Lara Norkus-Crampton: "Part of the Problem"

By now everyone has heard that Lara Norkus-Crampton has resigned her seat on the Planning Commission in protest over the Commission’s support of the project at Lake and Knox. What? You haven’t heard? You haven’t heard of Norkus-Crampton, and didn’t realize that she’s doing this for you, the people of Uptown? That, of course, is part of the problem, and is yet another reason why it’s so frustrating when people like Norkus-Crampton and her merry band of NIMBYs claim to speak for all Uptown residents and stakeholders. While it would be nice if every resident or other Uptown property owner, business owner, employer, visitor, or other Uptown regular was actively involved in discussions about the neighborhood and its future, that’s not the reality. Norkus-Crampton and the NIMBYs are one faction of the neighborhood; a vocal faction, of course, but just one group out of many.

Most of the readers of this blog probably do know Norkus-Crampton and her history, but then again, readers of this blog are, like the NIMBYs, not necessarily a representative cross-section of Uptowners. Norkus-Crampton has been an active figure in local development issues, and is one of the leading proponents of the concept that tall buildings, or even slightly tall buildings, are single-handedly going to destroy Uptown’s “character.” Norkus-Crampton and the NIMBYs have a vision of Uptown as a quieter place, a less-dense neighborhood where they can “see the sky.” And while I certainly think diversity of opinions is a good thing, and value a good community discussion as much as the anyone, the NIMBYs are, to adapt Norkus-Crampton’s description of the Planning Commission (“I have come to the conclusion that the Planning Department, and the Planning Commission, as a whole, are part of the problem”) the real problem facing Uptown today. Norkus-Crampton’s actions sum up the general attitude in a nutshell: my way or the highway.

Norkus-Crampton claims that the Planning Commission’s vote in favor of the Knox development shows a “complete disregard” for the Uptown Small Area Plan. More specifically, she says it destroys what she calls “the Grand Compromise,” a compromise she alleges the USAP allowed for higher density and height in the core of Uptown in return for lower height. The reality is not that simple. Uptown business leader and USAP steering committee member Thatcher Imboden described his view of things in a recent post on the Minneapolis Issues Forum:

“Height was a component, but it was intentionally not elevated to supreme status. Height itself, determined through our planning process, was not the main issue. It was the height’s relationship with people… meaning how it made you feel on the sidewalk and how it impacted other properties…. But, that’s not quite 100% the way everything ended. A pre-draft came out and was distributed to the Steering Committee. It supported a little more height than the adopted plan. But mysteriously, that height was stripped out a week later without any reason given. The official draft had every district recommended for 3-5 stories with potentially a little more between the Greenway and Lake between Dupont and Hennepin. Otherwise it said that height may be increased from time to time and it left the doors open for that discussion…. The public was told very clearly that staff would not make a recommendation on height and that the Planning Commission would resolve it after taking public comments in writing during the draft response phase and during the Planning Commission official proceedings. Lots of people gave feedback, some saying it’s a good plan, some saying less height, and some people saying more height would be fine, and others saying making it clear that the plan is flexible. BUT, the Planning Commission stated after the public hearing that a compromise had already been reached and they didn’t want to reopen the conversation. Except it hadn’t really been resolved.”

Was this the “Grand Compromise?” Does Norkus-Crampton really think that the Commission’s recent vote was a referendum on the USAP? The approved USAP itself even spells out the potential ambiguity of situations such as the Lake and Knox project. “On occasion, variances and conditional use permits within the Shoreland Overlay District may be appropriate,” (47) for example, and “a broader public discussion that evaluates and weights the overall public contributions and merits of an individual project should be expected on occasion in the future in the even that a taller building is proposed.” (74) I find it outrageous that Norkus-Crampton and her allies have the nerve to proclaim the USAP dead. “This kills the compromise,” said Norkus-Crampton in her resignation press release, “how do you say ‘yes’ to one 56 foot high proposal and ‘no’ to others who will follow this new precedent?” Well, Lara, it’s easy. You go with the plan and evaluate each proposal in turn, just like the USAP suggests. Norkus-Crampton calls the Commission’s willingness to follow the USAP’s flexibility as “cavalier;” I call her disregard for the plan and differing views cavalier.

I’m not sure exactly what to think of Norkus-Crampton’s actions. On one hand, I’m tempted to write it off as a childish reaction to not getting her way. The NIMBYs, after all, have enjoyed a great deal of power in recent years. On the other hand, maybe she really does believe in what she says. I’m not sure which is worse. Is it better to set yourself up as a martyr for the cause when you know full well that the plan was designed to be flexible (in a political move designed to further your overall agenda), or is it better to have such tunnel vision that you honestly don’t understand the details of the plan? To put it in a non-Minnesota “nice”way, is she calculating, is she dumb, or is she oblivious? I think it’s the case of well-meaning tunnel vision, myself. I don’t think she’s stupid and I doubt she’s particularly Machiavellian, but I do think she’s not spending enough quality time engaging in meaningful, sometimes uncomfortable, debates (internal or external) about Uptown and its past, present, and future. I think she honestly does believe that her view of Uptown and its potential is shared by the vast majority of local residents, or, if they don’t share it, then they must have somehow sold out to the evil developers who are out to destroy the neighborhood. In any case, I’m glad to see Norkus-Crampton go, but hope that it doesn’t newly energize an already energized bunch of vocal residents who already enjoy a disproportionate amount of political power.

“This proposal was opposed by the East Isles, ECCO, and CARAG neighborhoods,” said Norkus-Crampton in her press release. It’s this disregard for the people of Uptown, or at least for those who don’t share the NIMBY viewpoint, that really gets me steamed. The NIMBYs often claim to speak for entire neighborhoods. The problem, of course, is that the project was opposed by the neighborhood boards (and not all board members), and boards should not be considered the same thing as neighborhoods. The neighborhood boards are not particularly representative of the neighborhood residents, and are easily dominated by small groups of people with special interests. Neighborhood boards have their strengths and weaknesses, and certainly have a role to play in Uptown, but they have a lot of work to do if they want to become true representative bodies. The NIMBYs have nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to lose, by becoming more diverse and encouraging a broader range of opinions, so unless a slate of new neighborhood activists bursts onto the scene in coming years (and are willing to put up with the process and the frustrations of dealing with the current status quo day in and day out) it appears that the NIMBYs will continue to shape the dialogue as the “official” spokesmen and women for Uptown-area neighborhoods.

It remains to be seen what new role Norkus-Crampton will play in the ongoing debate about the future of Uptown, but I, for one, pledge to do my part to place Norkus-Crampton and her allies in their proper context: a group of neighborhood residents who have one concept of what Uptown is and should be, but not a group that has the authority to speak on behalf of all, or even most, Uptown residents and stakeholders. As for Norkus-Crampton herself, I appreciate her love of the neighborhood and her dedication to making it a better place to live (although our opinions differ on the details), but hope for the sake of Uptown that she channels her new free time into bird watching and planning block parties instead of resuming her role of ECCO and Uptown’s Queen NIMBY.

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.

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.

I Take a Gander at the Girard Meander

With new construction at both Calhoun Square and the new Mozaic space comes the opportunity for a new public thoroughfare. The plan is that the portion of Girard between Mozaic's plaza and Lake street, and from there Calhoun Square, will become what has been dubbed the "Girard Meander." The Meander will be open to cars, but will be designed to be easily closed off for evening or weekend events.

The Uptown Small Area Plan says "the street [Girard Meander] should be designed to be closed on occasion for festivals, events, and markets." This sounds great, especially the market thing - I hope that it's a sign that there is a movement from somewhere within Uptown to get a farmer's market going.

I think it's a great idea: create a public space that will perhaps be truly public (unlike Calhoun Square, which remains in private hands) and can be used for a variety of outdoor public functions. Wide sidewalks are a wonderful thing, especially if they can accommodate outdoor patios and other amenities of fun city living.

My only problem with the Girard Meander? It's got to be the world's stupidest name. "Girard Meander." It sounds like it was made up by some mall marketing firm. Does everything need to have a name? And do they need to sound so artificial? It's not like there's a meandering river winding its way up Girard. It's just a street with some sidewalks. A nice street, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give it a dumb name befitting of some new development in Chaska.

The Girard Meander? It's a good thing. "Girard Meander?" I hope you never catch me calling it by such a ridiculous moniker.

Should Neighborhood Activists Be Required to Take Logic 101?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laurel Village is (sort of) tall.

Laurel Village is boring and has no street life.

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

and

Village Green is (sort of) tall.

Village Green has had limited retail success.

Therefore, tall buildings have limited retail success.

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

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

Who ARE These People, and Why Do They Live Here?!?

I've been spending more time combing through the Uptown Small Area Plan - both the main document and its appendices. The USAP is a must-read for anyone interested in Uptown. You, like me, might wish you had had the opportunity to fully participate in the formation of the plan, but that doesn't mean that the future of Uptown is a done deal. It's never too late to get involved, or too late to have your voice heard.

OK, enough with the lecture. Let's move on to some of the most intriguing elements of the USAP: the meeting summaries in the appendix. Specifically, to a November night back in 2006. Yes, that's more than two years ago, but most of the same people are still around, and as I've said before, I bet most of them have the same opinions now as they did then. Before getting into the meat of my complaints (expressions of amazement?) let me first acknowledge that diversity of opinion can be a great thing. I think it's wonderful that so many residents and stakeholders came out to express their vision for the future. That said, there's some scary opinions in there - and I think it's an even scarier thing that these viewpoints are most likely held by a small but vocal (and influential) minority.

On November 8 and 8, 2006, approximately 160 people came together to lay out their vision for Uptown. They gathered in groups of five to eight people and together dreamed about the future. They then shared their visions with the group, and through the finalized Uptown Small Area Plan's appendices, to the rest of us.

The Question: What do you want Uptown to look like and feel like in the future?

The Answers: I agree with most of the answers. I won't go into details here (read it for yourself online), but generally people wanted a mix of business and residential offerings, good transportation, green space, a diversity (in all senses of the word), and a sense of distinct place. Some people, however, had some more extreme views. Some of the highlights:

No LRT station in Uptown.

What? Who in their right mind would prefer there NOT to be a light rail station in Uptown? They would prefer to leave Uptown out of the greater long-term train transit grid that will - one hopes - once again cross the city? This wasn't just one group, either; several groups expressed this hope. I think some of these people have some romantic notion of streetcars connecting Uptown with other transit points. I doubt that these residents actually take public transportation themselves. I can't imagine an actual Minneapolis transit rider based in Uptown actually preferring to decrease their public transportation options. I'll have to post more on this later, but in the meantime let me just say that Uptowners need to unite and make one last push to ensure that the next LRT line comes through Uptown.

Dinner and movie destinations close up at midnight on the weekend and 10 pm on weeknights.

Who are these people? Why do they live here? There are many other nice options in town, many of them also in close proximity to the lakes. I certainly don't want an environment where people drink too much, drive drunk through the streets, drunkenly sing as they stagger their way home, or otherwise cause a public nuisance, but this idea that dinner and movies should close up early is crazy. Bonkers. Bad for the neighborhood. I can't imagine that there are more than a few people in Uptown who feel like this, but unfortunately their participation in this exercise probably gives them a greater statistical importance than they deserve. What's next, a ban on dancing?

Uptown is a place that Linden Hills is envious of. [sic]

Ha, I knew it. Proof that there are people in Uptown who would prefer that their supposedly beloved, "unique" neighborhood turn into another Linden Hills. Linden Hills is a wonderful neighborhood. It offers a great deal to its residents and to visitors. It is, in short, an all-around fabulous place to live. So why don't these Uptown residents choose to live there? I certainly don't follow the "if you don't like it you can just leave" model of neighborhood planning; everyone has a right to his or her opinion about where they live, and can and should work to make their visions a reality. But that still doesn't explain why someone would purchase a home in Uptown - knowing full well that Uptown is a busier, louder, more urban kind of neighborhood - and then complain about it.

Linden Hills is not better or worse than Uptown, and Uptown is not better or worse than Linden Hills. The two neighborhoods offer different amenities and lifestyles. They each have their pluses and minuses. Uptown has no reason to be envious of Linden Hills, and I don't know why Linden Hills would ever be envious of Uptown. These are two complementary neighborhoods that, taken together, offer Minneapolis residents (well, those who can afford it - which I have feeling the Uptown complainers probably can) two distinct lifestyle and housing options.

I agree with those who argue that one of Uptown's problems is that local government - in this case the neighborhood boards - do not fully represent the population as a whole. These boards are dominated by older, white homeowners. Certainly many of them do share the interests and opinions of many of their constituents. But others don't. I believe that the boards would be more than willing to open their ranks to those who don't the standard profile. It's not an instance of intentional freezing out of the masses. That doesn't make it any less of a problem, though. It's therefore up to all of us to speak out, become involved whenever possible, and let it be known that most Uptowners moved here because they like Uptown. They like urban neighborhoods. They like public transportation. They like being able to meet up with friends or family for dinner, a movie, even maybe a cocktail (!).

Join your neighborhood board, or at least attend meetings. Read the local papers. Send letters and emails to local politicians. Talk to your friends. Follow the upcoming city council races and demand answers from the candidates. Invite Lara Norkus-Crampton out for a late night beer to discuss planning issues. Uptown is for everyone, and it's time that the silent majority rises up to make their voices heard.

Uptown's "Clash of Cultures"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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