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.

Cowboy Slim's Plus-sized Parking Costs - Does it Matter?

I see that CARAG is in the process of submitting a letter to the City opposing Cowboy Slim’s “exorbitant” $9 parking fee. Cowboy Slim’s is the Old West saloon-themed restaurant opening soon in Campiello’s old space. And while I wasn’t at their meeting, I can guess the gist of the conversation; undoubtedly residents fear that if parking is too expensive then people will instead simply park on “their” streets.

I agree that $9 for parking is a lot. I’m sure many people won’t be willing to shell out that kind of money. I know I wouldn’t, at least not just for dinner at an Uptown restaurant (of course I’d just walk to begin with, but that’s besides the point). That said, I don’t have a problem with them charging whatever they feel is appropriate.

I don’t think many people will park in the neighborhoods. For one thing, the streets closest to Cowboy Slim’s have permit-only parking restrictions. Yes, a few ambitious people will walk a few extra blocks to get free street parking, but I think many others will simply park in the newly expanded Calhoun Square garage. This is a good thing. It means that these customers will park, walk through Calhoun Square and from there along the street. They’ll pass other retail stores, and will perhaps be tempted to extend their dinner into a bigger evening out. That translates into dollars for Uptown, dollars that provide our local businesses with the money they need to survive and thrive in tough times.

I would also like to think that many of Cowboy Slim’s customers will come from the neighborhood and will therefore be walking (or possibly biking). Uptown is, of course, a regional destination, and I’m sure that a large percentage of diners will indeed come from elsewhere. Many of them will drive. That’s a fact of life in Uptown, and realistically dealing with a tight parking situation comes with the territory. It’s all part of the larger trade-off for living in an urban neighborhood with lots of offerings.

In many ways this is yet another reason to argue for the Uptown light rail route; quick efficient train transportation means that people from the southwest suburbs can park (or walk to) their local station, then just take the train to Uptown and not deal with parking at all. There will always be some people who refuse to give up the car, but there are plenty of others who will be more than happy to go with free or cheap parking near home coupled with a quick (and entertaining, to some extent, as Minnesotans get used to the novelty of FINALLY having the beginnings of an actual rail network of their own) transportation into the heart of Uptown for a fun night out.

Cowboy Slim’s is the target of this particular CARAG complaint, but the reality is that they are simply the victim of the larger Uptown parking wars. Now if they would just add some hitching posts maybe all those would-be cowboys could just ride their horses in on the Greenway…

Is Uptown a Good Place to Raise Children?

There seem to be a lot of divergent ideas as to whether or not Uptown is a family-friendly (as in families with kids) kind of place. Some say it is, others say it isn’t; others say it was but isn’t now, while some say it is now but wasn’t in the past. Is Uptown a good place to raise children? What does it currently offer families, and what is it missing?

I grew up in Uptown, so I’m admittedly biased. I think it was - and is - a great place for kids, and hope to raise my own children here. That doesn't mean that it’s perfect, or that there isn’t room for improvement. I do think, however, that the same things that make it attractive to many adults -an urban lifestyle that doesn't require a car, interesting things to see and do, the lakes, attractive homes of different styles, etc. - are also relevant to families with children.

Top Five Benefits for Uptown-area Families

1. The Lakes. Everyone loves the lakes, but anyone with children can attest to the fact that they need a lot of time to run around outdoors. Living near the lakes means long leisurely stroller rides, visits to the beaches, opportunities to look for turtles and watch ducks, access to bike trails, the Tot Lot, canoe and kayak rentals, readily available ice cream cones, and winter ice skating. In short, there’s stuff to do for kids of all ages, with or without their parents.
2. There are recreational opportunities (beyond the lakes). Uptown has several city parks, the YWCA, and the Walker Library. They all offer stuff to do, both of the formal and the informal variety.
3. It’s safe. Sure, Uptown sometimes has its problems, but for the most part it’s a safe place to live. Crime is relatively low, the streets have sidewalks, and most kids have safe access to outdoor play space of some sort.
4. There are other kids in the neighborhood, too. There aren’t as many kids here as in some city neighborhoods, but there are still enough that parents with kids won’t feel like rare exotic creatures living in a landscape void of sippy cups or big wheels.
5. It’s a compact place with plenty of stores and public transportation. Who wants to stick their kid in a car seat just to trek to the grocery store? I certainly don’t. At least here you have the option of walking to pretty much everywhere you need to go: grocery store, playground, nursery school, elementary school, lakes, doctors, shops (including places like the Shoe Zoo, which is about as family-friendly as it gets). And when you don’t feel like walking there is always the bus (and I hope eventually a light rail line). For parents of older kids this means that you don’t have to shuttle your teenager around – they know how to read a bus schedule, right?

Some Suggestions for Improvement

1. More diversity would be nice. Uptown is a pretty white place. Both Uptown-adjacent neighborhoods Lyndale and Whittier offer far more ethnic diversity. At least Uptown has a lot of gay and lesbian parents; diversity of family types is a good thing, too.
2. More affordable housing. Houses in Uptown are expensive, and families looking to buy often go elsewhere. There are larger duplexes and apartments available for families needing multiple bedrooms, but those can be expensive. There’s also more of a stigma against the idea of renting here (in Minneapolis) than in many other cities, I think, with the result that some families may feel socially pressured into buying elsewhere immediately rather than renting in Uptown.
3. More family-oriented stores. I’d really like to see another toy store in Uptown. Local kids could buy things with their allowance, while the neighborhood’s many parents grandparents (and uncles, aunts, family friends, etc.) could pick up the latest educational organic handmade gizmo guaranteed to turn their beloved child/grandchild into an artistic, athletic, and academic genius. I’d also like to see a basic thrift shop – something along the lines of a Salvation Army or Goodwill – where parents could inexpensively outfit their kids. And, while I’m sure some parents and dentists don’t agree, a fun, child-focused candy store could be a fun addition to the neighborhood.
4. The school/neighborhood links could be strengthened. The Wedge and East Isles neighborhoods probably feel pretty connected to Jefferson and Kenwood Schools (and maybe Whittier, too, to some extent), but ECCO and CARAG don’t have a regular school within their neighborhood limits. And forget about local junior highs or high school – they’re located elsewhere. The realities of modern life in Minneapolis, or in Uptown, at least, is that, for better or for worse, there are no true “community” schools in the traditional sense of the word.

More Thoughts on Lyn-Lake and Uptown

In a city with sharply defined boundaries between official, government-recognized neighborhoods, Lyn-Lake and Uptown stand out as being more ambiguous communities. While not neighborhoods in the NRP sense, they are neighborhoods in the community sense. To complicate things further there is no one, shared larger vision of exactly what is the Lyn-Lake "neighborhood" versus what is Uptown. In addition, two formal neighborhoods (CARAG and the Wedge - aka LHENA) straddle both Uptown and Lyn-Lake. I've addressed this in other posts, but given that Lyn-Lake is currently in the process of creating a Small Area Plan of their own I thought it worth another visit.

As with Uptown, the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan process started with a series of community meetings. While the complete report has not yet been issued, initial meeting notes as well as additional materials can be found online. Some of the comments I found most interesting, as well as relevant to a larger Lyn-Lake/Uptown discussion include the following (not direct quotes):

• One participant lives between Uptown and the plan's Lyn-Lake cut-off boundary; this person stated that they do not consider themselves as living in Uptown, and believed that the two areas were distinct and unique.
  

I know that there are several ways of looking at this. One perspective is that Uptown is a vast, sprawling area encompassing multiple commercial districts. Lyn-Lake might be considered part of Uptown if you take that view. The other perspective is the one taken by this participant; Uptown and Lyn-Lake are different places. I happen to agree with this person - I feel that Lyn-Lake and Uptown are, and should be, seen as separate and unique. They are, on the other hand, very closely interconnected, and realistically it is impossible to totally separate the two. Perhaps the implementation of the Uptown Small Area Plan and the future completion and implementation of the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan will help each area to better tackle these complex issues for the benefit of both Lyn-Lake and Uptown.

This participant's comments also highlight the personal subjective nature of identifying with neighborhoods; I'd guess that there are others living on the same block who feel a strong affiliation with Uptown. It also serves as a reminder that the official boundaries of formal neighborhoods, typically major commercial streets, do not always correlate with the more unofficial community boundaries of city neighborhoods.

• Several people thought that Lyn-Lake of today reminded them of Uptown of the 1960s and 1970s .
  

I agree with this. It's one of the strongest appeals of Lyn-Lake today. Lyn-Lake has a more old-school, eclectic, non-yuppified vibe going for it. The challenge will be to retain that feel as it continues to evolve.

• At least one person wanted Lyn-Lake to retain its own distinct identity, and not be seen as Uptown's "dowdy sister."
  

Amen to this! Lyn-Lake should be distinct, should be celebrated, and shouldn't be seen as "Uptown-lite."

Exciting vibrant and walkable cities such as New York, San Francisco, or Washington DC contain long strings of interesting neighborhoods. Take Washington DC, for example. Let's say you live in Dupont Circle. You can stay in the neighborhood, enjoying all it has to offer, but whenever you want a change of pace you can walk to nearby Adams Morgan, Georgetown, or Woodley Park for a completely different feel. I'd like to think that Uptown and Lyn-Lake can be sort of like Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan - different but equally nice neighborhoods in their own ways, with at-times blurred borders yet each with with a strong sense of personal identity.

Both Uptown and Lyn-Lake leaders, as well as the City of Minneapolis, not to mention the many residents of both neighborhoods (wherever you consider their boundaries to fall) recognize the importance of strong connections between Lyn-Lake and Uptown. These connections should continue to strengthen with the completion of both Small Area Plans, as well as with continued improvements and activity along the Midtown Greenway as well as along Lake Street. The future looks exciting, whether for Lyn-Lake, Uptown, or a broader "UPTOWN" encompassing it all.

Uptown's Urban Farmland

Uptown is a pretty "green" place to live. The area is packed with people who care about environmental issues, and both the local neighborhood boards as well as the recent Uptown Small Area Plan address options for improving the neighborhood's impact on the environment. Uptown's lakes offer residents and visitors with an opportunity to get outside and enjoy nature in all seasons, as does the Midtown Greenway. And, while the lakes offer multiple obvious environmental and quality of life benefits, it's the Midtown Greenway and its possibilities that really excite me.

The Midtown Greenway Coalition advocates for the use of the Greenway as a "green urban pathway," and suggests adjacent community gardens as a way to "showcase native plants, on site water management, and ecological sustainability." I completely agree with all of this, but how about putting additional emphasis on organic, local, appropriate food production? I would love to see the length of the Greenway dotted with continuous, or near continuous, gardens. These gardens, whether owned and operated by community groups, the city or park, schools, private landowners, or any other organization, business, or individual, would provide Minnesota-appropriate organic food for area residents, thereby increasing everyone's access to fresh, affordable produce, decreasing the environmental costs associated with the transportation of food from elsewhere, adding beauty to the Greenway, and providing additional Greenway safety as a result of increased people presence in the form of Greenway gardeners.

The Soo Line Garden, a community garden located just outside of Uptown (at Garfield in Whittier) is already well into its second decade of existence. According to the Midtown Greenway Coalition, talks are underway with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to investigate the possibility of formally transferring ownership of the land to ensure its continued and permanent status as a public garden. Interest in these and other gardens across the city is high (with many gardens lacking space to accommodate all who would like to participate), and will presumably continue to grow as a result of rising food costs coupled with an increased awareness of and interest in the local foods and urban farm movements. Let's build on the concept of community gardens and line the Greenway - including the portion running through Uptown - with fruits, vegetables, and other edibles. These plants, in accordance with the Midtown Greenway Coalition's existing resolution on native plants, could be selected from native species wherever possible.

I'd like to expand this idea even more and suggest that additional agricultural options also be included along the Greenway. Chickens, dairy goats, honey bees - all could find a place in what could be a stretch of urban agriculture running through the heart of the city. This would involve, among other things, the loosening of current city regulations to encourage and support responsible, well-run urban mini-farms up and down the Greenway. The farms could be both public and private, selling their products (an Uptown Cheese Company? Lyn-Lake Honey?) at the eventual Uptown's Farmer's Market or even directly from their plots to walkers and bikers making their way up and down the Greenway.

The urban farm movement isn't new, but it does seem to be picking up speed in recent years. It's admittedly a new world to me, and I have a lot yet to learn. The Greenway is still fairly young and is still evolving, so this is our chance to truly do something radical that will help the environment, our neighborhood, and the city. I would welcome any input from readers who have information on already existing conversations on this or similar topics.

The Midtown Greenway is already a highly artificial, human-shaped pathway through the city. It's not an existing untouched native landscape. While lining the shores of Lake Calhoun or Lake of the Isles with food-producing gardens wouldn't make sense, doing so on the Greenway does. It's not even necessary to have a full, complete community garden - thin strips of fruit trees, bean plants, corn stalks, or thin beds of herbs, whatever we can squash into the space available, whether in raised beds, in the ground itself, or even in boxes hanging from nearby building walls - along the route could fill in sections between the larger, more formal parks and gardens. Let's take the concept of a "green urban pathway" to the next step and provide Uptown - and south Minneapolis - with this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop and implement a modern vision of a more self-sustainable and environmentally-friendly urban life.

Memo to Permit Parking Advocates: Too Bad!

Ah, the parking issue. Nothing, other than height, of course, gets Uptowners up in arms more than a debate about the parking problems.

CARAG resident and parking permit advocate Phillip Qualy wrote an opinion piece in January 2008's Uptown Neighborhood News in response to those who would prefer to see the ill-conceived permit-only parking done away with once and for all. "Other neighborhoods and other neighborhood groups want to weigh into our front yards and take away what we enjoy," he wrote. His advice to his frustrated neighbors? They should just get permit parking, too!

For evidence that Qualy and his fellow advocates just don't get it, check out this next sentence: "we pay taxes and we have the right to enjoy our curb space and the privacy of our residential yards." Yes, he does then acknowledge that the streets are public domain, but then brushes that inconvenience off with the assertion that his right to a parking spot somehow needs to be balanced with the rights of others to park on city streets.

I feel sympathy for those who can't find a parking spot. Really, I do. I know how frustrating it can be to circle block after block, looking for something, somewhere, that won't require carrying my bags five blocks home through the rain or snow (I should note that those experiences happened elsewhere; I doubt most Uptowners have ever had to park that far away). But Qualy's desire for a convenient parking spot is not my problem. It's not the city's problem. Most of the residents in the permitted areas have garages; why not park there? And if they don't, or if they have more cars than will fit, or they just prefer to park on the street, well, they have equal right to a parking spot on their block as does anyone else.

Uptown has always been a busy place. It was, if anything, actually busier in years past. These people knew when they bought their homes or signed the lease that the streets could get crowded at times. They could have chosen to live elsewhere. Parking difficulties are something to factor in when deciding where to live; if it's something that is of great importance to you then you need to either live somewhere with a garage, perhaps rent a garage from a neighbor, or find somewhere else to live.

In many cities parking is not seen as a fundamental right of home ownership. A spot out in front is a perk, and homes with garages come with higher price tags. Apartments don't guarantee parking spots; they're available if you want one, but you have to pay for the privilege. I'd be open to the possibilty of limited parking without permits - perhaps a time limit for parking without a permit or some other gesture of goodwill - but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the streets are city property, and as such do not belong in private hands.

The permit parking pushers have somehow managed to pressure the city into giving them unwarranted special considerations. Permit parking - at least not as it is set up now - is not the answer. I hope that the next Ward 10 Council Member will have the willingness and the political might to stand up to this small but vocal group of residents and to give the streets back to the people - all of the people - to whom they really belong.

The Edgewater Irony

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



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



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


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