Will Minneapolis ever see 500,000 again? (St. Paul, Eagan: sales, rental, townhomes)

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by ManBearPig1

Drivers downtown actually respect pedestrians because they expect them to be there -- at least more so than drivers in the suburbs. Just like I feel safer walking in Manhattan than in Minneapolis because there's a greater respect given to the pedestrian by drivers, despite there be more drivers on the road.

A crossing signal by itself doesn't count as a pedestrian amenity. Cars should have to wait for pedestrians, not the other way around. But where signals are needed, there's still ways to make it more pedestrian friendly. The intersections of Hennepin with Lake and Lagoon both have leading pedestrian interval signals where the crosswalks get their walk signal about 5 seconds before the respective traffic flow gets its green light. That means the pedestrians are in the crosswalk before the cars start moving, forcing drivers to take notice of the pedestrians and actually respect their right of way. Don't hold your breath for something like that being installed in the burbs.

Walking/biking paths are neither. Bicycles belong in separated and protected bicycle lanes which should be ubiquitous anywhere worth talking about. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

Waiting at a signal while cars whiz by you at 55+ mph to then hurriedly cross 6 lanes of traffic hoping that you'll get to the other side before the brief window when pedestrians are even acknowledged expires and 1000+ lb projectiles begin whizzing by again, just to get to the other side where you'll then have to cross a sea of parking lots to actually get to your destination, is not an enjoyable experience. Crossing narrower roads, with slower moving traffic, to get to stores with a visible, welcoming presence right on the street, is a much more enjoyable experience.

City dwellers understand that one's experience as a pedestrian involves much more than being physically able to put one foot in front of the other to get from point a to point b. (I'm talking about actual urban areas when I say the city. Just because there are areas within municipal city limits that are just as bad doesn't somehow make the suburbs any better. I lump those areas of the city in with the suburbs.)

Good post. I live near Highland Village in St Paul. There is one intersection (by the theater) where the city has bumped out the sidewalks by the crosswalk so it's truly one lane each way for traffic. Most drivers will stop for you to cross if you stand at the edge of the walk, but others blow thru it, making no eye contact. One time when I was going to cross, and elderly driver leaned on his horn and didn't even slow down. I figure these drivers are suburbanites . But seriously, I'd love to see the cops out there enforcing this crosswalk. It really shouldn't just be a city thing.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by MPLS_TC

There are areas in every suburb that are very walkable That is ridicules to even suggest...

No, its not. Again, get out more. Walkable neighborhoods are not limited to Minneapolis-even using the "city" definition of walkable.

[ManBearPig1]

Originally Posted by golfgal

No, its not. Again, get out more. Walkable neighborhoods are not limited to Minneapolis-even using the "city" definition of walkable.

But that's not what you said. Sure, parts of some suburbs can be somewhat walkable. But you said "EVERY suburb" has parts that are "VERY walkable" (my emphasis). And you have not qualified your statement at all, even after being challenged on it. Perhaps urbanites are guilty of discounting some walkable enclaves in certain suburbs. But you also need to recognize that there are some suburbs where walkability simply isn't even on the radar.

[uptown_urbanist]

Not only did she claim EVERY suburb had "walkable" areas, but also that EVERY suburb had those very walkable areas where it would be very easy to live without a car. Frankly, as someone who lived in Minneapolis without a car (and preferred walking over all other forms of transportation whenever possible) it's tough enough even in the most walkable neighborhoods (personal experience with Marcy-Holmes and Uptown, where it's definitely doable); I think it would be possible without being too bad in some other suburban areas (like parts of SLP), but to say that every single suburb in the metro area has very walkable areas where it would be easy to live without a car? Clearly the statement by someone who neither walks for transportation nor has ever tried to live without a car in the Twin Cities.

No one is suggesting that there aren't walkable neighborhoods in the suburbs; clearly there are. But they do not exist in every single suburb, at least not assuming you mean "walkable" meaning more than just the ability to physically walk on your street.

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

That's a pretty myopic view. It is an extreme definition of "walkable". And it shows why you don't walk as much as you want. You're waiting for the "walk fairy" to show up. I moved into Minneapolis in 1966 and began walking immediately. To downtown, to the U of M. But you seem to have some sort of problem because the city with so many walking people isn't "walkable". Enjoy your paralysis.

Your argument makes no sense....in fact, you're supporting mine! What are you talking about!?

How much DO I want to walk? Why am I not walking as much as I want? What is a "walk fairy"? You walked from downtown to the U -- WOW! I would never do that because downtown to the U is NOT (repeat, NOT) an example of dense infrastructure....and by "NOT" I mean 100% IS (repeat, IS).

You really got me there!

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by golfgal

There is a 10 foot grass boulevard between the 10 foot wide walking/biking path along Cedar--how is that not a buffer? Also, why walk along Cedar anyway, there are back roads that are much more convenient to get to all of the stores, etc. Then there are these weird things call crossing signals where cars stop and a light goes on and you cross the road safely. Why is that such an issue for the city dwellers to understand? It's really a pretty easy concept . Also, there is a walking/biking path along both sides of Cedar, and 42 and the backroads around there.

I also fail to see how an area like Cedar/42 is any worse than say University Ave in St. Paul/Minneapolis, ANY road in downtown Minneapolis, the Uptown area is very congested with car traffic coming off the highway and has a lot of goofy intersections, etc., etc., etc.

It's not meant to be walked, which is why nobody (almost) does, despite the fact that it's THE busiest intersection in the Twin Cities! What does that say about its "walkability"?

I don't think parts of University are very walkable either.....OR the Southdale area in Edina (where I lived...and TRIED to walk around), which has a pretty high walkscore in parts.

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by golfgal

To each his own and no, I don't stroll along Cedar Ave but there is nothing wrong with the side streets and why would I waste my time in Minneapolis when I get get everything I need here . I've spent plenty of time in Uptown, hate the area, the U of MN is a busy, congested area and you are fooling yourself if drivers "respect" pedestrians anywhere in Minneapolis, not even close in my experience having nearly gotten hit by drivers several times in downtown Minneapolis trying to make a light when there are clearly people in the crosswalk...

Not everyone "needs" Taget, Apple Bees and Raising Caine's. Some people like to support the Ma and Pa's of the world, not to mention Madre and Padre's of the world.

You probably think Minneapolis is the scariest place in the world, don't you? Does SW Minneapolis scare you too? Why do you hate the city SO MUCH?? I don't hate the suburbs at all.....just prefer the city (and not always).

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

While some people will wait for "walkability" a lot of us will be busy walking, failing to realize that we don't live in a walkable city. Which means some people will never walk because the city will never change enough for them.

The city IS walkable in most parts. Manhattan, San Francisco and Chicago aren't the only places that are walkable.....nobody ACTUALLY thinks that.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

...
So there you have it: Ramsey = NOT WALKABLE.

Agreed. I patronize those retailers often. Even with a car, Ramsey does not pass the "walkable" test. I'd go stir crazy only patronizing that area. Now maybe if you lived in Coon Rapids (off of 10 and Round Lake) you could start to approach a walkable area. But that is about as close as it gets to "walkable" in Anoka County. If a person desires "walkability", then MPLS crushes the burbs. There are trade-offs to every area in the state.... Even Rosemount, MN.

[northsub]

A few thoughts on the general discussion.

It seems to me that there's a huge difference between being able to walk to many/some/most things and being able to live without a car. Frankly, living without a car seems non-ideal in pretty much all of the suburban areas. But, it also seems like it would be pretty annoying in pretty much any part of the urban areas as well. If people want actual data, it looks like the following % of households do not have cars:
Hilltop: 25%
Minneapolis: 19%
Anoka: 9%
Spring Lake Park: 8%
Fridley: 5%
Coon Rapids: 5%

There's also obviously differences in what kinds of places people want nearby. It seems to me one could get pretty much everything in most suburbs by living near a Target/Walmart and/or full-sized grocery store. These areas tend to collect other businesses as well (dentists, doctors, salons, restaurants, coffee shops, gyms, banks, etc.). You might have a wider shopping choice if you are near one of the malls. For instance, in Blaine I would guess that you could get by near Northtown or near the Super Target/National Sports Center or near Lexington/35W (though I'm not sure where one would live there). However, of those only Northtown will have any real transit options.

Better examples of suburbs that one needs a car to get by: Dellwood, Ham Lake.

Ramsey has some stuff, and I would think you could get by near the Coborn's. One of the things that bothers me about these discussions is that there seems to be no credit given to places that are trying to build more walker-friendly areas (like the COR in Ramsey). I worry that things will shift away from the improvements in walking once developers/cities figure out that such things really don't seem to be drawing people (and such developments in suburbs are sometimes mocked by the people advocating for such things).

Frankly, I also don't understand where people who live in an area like Uptown shop for day-to-day items. If you wanted toilet paper or Kleenex or cleaning supplies, where would you go? Do people just pay the convenience markups (and have limited selection) for toilet paper at some corner market or Walgreens everytime they get toilet paper? Or do you just buy all of this stuff at Rainbow/Kowalski's/Lunds? In which case, wouldn't there be similar walkability to everyday things anywhere that has a grocery store? I also would have similar questions about things that aren't as common, but together one might be looking for fairly frequently: electronics, toaster, coffee pot, a scale, kitchen utensils (I guess I'm trying to figure out where people shop for the things that would be in a Target).