Minneapolis 2040 Upzoning - Page 4

Steely Dan · #61 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Chicago has a "green canopy" in certain affluent northside blocks. The black and Mexican areas that comprise most of the city don't have this. Yes, the Upper Midwest generally tends to have more street trees, because of larger lawns and setbacks, and generally more spaciousness, but socioeconomics play a major role.

it's not just a few affluent northside neighborhoods.

to continue from my previous post, here are some examples from chicago's latino neighborhoods:

albany park: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9638...7i16384!8i8192

cragin: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9341...7i16384!8i8192

humboldt park: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9064...7i13312!8i6656

pilsen: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8549...7i13312!8i6656

little village: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8397...7i16384!8i8192

chicago simply has more "space on the ground" compared to most older east coast cities, so there's just generally more space for green shit to grow.

now, the quality of the greenery certainly tends to be higher in more affluent neighborhoods (duh, wealthy people have the money to maintain that shit), but urban greenery is not the exclusive domain of the rich in chicago.

Steely Dan · #62 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton

The weirdly low level of density - even in pre-streetcar neighborhoods - in the Upper Midwest (with Chicago as somewhat of an exception) has always kinda confused me. It seems like it was always proto-suburban, with relatively spacious front yards, side setbacks, and detached structures.

it might be weird to you, but it is what it is at this point (and it's totally not weird if it's what you're used to).

it's not like they're going to wholesale bulldoze entire neighborhoods and replat them with narrower streets, smaller lots, zero setbacks, etc.

this plan that minneapolis has just adopted is the most legitimate shot the city has to take those 6,000 - 12,000 ppsm SFH streetcar areas and raise them above 20,000 ppsm.

and where it has been accomplished, the results can be quite nice. here's a minneapolis neighborhood over the 20,000 ppsm threshold, but with an abundance of urban greenery.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9595...7i13312!8i6656

the urban politician · #63 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 3:50 PM**

I continue to maintain that the best measure of whether an street has enough greenery is to ask oneself, "Would Gandalf walk through here?"

If the answer is yes, you've got a winner!

creamcityleo79 · #64 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Beacon Hill, while tiny, is about as good as it gets, not only in the Americas, but globally. It's almost perfect.

Much of this discussion (tree vs. not-tree) is conflated with wealth. Wealthy areas have trees and poor areas don't. The Baltimore examples are ghettos. The Midwest doesn't have heavy tree coverage in ghettos either.

Sometimes I wonder if people on the coasts just have these ideas about the Midwest and then just speak them as truth. Like this comment here...so freaking ignorant! Like, you literally have no idea what you're talking about!

Crawford · #65 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

Sometimes I wonder if people on the coasts just have these ideas about the Midwest and then just speak them as truth. Like this comment here...so freaking ignorant! Like, you literally have no idea what you're talking about!:shrug

You're projecting and/or ignorant re. urban America. And I'm a Midwesterner, BTW (not that it matters).

Posting random streetview pics of crappy neighborhood with trees or rich neighborhoods lacking trees does nothing for your argument. Re-read the previous posts, none of which indicated that a crappy neighborhood can never have trees or a rich neighborhood must have trees.

the urban politician · #66 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 4:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Posting random streetview pics of crappy neighborhood with trees or rich neighborhoods lacking trees does nothing for your argument. Re-read the previous posts, none of which indicated that a crappy neighborhood can never have trees or a rich neighborhood must have trees.

Huh? Lets see here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wealthy areas have trees and poor areas don't.

Hmmm.....

So showing pictures that completely disprove your statement doesn't disprove anything, because you are............infallible?

iheartthed · #67 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 5:25 PM**

This area would fit anyone's definition of a ghetto: https://goo.gl/maps/UxAsYBxPhNw

Segun · #68 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's also worth noting if you look at the old European cities that most everyone on this forum loves, there is nary a tree to be seen outside of the parks and some grand boulevards. In some cities there are significant numbers of trees hidden within courtyards, but not on public display.

I think this is a flaw of European cities, so to speak. At the very least, having trees, planters, bushes on your block displays the chaotic messiness of nature, to offset the man-made environment. There's a psychology behind it, but I don't have the time to research it. In this particular category, cities in the Midwest have a lot more in common with older Eastern Asian cities. Zen stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Huh? Lets see here:
So showing pictures that completely disprove your statement doesn't disprove anything, because you are............infallible?

It's a common theme with him, you disprove his statement, and he responds, "you didn't prove anything!!!!" You gotta have a sense of humor about it by now.

edale · #69 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

Sometimes I wonder if people on the coasts just have these ideas about the Midwest and then just speak them as truth. Like this comment here...so freaking ignorant! Like, you literally have no idea what you're talking about!

None of these neighborhoods look particularly urban to me. Of course suburban areas are going to have an abundance of trees...

Segun · #70 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This area would fit anyone's definition of a ghetto: https://goo.gl/maps/UxAsYBxPhNw

I changed my opinion about streetcar urbanity after visiting cities such as Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, Portland, and Seattle.

You can live in an exciting neighborhood strip, and come in to a single family home with a yard. If modern suburbs hadn't been invented, we'd have many cities like those 5. I see Detroit heading that way soon too.

Segun · #71 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

None of these neighborhoods look particularly urban to me. Of course suburban areas are going to have an abundance of trees...

Here's the main shopping street for one of those Minneapolis pictures.

https://goo.gl/maps/gSt59EpCzKq

You won't find this in the suburbs.

iheartthed · #72 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segun

You can live in an exciting neighborhood strip, and come in to a single family home with a yard. If modern suburbs hadn't been invented, we'd have many cities like those 5. I see Detroit heading that way soon too.

The area of Detroit that I linked to was built to support about 30k ppsm (those are not SFHs), and it probably was at least 20k ppsm up until the early 1990s. Most of the structures in that area are multi-tenant housing.

dubu · #73 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 7:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segun

I changed my opinion about streetcar urbanity after visiting cities such as Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, Portland, and Seattle.

You can live in an exciting neighborhood strip, and come in to a single family home with a yard. If modern suburbs hadn't been invented, we'd have many cities like those 5. I see Detroit heading that way soon too.

those downtowns have many streetcars/ light rail trains but when you get far from downtown then you have problems getting around. people in the suburbs should be able to take the train also.

eschaton · #74 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segun

I changed my opinion about streetcar urbanity after visiting cities such as Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, Portland, and Seattle.

You can live in an exciting neighborhood strip, and come in to a single family home with a yard. If modern suburbs hadn't been invented, we'd have many cities like those 5. I see Detroit heading that way soon too.

Pure streetcar suburbia doesn't work in the modern era if you want a walkable neighborhood. With the decline in family size and change in shopping patterns there aren't enough customers within a reasonable walking radius. They either languish even in middle class areas (with vacancies and non-ideal uses like realtors and hair salons taking up the storefronts) or if trendy they are supplemented by people driving there (making them effectively nicer-looking strip malls.

Now, more mixed-use neigborhoods on a streetcar suburb base - with mini-apartment buildings, two-flats, alley houses, small stands of townhouses, etc mixed in can approach the ideal density for enough pedestrian traffic. Which is why the Minneapolis rezone is so nice.

creamcityleo79 · #75 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 8:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

You're projecting and/or ignorant re. urban America. And I'm a Midwesterner, BTW (not that it matters).

Posting random streetview pics of crappy neighborhood with trees or rich neighborhoods lacking trees does nothing for your argument. Re-read the previous posts, none of which indicated that a crappy neighborhood can never have trees or a rich neighborhood must have trees.

Thank you for informing me that I am ignorant about cities/neighborhoods that I have actually lived in and frequented. That makes so much sense.

My point was that you said that wealthy areas had trees and poorer areas did not. I have lived in both Milwaukee and Minneapolis/St Paul and the main area I can think of with a lack of tree cover is the area of North Minneapolis with no trees because of a tornado that went through there in 2011. Most of the rest of the cities have plenty of trees. If anything, you're projecting your experience with East Coast neighborhoods onto the whole of the Midwest, which clearly you have little experience with.

creamcityleo79 · #76 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

None of these neighborhoods look particularly urban to me. Of course suburban areas are going to have an abundance of trees...

The statistics I'm giving are based on the 2010 Census; so, they may be slightly different now.

Sherman Park, Milwaukee: 11,000-16,000 ppsm
Harambee, Milwaukee: ~13,000 ppsm
Frogtown, St Paul: ~9,500 ppsm
Daytons Bluff, St Paul: ~10,500 ppsm
Jordan, Minneapolis: 8100 ppsm
Phillips, Minneapolis: 10-13,000 ppsm
Payne-Phalen, St Paul: 7-10,000 ppsm
Parkway-Greenbrier, St Paul: 8-9,000 ppsm

I would say anything over 7,000 ppsm is pretty urban by most Americans standards...anything over 10,000 ppsm, I would say, is almost universally accepted as urban. I also think this proves why Minneapolis 2040 can be so successful.

edale · #77 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 9:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

Thank you for informing me that I am ignorant about cities/neighborhoods that I have actually lived in and frequented. That makes so much sense.

My point was that you said that wealthy areas had trees and poorer areas did not. I have lived in both Milwaukee and Minneapolis/St Paul and the main area I can think of with a lack of tree cover is the area of North Minneapolis with no trees because of a tornado that went through there in 2011. Most of the rest of the cities have plenty of trees. If anything, you're projecting your experience with East Coast neighborhoods onto the whole of the Midwest, which clearly you have little experience with.

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

To look at a city in the Midwest that I'm more familiar with, here is Cincinnati. Overall, Cincy has a ton of trees, but there are differences between rich and poor neighborhoods. Many of the poor neighborhoods are adjacent to industry, so perhaps it makes sense that they would have fewer trees.

Poor neighborhood (Camp Washington): https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1340...7i13312!8i6656

Weathy, but still very urban, neighorhood (Mt. Adams). The trees look small because the mature ones were removed and replaced during a streetscaping project. But the point stands, I think.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1077...7i13312!8i6656

dimondpark · #78 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 10:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitallagasse

That and all the cities that say they can't possibly add more people in many cases that isn't true. For example San Francisco says it can't really add any more people...

Oh really when did SF say that?

SF is the largest it's ever been(884,000) and has grown by 30% since 1980, and I reckon the city will hit 1 million in the coming decade.

Buckeye Native 001 · #79 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

Weathy, but still very urban, neighorhood (Mt. Adams). The trees look small because the mature ones were removed and replaced during a streetscaping project. But the point stands, I think.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1077...7i13312!8i6656

How long ago were those trees planted/replaced? My dad's office used to be on that block in the early/mid-1990s and I don't ever recall there being a lot of trees along St. Gregory Street...

edale · #80 Posted **Dec 11, 2018, 11:13 PM**

Not entirely sure. You can look back to 2007 on streetview and see the tree canopy on St. Gregory and Pavillion were both much larger than what exists today.