Secrets of the City

The desire of suburbanites to have urban amenities should not be surprising at all. Many miss the urban atmosphere but considered burb living a necessary tradeoff for good schools and low crime.

Or, like me (if you consider Eagan out there), to be close to my job. You can still find something urbany if you look. I’ve ridden my bike to work 6 of the last 7 days, including picking my daughter up from day care between work and home, and I can easily walk to a movie, grocceries, a haircut, the liquor store and several coffee shops. The only thing not close to me is a good breakfast joint (actually, I could bike to Jensen’s now that they have a breakfast place, so maybe that’s covered too).

I don’t own an SUV – just little fuel-efficient things for when I do drive.

Scooter, I’m being sincere (you have to say that on MNSpeak, if you are), are there sidewalks to walk on? And, if not, I just want to say you are one brave person. I was homeless and accidentally ended up in Edina for six months once and taking a walk with cars zooming by me scared the hell out of me.

I’m moving to the ‘burbs so that I can live with my girlfriend, who walks to her job in said ‘burbs. I, on the other hand, get to enjoy a 22 mile commute.

What I’m curious about is how they’re going to address the typical urban problems as these centers get bigger and more densely populated. Or will those problems even spring up?

just wondering: what makes these developments “urban”?

Seems like a good idea to condense development and make it pedestrian friendly, but where do these people head to when they go to work — downtown Minneapolis/St. Paul? So this doesn’t really address the traffic/commuting issues.

Plus, I bet 10 to 1 the majority of the shops going in are franchises — so all the centers look just like each other; nothing unique that people can claim their own and be proud of. So I’m thinking fad has no staying power. . .

Yeah, I’m still amazed that people say Eagan is SO FAR AWAY when it’s no big deal to run out to the MOA. And contrary to popular belief, buses DO run out here. I should know – I’m an Eagan resident who doesn’t own a car, much less an SUV.

What I’m curious about is how they’re going to address the typical urban problems as these centers get bigger and more densely populated. Or will those problems even spring up?

Most likely not for some time, because these places are socially engineered in a lot of the same ways that gated communities are. It’s like a faux-city theme park full of aging rich white folks whose kids moved out. Think Florida.

Also, higher density doesn’t mean shit when it’s still decentralised as hell. Unless you have a strong transit network that connects all the nodes of high-density development, most of the advantages are lost … except, of course, for that novel cartoony-city feel.

As someone who grew up in a county with one stoplight, it all seems “urban” to me. I enjoy bashing the burbs as much as anyone, but it’s time we get real and consider ourselves one big area rather than a collection of bergs.

You know, I like to make fun of the faux urbanism of some of these developments, but if it increases density and gets people out of their cars and walking/biking places (like the couple referenced in the article), I’m all for it.

It’s a good first step to get people to drive less for short trips, true. But you still either need centralisation (one big downtown to rule them all) or a strong transit connectivity between ‘city centers/downtowns’ to make it really work as a functioning region.

We currently have neither, and I don’t see either happening anytime soon.

oops.

So if someone slaps up a faux Disneyland in a Maple Grove gravel pit, it solves all problems that suburbs have. Good to know.

Not all the problems. There’s still jderusha, after all! ( ;

These new urban centers should reduce some traffic because while people still need to commute to their jobs, they can walk to the market to get a half gallon of milk instead of driving. Local trips make up a large percentage of trips in the burbs, because they were designed so that you can’t walk anywhere.

See the NYT site today to see how millionaire Manhattanites will sue over a 19th century vine covered stone wall.

Bud jr,

You really need to learn how to link to stories.

One of the big problems with suburbs is that they are sprawl. As suburbs move further away from the city core and properties get larger you need that much more infrastructure to reach out to them – that much more asphalt and concrete, pipes and wires. *That’s* one of the main problems with ‘em. Those dense little suburban developments are actually environmentally sounder than the huge McEstates Meadowlake Happy Communityville #8(tm). Lack of culture and urbanities(?) is just an inconvenience.

Of course, I live in downtown St. Paul and I can’t walk to the grocery store or the movie theater because we don’t have one. Not to mention an almost utter lack of retail. I do at least have a couple of coffee shops and for some extremely frustrating reason at least a dozen sub shops.

One of the reasons we picked our home in Maple Grove over Plymouth or some of the first ring burbs was the “faux” downtown. I can (and do) ride my bike to a hardware store, community center, gym, park, ice cream shop, grocery store, on and on. All of that within 2 miles of my home. It’s an homage to urbanism, at more affordable housing prices.

That said: lots of people work in Minnetonka, Maple Grove, Plymouth, Bloomington, etc.

My problem with downtown Maple Grove isn’t the lack of diversity of businesses (i.e. the chain stores–I happen to like Panera, okay?), but the lack of diversity of architecture. The cooky-cutter buildings make me queasy. Still, if I had to live in a suburb, it’d pry be Hopkins.

The cookie cutter town home developments ARE problematic, in my book.

And to be fair, Jason is right. There are some decently sized businesses in the ‘burbs. Best Buy, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Aveda, Patterson Dental, the list is fairly extensive.

Hey, we’ve got panera in the city too! Right across the street from my apartment, even!

Bloomington represent! Though I wish I worked downtown.

Wait, the Aveda Institute in the Masonic Building in old st. anthony isn’t the Aveda HQ?

Bummer ): Great building.

Oh and add Target to the list of Suburban HQs. Also General Mills. I know target isn’t there yet, but with Targetown going in on the fringes of Brooklyn something or other at the metro’s edge they will be soon.

Doug, I totally agree with you. MG put a moratorium on housing development, because they were worried about the cookie-cutter look. I wish I could build a totally contemporary home in my neighborhood… but sadly, the whole association cabal has me limited to choosing which shade of taupe my maintainance-free siding can be.

I bought in Maple Grove because I couldn’t afford to buy another ridiculously priced condo downtown, and honestly, I get a lot more for my money out here. But I’ve got to back De Rusha — there are gorgeous bike paths around here (I love the one around Rice Lake), and the only time I’m driving into the city is either on the weekends or for a show.

Trust me, I’d live in the city if it was an option, but when you can afford a $185k piece of property, what are you going to do — buy a nice cookie cutter townhome out in the burbs that’s close to work and that will appreciate in value, or a cookie cutter condo that has a $500/month association fee tacked on that has a significant chance of devaluation? The choice seems not that difficult to me.

FWIW — I live far closer to a grocery store now than I would have had I bought the condo I was looking at in Loring Park.

What, no FlatPaks for DeRusha?

I grew up on the streets of Philedelphia. (The first Rocky was filmed in my neighborhood.) My parents tell a story of when I was a young child we’d go to my grandparents house in Rockford, IL where they had a big green yard. They used to pick me up, place me on the grass, and laugh while I cried with terror and soiled myself because I didn’t know what grass was.

True story. And not funny. So quit laughing.

Target is just moving IT and a few other things outside of downtown. All the “money” jobs stay downtown along with all the pregnant 30-something Targetrons.

I doubt the Target HQ will actually head out to Brooklyn Park. They’ll send a ton of their back end logistics and personnel out there, but they know what kind of scheissstorm they’d be in for if they went back on their word and pulled out of downtown Minneapolis.

On the other hand, if it made good financial sense, I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised.

Uh, that would be Philadelphia… Hey Matt, how ’bout a spell check function?

Well, whether or not they officially designate it as their “real” HQ, the fact that the majority of their corporate office workers will be working there–far more than at the downtown building–essentially makes it a de facto HQ anyway.

Thomson West is HQ-ed in Eagan and actually pulls people from downtown to work in the burbs.

Do you really believe that, Saloth? From what I’ve heard they’re going to build an assload of office space out there, and they’d be foolish to keep anything but the essential ‘downtown’ jobs downtown. It gives me a really uneasy feeling that they’re basically abandoning the city for cheaper rent, but trying to assuage fears until the deed is done and everyone goes “wtf?”

Matt W–

I know a lot of people in the construction and RE biz. You have about a good a chance of a townhome in the burbs appreciating past inflation as you do on those downtown condos. Basically, when a house gets built in 6 weeks, it’s not much of any investment.

tmayhem: That raises an interesting question: are downtowns outdated (from an economic point of view)?

Maybe a silver lining of Target moving to Brooklyn would be a north LRT line, because communter rail has no intention of stopping in Brooklyn (or north Minneapolis where people actually use transit).

Tri, from the sounds of it they’re going to leave marketing, communications, legal, the execs, publicity, HR, etc. downtown and build out the logistical folks that are getting crowded over in City Center and some spots in the shiny new building. If the company wasn’t growing so damn fast, I might be worried, but they honestly are adding far too many people, and the space in Brooklyn Park will accomodate the areas that happen to be expanding fastest, while freeing up space downtown.

Scooter,

General Mills too. Most of the younger crew that I know are living uptown or downtown, or maybe even as far out as (gasp) St. Louis Park.

Unfortunately the only plan on the table for the northside is Express busses/BRT/bus lane stuff, and I think it doesn’t go out the way the Target stuff will be.

And I honestly don’t think downtowns *are* outdated. The real reason why they’ve seen so much decline is because of implicit governmental funding of programs that encourage(d) suburbanisation in america. The Highway program, the post WWII housing loans (not available for use in the city! only for new (suburban) construction!), etc. Not to mention the fact that the auto industry became the main driver of the US economy for quite a number of years, so the government was eager to support that however possible, which led to more and more sprawl and highways. Of course that kind of (artificially) cheap mobility means it’s cheaper to do business where the land is cheapest, i.e. at the urban fringe.

The problem of course is that the pattern continues indefinitely and now we have like 50 IIMSs. If the government would stop tilting the playing field in favour of sprawl by either giving equitable funding to transit or charging drivers for the use of highways, it might make economic sense again to do business in a centralised downtown manner. Why do drivers get a free ride on highways that cost far more money to build&maintain than public transit, but poor people have to pay a fare to ride the bus or train? If the road cost as much to drive on as the bus did to ride, would people choose to live closer to work? What if the toll was higher than the bus fare? What if the bus were free?

The economic disadvantages of downtown business can be blamed squarely on transportation policy (at every level, but especially the federal level since that’s where the lion’s share of monies come from for such things).

Is anyone else humming a little Beastie Boys “No Sleep Til Brooklyn” right now?

I think Target IT should be thankful they’re only moving to Brooklyn PARK rather than New Delhi.

MLH,

That’s great and all, but the townhomes in my neighborhood are going for 7-10% over what I paid 8 months ago.

Here’s my problem — I’d love, LOVE to live in the city. But it’s stupid for me to do so when I can buy/rent for half the price 15 minutes away, in a nice area with green space, bike paths, and more retail outlets than I really care to visit. I can argue up and down about how sprawl is bad for the whole metro area and how people should live in the city, but in the end it is what it is. The city can’t accomodate so many people, and that’s why prices are as high as they are.

I don’t think I can comment on the General Mills/Pillsbury thing, but they did move a lot of people out to Golden Valley a few years ago.

Matt, it depends on the city we’re talking about. Minneapolis is a very Western city. It’s built out, not up. Minneapolis’ urban planning lends itself to sprawl. If we went with a more tightly packed paradigm, housing prices in the city wouldn’t be nearly so out of whack.

Scooter says: “Thomson West is HQ-ed in Eagan and actually pulls people from downtown to work in the burbs.”

Pulls me from Bloomington. Pulls my cube neighbor from MPLS, another from Taylors Falls.

New York begs to differ about being able to “handle” so many people in a certain amount of space.

And Tokyo and Hong Kong laugh and sneer.

If Minneapolis were able to handle more people given its current infrastructure, prices would be a lot lower. But it can’t, so prices are high. Again, we can argue about how the infrastructure should be changed to accomodate more people, but the way things stand it is too expensive.

tmayhem, the millions of people living in NY suburbs because they don’t want to pay $1,200/month for a 500 sq ft studio apartment in the city would beg to differ as well.

we forget the reason we go “out” in the Twin Cities is because of nearly endless cheap land. It’s part of the American dream to have that 40 acres, an ax and a mule. Well, in my case in 40 extra pounds, a can of Raid, and a mice problem. But whatever…

Tmayhem,

well, I posted that from high within the T Towers so I have a little bit of insight. Most creative and directly-related-to-creative jobs will be in the city. It jobs, financial services and other things that don’t end up in Mumbai will end up on the “campus”. The new building was full the day it opened. Then again, who knows what’s going to happen, it’s all at Ulrich’s whim in the end.

Also, I agree that’s it’s really hard for people to actually afford living in the city. I want more people downtown, not just the empty nesters who can afford it. There is a serious lack of affordable (ie under $200K) housing in both downtowns.

I have a shitload of debt and make a relatively modest income. But I live in a house in Minneapolis, three blocks from the Mississsippi River. I manage to make ends meet.

I am willing to guess that the difference between Matt W. and me amounts to square footage. Yes, my house is small. But it’s got character, class, and a decent yard. I can bike anywhere in the city. LRT and numerous bus lines are close and convenient. I wouldn’t trade my little place for a hundred fake downtowns.

“The new building was full the day it opened.”

Everyone is just speculating about what Target is going to do at this point. They are talking about thousands of employees and billions of dollars – if anyone thinks that plan is completely baked then you’re fooling yourselves. It would probably be more cost effective and efficient for TGT to have all their employees in the same place but it doesn’t sound like they are willing to say that’s what they’re doing – yet. It’s funny (and sad) how employees are sometimes the last to know.

GM and Pillsbury moved in together – completely. That new building you see along 169 was built to handle the expansion and they have quite a campus.

I wonder how different things would be w/Target if they didn’t headquarter in a city where the “leaders” are in the grasp of people who hate corporations and would actually welcome the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars they generate. Instead, they’re viewed as evil and common sense says someday they’ll move where they’re actually appreciated.

As I said in the library thread, this is why people look at us and shake their heads.

Leaders here hate corporations? How is it then, kwatt, that two professional sports teams (and one college team) are likely to get new stadiums at taxpayer expense and to the tune of $1.5 billion? Last night on Fox9, a woman here in North Minneapolis said this about witnessing the execution-style murder of her neighbor: “We can build a stadium, but we can’t afford to keep our streets safe?” The priorities here are definitely pro-corporate, don’t ya think? Plus, you can argue that tax incentives, funding of infrastructure that improves our quality of life (and the ability for the Targets of the area to recruit staff) are anything but anti-corporate. Kwatt, from reading your comments of late, it’s clear you’re not interested in a nuanced and realistic discussion but one marked by hyperbole and polarizing.

Check out the sheer amount of TIF target got to build the HQ downtown and tell me that’s an anti-corporate bias at work…

We’re talking about the City of Minneapolis here. The stadium proposals are funded by Hennepin County, Anoka County and the State of Minnesota/U of M. Minneapolis is only involved in the periphery of the Twins stadium and played no part in the deal, it’s barely involved in the U deal if at all and not at all involved with the Vikings. This if stadium/why not _____ is pure garbage. Why not say this, “We can place the Shubert Theater as our top bonding priority but we can’t afford to keep our streets safe?” Or this, “We can build a brand new library but we can’t afford to keep our streets safe.” Or this, “We can afford to study a way to bring back the streetcar lines but we can’t afford to keep our streets safe?” Get the picture? Building a stadium, or doing anything else, does in no way lessen anyone’s commitment to public safety or anything else. But it makes for a great quote on the news, the kind of stuff FOX9 eats up, and it sounds really nice, until you actually think about it. Then it makes little sense at all.

Using that logic, when the city council sets its budget it should before anything else set the police/crime fighting budget, and then use whatever money is left over for everything else. Sounds nice, but it is not the reality of government or budgeting. I’d also argue that if it was such a new library was so important we had to raise taxes for it, why not do the same for the police department? Are we going to put our money where our mouth is and actually have a real plan or would we rather yak about one? (If you think the Safe City Initiative is the answer…well, you’re more gullible than I am.)

Don’t try to tell me there’s a pro-coprorate bias within the city of Minneapolis. Sure, Target got a shitton of TIF, but what did they do when they needed to expand again? They looked at the current mayor and thought about all the trouble it took just to get their first building and decided to go somewhere else. Why? Because it’s not worth the fight. If they’re going to spend billions of dollars they’ll do it where they are welcomed with open arms and where it’s easiest. Minneapolis is neither. Suppose they, or any other large corporation, brought forward another proposal like theirs. What would happen? A hundred little interest groups would see it as a chance to flex their muscles and gain influence by going to City Hall and demanding a public plaza, a green roof, public art, and down the line. It’s just not worth it, which is why it so rarely happens. Better to just find a friendly burb.

I won’t even go into the number of threads on this site that have people yearning for non-chain businesses in downtown and everywhere else or how Target employees were referred to earliers as “Targetrons” (which is actually really funny).

well, you folks can write all you want about the financial reasons for living where you do, but we all know that really isn’t the deciding factor. It’s more about the type of housing, type of people and type of environment you want to around you.

just a few years ago it was cheaper to buy in the city, but thousands were still buying in the suburbs . . . and that’s fine and all; just wanted to call out the straw man.

spaceman,

Thanks for telling me why I really wanted to live in Maple Grove and not downtown.

Now, if you wouldn’t mind, please find me a condo in the city for $185k that doesn’t have a $500/month association fee on top of a $15,000 charge for a parking spot.

Maybe you are calling out a “strawman” (nice misuse of that logical fallacy by the way) because you have a healthy bit of cognitive dissonance about living in the city?

is it really fair, and cost effective, to pour money into a strategy such as “keep our streets safe” when most of the streets are rather safe, and the people who live on those streets are actually footing the bill?

I propose that the amout of money currently being spent on public safety, education, libraries, and poverty, is acceptable to the majority. If it were not acceptable (i.e. tolerable), the public would act.

I know I would be much more willing to help(pay more), if I felt the money was trying to help people who were helping themselves. I don’t hang out with drug dealer’s, felons, domestic abusers, etc. I meet these people, but my “badguydar” tells me, “he is a bad guy. the more time you spend with him, the more likely you will be caught up in trouble you don’t need.”

(Strategy note: Asking why we can fund a stadium after someone gets shot–not effective. Approaching the public with an actionable, measurable plan to cure society’s ills–effective.)

The majority of Minnesotans are not willing to spend more money on these issues because results have been below expectations. Why send good money after bad?

Now, the stadium:
Stadiums are a lightnining rod because they cost alot of money, all at once. Divide the subsidy over the life of the facility and it’s less than we waste on many many poorly conceived and executed programs.

For many people, all over the world, professional sports is a part of their communitty identity. If it’s not for you, that’s cool, but then say that.

It is unfortunate that publicly funded staduiums have become a national trend. However, I don’t think that will change if we, as Minnesotans, draw a line in the sand.

Excuse me while I wipe myself. I was not prepared for a rational comment from bud. What a mess I’ve made.

That’s great and all, but the townhomes in my neighborhood are going for 7-10% over what I paid 8 months ago.

Wait five years. Or do you plan on moving around the suburbs into brand new houses every 8 months? There’s no decent equity in suburban townhomes. Full houses, maybe, but the giant prefab townhome complexes are the current/future suburban ghettos (depending on how new they are).

right, Matt W, that’s why I also said type of housing. “Trust me, I’d live in the city if it was an option, but when you can afford a $185k piece of property“ . . .

yeah, you are right, I misused the term, but you get my point . . . cognitive dissonance about living in the city? Far from it.

MLH, you are correct. I don’t think that cookie cutter townhomes are a good long term investment. That said, I’m going to be in this city for 2 years max before I get moved again, so I’ll take the short term windfall. But even as a medium term investment, homes in the ‘burbs have been doing pretty well…

spaceman, does my cognitive dissonance comment sound completely nuts to you? Because it is no more incorrect and ridiculous than the sweeping generalization you made about why I chose to live in the ‘burbs. That is a damn fine nice looking house though…why the hell didn’t my realtor take me by there when I told her I ideally wanted to live in the city?

Monticello is way out… but here’s what I’ve noticed lately: The sidewalks, trails and whatnot are not intended for practical use. They’re meant for taking walks or riding your bike for the sake of being outside. If you intend to do any commerce while outside your vehicle, the sidewalks are of no use to you.

Want to walk that movie rental back? You can take the sidewalk most of the way but you’ll have to compete with vehicle traffic at an intersection and walk on the road to enter the parking lot.

That’s just an example. On the whole, it’s easier to do commerce via drive-through than on foot.

Matt W, you are right in a certain sense. I understated the importance of financial considerations. But I also don’t believe people when they say “I really want to buy in the city but can’t afford it”. Usually, what they mean is “I can’t afford what I want with x,y, and z variables”.

If I have just demonstrated by link that it is possible to buy for about 185K in the Minneapolis, but it is not a condo — isn’t it correct to say that it must be another reason you bought where you did other than you can’t buy a piece of property for 185K? Sorry, I think I’m making this tedious.

“I can’t afford what I want with x,y, and z variables”

Where x = food, y = heat and z = any entertainment that doesn’t involve things I found on the street.

For me and other people I know, it’s not a matter of not being able to afford it, it’s a matter of not being able to justify it.

In my case, I have a modest house right next to a school in Monticello. Ten years ago, it ran me less than $100k. For as much as I’d like to live in the city (too many reasons to list), I just can’t justify it.

again, 10 years ago there was A TON of housing in the city for under 100K. Punch in some random addresses on the city website and look at the propety valuations.

And to clarify, I’m not arguing for living one place or the other – to each there own . . .

On the whole commuting to work shorter distances, I recently read that about half of the residents of the city of minneapolis who work commute outside the city to work. So living in the city of minneapolis may not make one commute shorter distance.

On housing prices, well, the average or median price of a house in minneapolis is less than the metro area as a whole. I’m not sure what the comparison would be when price per square foot is involved.

For the record, I live in the city of minneapolis.

I would live under the Franklin Street bridge before I ever considered a townhome in Eagan. I would go without heat or food. In the words of Mark, the character in Rent, said when wondering aloud why he lives in a East Village loft with no heat and no money for food:

“I often ask myself why I live here. Then they call and I remember.”

It’s a mentality thing. Do you want to be surrounded by people who would sacrifice a little for art or politics or love of the city? Or would you be content surrounded by cookie-cutter town home dwellers who are content with the local multiplex selections?

I live in NE Minneapolis and drive through Roseville quite often – and I just noticed they’re starting to put in sidewalks in some spots! That’s quite a concept, why don’t you take note Eagan, Lakeville, and other indistinguishable suburbs! Nevertheless, I’ll gladly take my old house with its lead paint, outdated kitchen, and unfinished basement before moving anywhere sub-suburban