban-style chain retail. If there is no character or history left in the city, forget it.

This is also a consequence of all these big, stupid festivals taking place at Henn/Lake, like that Loppet, that bike race, etc., designed to bring the greater Twin Cities into town with their generic mentality. You get that going in the neighborhood, then it is marketed to these chain retailers as a place to capture that business. This is NOT progress."

This is a pretty typical rant. They tend to incorporate the same basic themes: "Uptown is suburban. All the cool people left. It's just a big mall. People from outside of city limits are inherently bland or have no taste." I don't want to patronize suburban-style chain retail, either. But a lot of this is rather uninformed, pointless, and doesn't move us forward to what we DO want, or how to go about getting it.

Lisa throws out a list of "chains" she doesn't like, so let's start with that. First, I'm pretty sure Garden of Eden isn't/wasn't a chain. My memory is a little fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure it's the same store that is now located on Grand in St. Paul; if that's true, then they are Twin Cities-based, currently have only one location, and proudly sport the 3/50 project's logo on their website), and given that it lasted so long in its location I wouldn't say it's a failure, either. I don't bring this up to argue the specifics with someone who probably will never read this post, but rather to question why one would list Garden of Eden as suburban-style chain retail. Is it because bath products and lotions are seen somehow as suburban? Do city-dwellers not take baths? Granted, I never could afford to buy much of any substance at Garden of Eden, but they filled a niche, and I think they were a nice addition to the neighborhood. Fancy oils and lotions aren't exactly a necessity in life, but there's nothing about them or the store that is inherently "suburban" or "generic" in style or function. My translation of this is to mean that it's not hip enough, perhaps because Garden of Eden lacked irony.

Let's go on to the rest of the list: Gap, Limited, and TCBY. Was there ever a Limited? I don't think so, although my memory may be failing. I assume she means the Express (part of Limited Brands, so she's not so far off). I never loved having an Express there, but did appreciate the opportunity to buy some basic women's clothing in Uptown. The store itself opened out both the street and into Calhoun Square, which isn't exactly traditional mall-style, either. And finally, the company as a whole has had problems, so I don't know if Express's ups and downs in Uptown reflect at all on the neighborhood, either. In sum, I didn't love Express, but do think that variety in clothing options in Uptown (in both style and cost) are a good thing. I would agree that I would prefer to have those options be independently-owned. Gap... well, the Uptown store was its first non-mall store in Minnesota, and it did last for much of a decade. I can't say that I love the Gap, but I prefer it to the Victoria's Secret. On the other hand, I think it's better to have a chain than a vacant storefront. I can think of many ways I'd rather see in that prime corner location, though. Finally, TCBY. Yes, I think of this as being a mall-store, but thought that it was a good use of its corner location. I doubt it went out because neighborhood residents avoided it because it was "suburban" in nature.

Again, I'm not picking on Lisa in particular, but rather attempting to figure out what people think of as acceptable versus non-acceptable chain stores in Uptown. Why does she list these stores, and not others? There are, after all, chains in Uptown that I think a lot of people don't even realize are chains; Paper-Source and Penzeys Spices come to mind as prime examples. I prefer my stores to be locally-owned and operated, but as far as chains go I think both are a far cry from "suburban-style chain retail," and demonstrate that chain stores can adapt to fit their surroundings.

The other thing that the anti-suburban crowd (as in: anti-suburban residents) forgets is that local people are also often frequenting the chain stores, the bland bars, and the other places that get so often derided for being geared only to those dreaded interlopers from Eden Prairie. One of the issues that Uptown faces is that it IS both a regional and a neighborhood destination. Overall, I think that's a good thing. Uptown's residents aren't enough to support the number of stores, restaurants, and other businesses that most of us want in the neighborhood. Maybe that could change if Uptown's density were to increase, and if more of us were to actively concentrate on keeping our spending in the neighborhood, but for now, if we want diversity and quantity then we've got to encourage visitors from across the metro area. That does NOT mean that we need to embrace chains or "suburban-style chain retail." In an ideal world, Uptown would be able to serve both residents and visitors with its innovative mix of local businesses and let the chains go elsewhere.

I try to avoid chains, I don't like shopping at malls (although find them oddly fascinating in their way), and I prefer my neighborhoods unique and mostly chain-free, but I also disagree with the anti-suburban advocates as to their characterization of suburban residents. There's often a smugness, an air of superiority, a feeling that "I'm better than you because I live in Minneapolis and you live in Eagan." I hate Eden Prairie, and think it would be an absolutely terrible place to live. I also think that many suburban lifestyles ARE damaging, unsustainable from an environmental viewpoint, and destructive to the fabric of society. I think city living IS better. That doesn't mean that the residents of those suburbs deserve to be bashed, though, or even if they actively prefer to live in a modern subdivision in exurbia that doesn't mean that they can't enjoy a visit to Uptown, too. On that note, take a look at the number of Uptown residents who think nothing of a trip out to Southdale and the Mall of America, or the city residents who live lives virtually indistinguishable from those living outside of city limits. It's not so simple as city residents are unique and individual, while suburban residents are "generic." Kind of ironic, given that I'm guessing many of the same people who profess horror when someone from the 'burbs drives in to get dinner at Figlio are the same people who tout diversity as one of the reasons to live in the city. That doesn't mean we have to make Uptown mall-like in function or appearance, of course, or accommodate every visitor's wishes and desires (including on things like parking), but it does mean that we as a collective whole need to stop complaining if people from outside of city or neighborhoods limits drive (or, ideally, bus) in to do some shopping.

In the end, I would prefer that Uptown have few or no national chains, but realize that that's probably unlikely to happen. I don't think all chains are bad for Uptown, and think that there are already existing examples of chains that have made a positive impact on the neighborhood. Paper-Source and Penzeys are both great fits; Urban Outfitters, too, seems to be an overall positive influence on the neighborhood. I'd prefer to see Victoria's Secret leave, or at least see it move indoors to Calhoun Square. I don't think chains (or franchises) automatically translate into "suburban" style development, and in some cases they are filling a niche that has otherwise been left empty. I like to be able to shop in the neighborhood, and if a chain is the only locally-located business filling a need then I will probably go there to do my shopping. When I have a choice, though, I will always make the attempt to go with the local option first, and believe that we do need to take a greater active role in helping support new and existing independent businesses.

And finally, I think there are good and bad chain stores. Some fit in well and are good neighbors; others, not so much. Admittedly the same could be said of independent stores, although with less financial resources than the big places they have limited power to create as much havoc. Ultimately, though, those people who complain about chains need to actually do something to support the alternatives. I'm trying to be good about this; whenever possible I'll spend the extra couple of bucks to buy local, and if I can't afford the extra then I'll try to hold off on the purchase until I can. That doesn't work for everything (there are definitely some gaps we need to fill...) but after reading Big-Box Swindle I do find myself increasingly thinking about every purchase I make.

Big-Box Swindle - Part I

Happy Halloween! How appropriate that this is also the day of the first post in the official Uptown Urban Studies Virtual Book Club. Because in many ways, Big-Box Swindles: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America's Independent Businesses is a scary read. Forget about ghosts and goblins and devils: my vote for scariest Halloween costume would be someone in a Walmart costume (come to think of it, that would be a really easy costume to make....). While much of the book focuses on suburban sprawl and the impact of big-box retail on smaller communities, there's a great deal of content that is relevant to Uptown and surrounding neighborhoods. We can work out the kinks of organizing this sort of discussion as we move forward, but for now my plan is to throw out some initial thoughts based on (or simply inspired by) the book, invite your comments, and in the next week follow up with some more in-depth postings on some of the specific topics.

• What should the role of chain stores be in Uptown (and Lyn-Lake, or in other surrounding neighborhoods)? Are some chain stores better than others? Are they appropriate in some areas but not in others?
• What is the thought on big-box development? One negative of Big-Box Swindle was the author's tendency to equate "chains" with "big-box stores," although that's not always the case. What if the big-box store is not a chain? How about Target? It's local; do we want a Target (even if an urban model without the sprawling parking lot) in Uptown?
• How does Calhoun Square fit into this discussion? Is it part of "Main Street," or is it a mall? Does it matter?
• How can we, whether at the city, neighborhood, or individual level, support independent businesses? In the grand scheme of Uptown (and Uptown area) priorities, where does this fall as a priority?
• What current regulations are in place to support independent businesses in Minneapolis? Are there any ordinances on the books that restrict chains ("formula businesses"), and, if not, should there be?
• How do we bring affordable commercial real estate to the Uptown area?
• Is there room for a community-owned store in the neighborhood? What about a business incubator space?
• What sorts of stores or businesses is the Uptown area currently lacking? What gaps do we want filled?

I'm going to come back to this list over the next several days and will write up my own thoughts on specific topics in more depth, as well as try to gather some relevant links and resources. In the meantime, what struck you as worthy of discussion while reading Big-Box Swindle?

Kids and the City, Part II (Or, Could Family-Oriented Apartments/Condos Work in Uptown and Lyn-Lake?)

I recently wrote about how frustrating it can be to have larger society try to peg me and my fellow parents into very specific neighborhoods or living situations due to the simple fact that we have kids. Kids live in the city, families choose to live in the city, and city living with kids is perfectly normal.

All of that got me thinking. I know there's not a lot of new housing development going on right now, so some of this is currently a moot point, but how come all the new upscale condo and apartment developments in Uptown and Lyn-Lake are oriented to young single people or empty nesters? Why NOT families? The current developments don't exactly scream "family friendly." I've been busy dreaming up my vision of an ideal family-friendly building, ideally situated somewhere along the Greenway, and while I know reality gets in the way (developers need to want to build it, bankers need to be willing to finance it, and people need to be willing to rent or buy the units), I think there's some potential.

The Premise: Not all families want to live in single family houses. Many do, of course, but others either prefer not to for the same reasons as other condo-dwellers: no need to shovel, someone else handles the maintenance, perhaps shared amenities otherwise available, etc. Others would prefer the single family house, but will give it up in exchange for enough other benefits.

New Construction. I prefer older homes with a sense of history (and hate, hate, hate stainless steel appliances, granite countertops, open floorplans, and double sinks in bathrooms), but obviously a lot of people out there like new construction and modern architecture. They also like living in Uptown and Lyn-Lake. Rather than facing the option of moving to a new neighborhood, or, worse, buying a historic home and gutting it, why not give them what they want? Many of those younger, single, hip condo dwellers are going to have kids one day; it's not like their tastes are going to suddenly change overnight. Their needs might change, however, and that's where modern family-friendly condo options could really fit the bill.

Location: Uptown and Lyn-Lake are both ideal locations for kids. There are plenty of parks, there's the lakes, the Walker Library, multiple schools (at least at the elementary level), excellent restaurants and cafes, the Greenway, and growing numbers of other kids. Sure, there are some gaps to be filled (a toy store would be nice...) but overall it's a very family-friendly kind of place. Putting a family-oriented condo or apartment building somewhere along the Greenway, for example, would be a great location. The kids could learn to bike on the Greenway, the whole family could stroll down to the library or to the lake, and it would be just a quick bike or bus ride (or drive) to places like MIA or the Walker.

I prefer an older place, but if the location and amenities were right I'd give the right modern family building serious consideration. My dream multiple-family building would look something like this:

• Play space. This is the BIG one. I like the idea of owning a house or duplex because there's room in the basement for kids to run around in the winter. We don't need huge amounts of living space, but given that my son gets crazy when cooped up inside for too many hours we need somewhere besides the living room to burn off some energy. An outdoor and an indoor space set aside for kids would be a MAJOR perk. It doesn't need to be anything fancy: a small outdoor playground with benches and maybe some picnic tables gives the kids somewhere to play and the parents somewhere to congregate, while an indoor space, even just a gym-like room with room to run around and maybe ride a push toy or bounce a ball would give both adults and kids a place (other than the main living quarters) to let off steam in cold or wet weather. There's a practical element to this that goes beyond simply playing, though. It's tough to informally meet fellow parents these days; a common playground (to supplement, not replace, local parks) builds community within the building, and gives kids a place to hang out with their young neighbors, while giving adults a chance to meet other adults, both those with and without kids.
• Mixed use in the building. I like a building that incorporates a blend of uses. The best, most Jane Jacobs-esque building I've ever lived in was in Washington, DC. It was directly across the street from the National Zoo, and the street facade included a convenience store, liquor store, coffee place, salon, dentist, bar and grill, and pharmacy. Inside the building itself were mixed apartments with therapists, at least one nurse-practitioner, and assorted other small office uses. We didn't have a kid at the time, but I look back and think how perfect it would have been. There was even a small internal courtyard with a fountain. Imagine how convenient it would be to have, say, a pediatrician in the building, maybe a pharmacy, a store that sells basics like milk, a daycare or preschool, or any other number of places that would be useful to busy families.
• Well-designed units useful for families. In other words, include enough three, or even four, bedroom apartments. I know kids can share a room, but in Minneapolis at this time it's unlikely to think that most families with money would choose to squash into a smaller unit if they can buy a house with three bedrooms for the same, or less, cost. The places don't need to be huge, especially if there's other play or storage space in the building, but enough buildings plus a good design could make apartment living an attractive family option.
• Stroller storage. I haven't lived anywhere with this option, but wouldn't it be nice to walk in the front door and have a (nicely integrated) storage space in the common entry? It doesn't need to be huge, just large enough to stash a stroller and hang the coats. Those without strollers can use the space to store boots, coats, bulky sports equipment, or whatever else they don't want to stash in their apartment.
• Garden space. While I don't think city living absolutely has to incorporate green space, a little bit of greenery makes city living more enjoyable for many of us. A small communal garden (for those who wish to participate) would build community, give an opportunity to grow some fresh produce, and give both adults and kids a connection to the outdoors.
• Laundry. In-unit hookups are probably a necessity. Families go through a lot of dirty clothes; having a washer and drier in the unit is a luxury most families with options won't be willing to go without. Still, laundry rooms often perform a shared community function as building information center; in this case that could be switched to the mail room. And on that topic...
• Mail room. Yes, there could be row after row of mailboxes right inside the front entry. But it would be much nicer to have an official mail room dedicated to the boxes; it would also hold a large bulletin board where residents could post notices and requests.
• Pools and other extras. I'm not a big pool person; this wouldn't be a huge draw for me one way or the other. Still, amenities like a pool or a game room might be attractive to both those with and without kids, and could be a nice addition.
• Condo versus apartment. I think something like this should probably be a condo building. Families in Minneapolis tend to want to buy, not rent. People could, of course, rent the condos from the individual owners.

What am I missing? Would you live in a building like this? If the right building in the right place at the right place came along I'd give it serious consideration, even if it wasn't my preferred historic architecture. Families successfully live in high-rise (or mid-rise) apartment complexes around the world (I've been browsing the Singapore listings lately); is there any reason this can't be done in Minneapolis?

[reminder: Uptown Virtual Book Club coming soon! First up: Big Box Swindle.]

Uptown Urban Studies Virtual Book Club

Okay, the title "Uptown Urban Studies Virtual Book Club" sounds more impressive than the idea behind the name. I try to keep up with interesting books that seem relevant to issues relating to building a better community, identifying the neighborhood's strengths and weaknesses, and contemplating both Uptown's (and surrounding neighborhoods) past and future. I know there's a lot of others out there who read those same books, too. The plan so far is that I'll announce a couple of weeks ahead of time what book I'll be posting about next, and then anyone who wants to can read along and join in the discussion.

My list of potential books includes those I already own or have read, as well as some I've seen that look interesting. Some possible titles (in no particular order) include:

• Christopher B. Leinberger, The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2008).


• Jay Walljasper and Project for Public Spaces, Inc., The Great Neighborhood Book: A Do-it-Yourself Guide to Placemaking. (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2007).


• Laura J. Lawson, City Bountiful: A Century of Community Gardening in America. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005).


• Richard Florida, Who's Your City? (New York: Basic Books, 2008).


• Stacy Mitchell, Big-Box Swindle. (Boston: Beacon Press, 2006).


• Anthony Flint, This Land: The Battle over Sprawl and the Future of America. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006).


• Jerilou Hammett and Kingsley Hammett, editors. The Suburbanization of New York: Is the World's Greatest City Becoming Just Another Town? (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007).


• Richard Moe and Carter Wilkie, Changing Places: Rebuilding Community in the Age of Sprawl. (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997).


• Tony Hiss, The Experience of Place. (New York: Vintage Books, 1990).


• David Owen, Green Metropolis. (New York: Riverhead Books, 2009).


• Thatcher Imboden and Cedar Imboden Phillips, Uptown Minneapolis (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2004).


• David A. Lanegren and Enrest R. Sandeen, The Lake District of Minneapolis: A History of the Calhoun-Isles Community. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004. Originally published 1979 by the Living Historical Museum).


• Donald Shoup, The High Price of Free Parking. (Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 2005).


• Jane Jacobs, The Life and Death of Great American Cities. (New York: Random House, 1992).


• Anthony Flint, Wrestling With Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took on New York's Master Builder and Transformed the American City. (New York: Random House, 2009).

First up will be Big-Box Swindle, followed by Green Metropolis.

Any and all suggestions for additional books are welcome!

Kids Live in Urban Neighborhoods, Too

Yes, that's a kid. Children are, have been, and will continue to be, a part of life in Ward 10.

I was reading an article about Lyn-Lake ("Lyn-Lake? The New Uptown?" Not exactly breaking news, but that's another post...) and got sidetracked by a brief comment made about the area's demographics. "[Residents] tend to be highly educated, disposable income, no kids, young people," said Andrea Christenson of Colliers Turley Martin Tucker. Well, sort of. Lyn-Lake does have a lot of young people, not as many kids as in many parts of the city, and as far as disposable income, well, that's a bit more debatable, but it's safe to say that the residents in the newer, more expensive developments probably do have a fair amount of disposable income. I'm not going to argue demographics here, and I'm not taking issue with the article itself or any of the people quoted in it. What I do want to discuss is the ongoing assumption held by so many people in Minneapolis that parents are expected to live a certain lifestyle. And, to many people, that lifestyle does not seem to fit with Uptown or Lyn-Lake.

Families are supposed to live in neighborhoods like Armatage. This view holds that new or expecting parents are supposed to buy a "starter" (oh, how I hate that term) home in a neighborhood like Kenny or Armatage, or, if they can afford it, somewhere like Linden Hills. While they're at it they might as well buy themselves a minivan, because real parents don't drive beat up old smaller cars, let alone ride the bus. They can buy a bike with a baby seat or one of those trailers for socially-acceptable family bike rides around Lake Harriet.

Parents don't go to bars or restaurants. According to the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan's Market Study, "this general area of Minneapolis, including Uptown and Lyn-Lake, has long been popular among a younger generation due to its range of restaurants and bars, and proximity to downtown employment." (p.20-21) I'm sure that's true. That's part of the reason I like Uptown and Lyn-Lake. And, to be fair, I still count in the study's "younger generation," since I am under 35. Again, not quibbling with the idea that bars and restaurants appeal to young people (they appeal to all people), but in general there is an assumption that families don't want to live in bustling city neighborhoods with bars on the corners. Admittedly I have less time or money to visit restaurants or bars, but that doesn't mean I don't want them nearby. As most parents can attest, delivery or take-out is a fabulous thing.

Families only want to live in single family homes. This is probably true for many families. But, despite the assumption otherwise, not all kids grow up in freestanding, single family homes. There's nothing wrong with apartment living for families, and maybe in Uptown and Lyn-Lake we should be encouraging that option for those families that want to live in the neighborhood but can't afford to buy a house. I'm not immune to the appeal of home ownership; we're hoping to buy a place (ideally a duplex or maybe a triplex), too, but I'd take longterm renting in Uptown or Lyn-Lake any day over a house in Armatage. It's just not for me. Kids can and do live in more urban neighborhoods, so let's stop assuming that everyone wants to move to quiet, pleasant, but boring neighborhoods (or worse, move out to the 'burbs).

Families don't need to have 2,000 square feet of living space. I admit it; if I could afford one of the grand old homes in the neighborhood I'd be happy to live there. They are big and beautiful and filled with history and original woodwork. I don't mind having space to spread out. I doubt we'll be able to afford one of those houses, though, and I have no problem with living with a smaller floor plan.

I like city living. I don't want to have to drive places. I want to be able to walk to the grocery store, the library, retail stores, the doctor, parks, and other destinations. When I can't walk I want to be able to take the bus (or, ideally, light rail!). I want safe streets, but don't mind a little noise at night, and don't care about traffic. I want my son to grow up enjoying urban life, and when he's older, being able to easily walk, bike, or take the bus places on his own, too. Both Uptown and Lyn-Lake are great places to raise kids, and instead of reading article after article making it sound like everyone in the neighborhood is 25, rolling in money, and spending every waking minute at the bars I wish we could start fully embracing the various neighborhoods of Ward 10 as places where people of ALL ages can find a home. Even if that home involves shared walls or no car, let alone minivan.

Does Gail Dorfman Ever Even RIDE a Bus?

It’s been another depressing day as I think about the Twin Cities’ overall attitude towards the role of public transportation in life. Specifically, I’ve been reading Gail Dorfman’s letter to those who support the 3C LRT alignment. While I support 3C, I can understand that there are valid reasons to support 3A, mostly that it may come down to a choice between 3A or nothing due to the current flawed federal funding formula. While that’s frustrating, it’s not nearly as frustrating or depressing as the arguments of people like Dorfman. A quote from the letter:

“Many people are curious as to why ridership in Uptown isn’t significantly higher than on the Kenilworth alignment. The answer lies in the excellent transit service that Uptown already enjoys. Adding LRT to Uptown does not draw a large number of new riders to the transit system, and while it may move some riders off of buses, that reduces the overall efficiency of the transit system.”

How does this make any sense? Let me take it point by point:

Uptown already enjoys excellent transit services. True, to a point. Uptown does have good bus connections, and it is relatively easy to live in Uptown without a car. At the same time, these bus routes are often slow. ConnectUptown has crunched the numbers: 22 minutes from the Uptown Transit Center to downtown (4th Street), 24 minutes from Lyn-Lake. The Uptown alignment would reduce that to nine minutes and eight minutes respectively. That sounds like a pretty major improvement in service to me. Besides, if we were going to go purely by this argument we could say that riders in Eden Prairie already have express bus service to downtown Minneapolis; why bother putting in light rail since it duplicates service?

“Adding LRT to Uptown does not draw a large number of new riders to the transit system.” Where does this idea come from? Is it based on bogus federal reports? Common sense suggests that this simply isn’t true. Despite the fact that Uptown does have plentiful bus options, the vast majority of Uptown residents do not, in fact, take public transportation on a regular basis, or at least not to work. Many do, of course, but census data has shown that as an overall percentage of the population there’s still a lot of room for growth. Not all residents work downtown, in Eden Prairie, or at points along the route, of course, but there’s still likely a sizable portion of untapped new riders that aren’t being factored into the equation. These are the same types of people that are expected to be attracted to light rail out in the suburbs: people who currently drive, don’t like buses, but could be convinced to take a train. If they count out in the ‘burbs then they should count here in the city.

Moving riders off buses reduces the overall efficiency of the transit system. I don’t really know where to start with this one. What? What does that mean? Isn’t the point of an efficient transportation system to get people quickly and easily from point A to point B? If a lot of people along the 3C route want to quickly and easily get downtown (or to Eden Prairie, or to Hopkins, or to St. Louis Park, or anywhere else along the way) then isn’t this route helping them to do just that? Or does this imply that there will be so much demand from existing transit users (who apparently don’t matter) that they’ll crowd the trains and make the LRT ridership numbers a little too high?

I’ve seen others (including Dorfman) argue that Uptown residents won’t walk a few extra blocks to get to the LRT station if they can just hop on a bus instead. Again, I’d like to know where they get this information. Bogus federal guidelines shouldn't count. Are there local market studies out there that suggest this? This in no way matches up to my experiences living in other cities, cities with active light rail and subway lines. In DC we lived on Connecticut Avenue a couple of miles from downtown. A bus stopped right in front of our door; while I did take the bus sometimes, I almost always preferred to walk the extra four blocks or so to the metro station. The bus was convenient, but, like in Minneapolis, it sat in traffic. Snow, traffic, motorcades; the same issues that plague Uptown (well, not the motorcades) led to frustratingly slow bus rides. Far better to just walk to the station, hop on a train, and zip along underground until I got to my stop. It worked the same way in Los Angeles. I rode the bus a lot, but the train (light rail in this case) was faster, didn’t get stuck in traffic, and was often worth the extra walk (and I wasn't the only one who felt that way). I certainly plan to ride LRT in Uptown if 3C does somehow get built, even if it means a few more blocks of walking. From the perspective of a parent, too, it’s far, far easier to bring a stroller onto a light rail car then onto a bus. Uptown parents (or parents elsewhere who want to easily visit Uptown with your kids): take it from me, 3C will make your lives easier.

Light rail does not have to be for commuters only. This focus on city versus suburbs overlooks the fact that there is a great deal of movement between city and suburbs, and that Uptown is a part of a regional network. This is not just about getting Uptown residents to and from downtown quickly, although that’s worth consideration, too, given the density of the neighborhoods in the 3C corridor.

I can understand why some people support 3A, although I don’t agree with that choice. That’s not what angers me here. What is so depressing is to have politicians like Dorfman throwing out all sorts of arguments that make little or no sense, and perpetuate the myth a viewpoint that light rail lines are only for commuting. When I read some of the rationale thrown out by Dorfman I’ve got to wonder: does she ride the bus? How often does she ride the bus in Uptown? Does she take public transit in other cities? Because quite honestly, the impression I’m getting from a lot of these people is that they could use a little more time in the real public transit world. If they’re going to continue to advocate for 3A then please, please stick to the rational arguments, and stop arguing that the low Uptown ridership numbers reflect any kind of reality.

I Love Alleys

I love alleys, and always have. I've been trying to analyze why, and think it has something to do with the blend of their private nature and utilitarian function. Wandering through a neighborhood's alleys show a glimpse of another world, one completely different from the facade out front. Garages themselves can be interesting, ranging from the architecturally intriguing to the hideously ugly, from the old and decrepit to the updated and modern, as well as all points in between. Nature, too, can be found back there; squirrels, birds, cats, sometimes rabbits or raccoons, not to mention the ever-present lilac bushes and other greenery bravely hugging the property lines and filling the gaps between garages. You can get a peek at people's backyards, some fabulous retreats still visible to the alley, others blocked off by tall fences, and still others unfortunately paved over into unpleasant surface parking lots.

Not all of Uptown's blocks have alleys, but many of them do. I've spent a lot of time in them over the years; walking dogs, pushing strollers, and visiting garage sales. The photos below are not meant to be the best examples of Uptown's alley system, but rather a handful of images that struck my fancy when I went out on a photo-gathering trip earlier in the summer.



Maybe it's because I grew up on a house with an alley view of the Buzza Building (Lehmann Center), but I think those enjoying the view from the alley between Dupont and Colfax should count themselves lucky. I've always appreciated the fact that you can see the beautiful and fascinating historic Buzza Building from blocks away; those who complain about newer tall buildings "blocking the sky" should stop for a moment and realize that the Buzza's tower is pretty tall, yet I've never once heard anyone complain about how it ruins the character of the neighborhood.

One of these days we're hoping to buy a place of our own, and when we do one of the first things we do will be to plan a vegetable garden. In the meantime I'll have to make do with watching the progress of those lucky enough to have sunny space of their own.

Yet another reason I want to buy a home of my own... I really want some backyard chickens. Uptown's chicken population is growing, and these lucky chickens reside in a beautiful red alley-side coop.

This alley (near Bryant Lake Bowl) isn't itself particularly attractive, but I liked how the building is edged with a strip of greenery.

Yet more garden photos; an example of how vegetable gardening doesn't have to be expensive or fancy to be productive and worthwhile.

This garage could use a little work, but I love the architecture. Let's hope it never suffers the fate of an owner who decides to "upgrade" to a massive new structure. I love Uptown's historic garages, especially those with a lot of character.

The garage itself isn't beautiful, but the modern and attractive address numbers add some visual interest. There's no reason the back entrance can't be given the same care and attention as the front of the house, or that garages can't also benefit from a little creativity.

Ever wonder how to best use that small patch of space between two garages? I loved the canoe storage concept.