Minneapolis 2040 Upzoning

[llamaorama]

I'm guessing people in the hood don't give a shit about having trees in their front yard. Owner occupants would want to landscape their front yard.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by osmo

Geography is a poor excuse for SF and it's affordability problems. Both Paris and SF are the exact same size for thier city proper and Paris holds 2.5 million versus the 750k in SF, all with no skyscrapers. SF and it's problem is all due to land use polices and rabid NIMBY groups.

Sorry we didnt have Napoleon and Haussman to plan SF

Otoh this is a strange apples-to-oranges comparison. Paris is an ancient city with population estimates that go back 2 millenia.

Also, Paris doesnt have 2.5 million people, it has 2.2 million people. SF doesnt have 750,000 people, it has 884,000 people.

And Paris has 700,000 less people now than it did at it's peak while SF has never been larger.

Around the time SF was founded, Paris already had 30x more people.

1850
Paris 1,053,000
San Francisco 34,000

1920
Paris 2,906,000<--Paris' peak population
San Francisco 506,000

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I'm guessing people in the hood don't give a shit about having trees in their front yard. Owner occupants would want to landscape their front yard.

The culprit is probably Dutch Elm disease. Most likely all cities in the Midwest and Northeast were affected by the disease, which was brought over by some European beetle:
http://blogs.detroitnews.com/history...tately-elms-8/

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Sorry we didnt have Napoleon and Haussman to plan SF

Otoh this is a strange apples-to-oranges comparison. Paris is an ancient city with population estimates that go back 2 millenia.

Also, Paris doesnt have 2.5 million people, it has 2.2 million people. SF doesnt have 750,000 people, it has 884,000 people.

And Paris has 700,000 less people now than it did at it's peak while SF has never been larger.

Around the time SF was founded, Paris already had 30x more people.

1850
Paris 1,053,000
San Francisco 34,000

1920
Paris 2,906,000<--Paris' peak population
San Francisco 506,000

I was going to post population stats a couple days ago, but didn't want to waste my breath on such a stupid comparison. Ancient Paris has declined greatly. Young S.F. in Young America is at peak population and growing [despite being nearly wiped off the map in 1906].

S.F. density is just fine, it's more dense than Boston.

"Why is it that Ancient Paris isn't as dense as Manila?!?! No excuses Paris!"

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

"Why is it that Ancient Paris isn't as dense as Manila?!?! No excuses Paris!"

Manilla is a dirt-poor third-world city, so ridiculous comparison. And Parisian density is roughly comparable to Manilla.

And Paris is growing quite rapidly, not unlike SF.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by edale

By and large, I think Crawford is actually correct. Wealthy neighborhoods do tend to have much more tree coverage than poor neighborhoods. Maybe Milwaukee, which seems to have almost exclusively detached housing, is an exception?

The tree difference between rich and poor neighborhoods is particularly stark in Los Angeles.
Random block in South LA:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9798...7i16384!8i8192

Random block in Windsor Square/Hancock Park, a very wealthy part of the city:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0636...7i16384!8i8192

Even looking at satellite images of LA, you can immediately tell where the wealthier parts of the city are because they are visibly greener:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8959.../data=!3m1!1e3

Yes and no. I wouldn't compare an extremely arid city that is basically a desert to a city that receives 40-50 inches of rain that will have tons of native green trees, grassy areas, gardens that can survive and thrive on their own with very little extra attention required.

Wealthier areas in L.A. will have better landscape coverage because:
1] most plants are non-native to the region [requires money to buy, plant, maintain]
2] non-native plants need extra attention for it's survival [fertilization, irrigation system installation and maintenance].
3] maintenance of that irrigation system [requires a landscaping crew to service your lawn at least bi-monthly, if not weekly].

Drop down into a less affluent sfh 'hood and the physical curb appeal of the yards declines greatly because the homeowner has probably turned off the irrigation to the yard to save money.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Manilla is a dirt-poor third-world city, so ridiculous comparison. And Parisian density is roughly comparable to Manilla.

And Paris is growing quite rapidly, not unlike SF.

Manila to Paris is just as ridiculous as a Paris to S.F.

Paris is about 700,000 below peak population. S.F. is at peak [and growing] population.

E] Manila population per square mile is 107,000
Paris = 55,000

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

1850
Paris 1,053,000
San Francisco 34,000

Go back to 1848 and SF's population was just 1,000.

Paris: 1 million. SF: 1,000

Great comparison SSP!

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Go back to 1848 and SF's population was just 1,000.

Paris: 1 million. SF: 1,000

Great comparison SSP!

What does population in 1848 have to do anything?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What does population in 1848 have to do anything?

If anything, Paris being older should have been a disadvantage to population growth, given it had an infrastructure already in place for a relatively low-density walking city - while San Francisco was still mostly virgin land. It's a lot cheaper to do greenfield new urban development than to do urban renewal and tear the shit out of what's already there after all.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What does population in 1848 have to do anything?

Yeah. You’re right. History has nothing to do with the built form of today’s cities. Yup.

[Sun Belt]

I just cannot comprehend why New Orleans isn’t as dense as Cairo.

Cities on continental river deltas.

My word! Come on New Orleans! Forget about history.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Around the time SF was founded, Paris already had 30x more people.

1850
Paris 1,053,000
San Francisco 34,000

1920
Paris 2,906,000<--Paris' peak population
San Francisco 506,000

I'm pretty sure there were real bad issues with what we call "promiscuité" back then.
Not sure how to translate that French term in English.
Roughly speaking, it just means you can hear your neighbors, no matter what they do, which is extremely annoying and causes very bad/poor quality of life. You're pretty much completely deprived of privacy in such a poor condition, which is unbearable by today's lifestyle (unless you're some kind of sick pervert/voyeur/creepy weirdo).
I remember reading an article to explain the serious stress it may cause, sometimes tensions and conflicts between neighbors.
Even today, the issue persists, as too many apartment buildings don't implement any decent soundproofing yet.

In a nutshell, density is surely fine in most respects for those seeking a legit urban environment and all convenient next-door amenities, so long as regulations enforce quality soundproofing and thermal insulation. That is simply essential today.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I'm pretty sure there were real bad issues with what we call "promiscuité" back then.
Not sure how to translate that French term in English.
Roughly speaking, it just means you can hear your neighbors, no matter what they do, which is extremely annoying and causes very bad/poor quality of life.

I don't know about anyone else, but I had quite a good laugh at this one.

[Chef]

St Paul is also working on its 2040 plan (they are mandated by the Metropolitan Council). It also represents a significant upzoning of neighborhood nodes in the city but doesn't go as far as Minneapolis' plan. Yesterday in public meetings it was criticized by city residents for being to tepid. The Twin Cities appear to be having a YIMBY moment, centered around fears of rising housing costs and a desire to reduce the metro area's carbon footprint.

St. Paul residents call for more aggressive 2040 Comp Plan
Speakers at Friday's public hearing said they want more housing density and transit.

By Emma Nelson Star Tribune JANUARY 11, 2019 — 10:14PM

St. Paul residents who ventured out early Friday to comment on the city’s vision for its future said they’d like to see more ambitious policies around housing density, transportation and racial and socioeconomic disparities.

The capital city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan got its first public hearing before the Planning Commission on Friday morning after years of work by city staff. The dozen speakers were largely in agreement about wanting a plan more akin to the aggressive affordable housing and upzoning policies that the Minneapolis City Council approved in its comprehensive plan last month.

----

Though most of the people who spoke Friday said they support the draft plan, many said they want it to focus more on issues like climate change, affordable housing and parks.

“We applaud the forward-looking and really progressive nature of this plan — it’s better than any one I’ve seen,” said Michael Russelle, St. Anthony Park Community Council co-chairman, before adding that he would like the plan to focus more on reducing and mitigating the effects of climate change.

“In 20 years, this will be a different place,” he said.

---

Hamline-Midway resident Zack Mensinger, like others who spoke, said the plan should include more neighborhood nodes at major intersections and along transit routes and also should eliminate city parking minimums.

“We have a glut of parking,” he said. “Parking is an extremely inefficient use of land in a city.”

http://www.startribune.com/st-paul-r...lan/504220132/

[C.]

Originally Posted by Chef

St Paul is also working on its 2040 plan (they are mandated by the Metropolitan Council). It also represents a significant upzoning of neighborhood nodes in the city but doesn't go as far as Minneapolis' plan. Yesterday in public meetings it was criticized by city residents for being to tepid. The Twin Cities appear to be having a YIMBY moment, centered around fears of rising housing costs and a desire to reduce the metro area's carbon footprint.

This is awesome!! The twin cities were never on my radar, but with the recent news out of both, they've proven to be bold visionaries! I'm looking forward to reading more about the area and see how these experiences play out.

Number one question of my mind: will upzoning single-family neighborhoods to allow for 3 and 4-unit homes lead to more affordable rental housing prices and stronger communities. Far too long single-family zoning has been seen as sacrosanct. Second question is will those against the zoning changes learn to love it?