Will Minneapolis ever see 500,000 again? (Hills, Williams: apartment, houses, to buy)

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Who are these people who are so strongly opposed to tall buildings and what is their reasoning? I don't understand what the big deal is.

[04JETTA]

Possibly, but it will take some time Can it do it? sure Will it? maybe

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by west336

Actually, many immigrant groups have very large families, like Somali, Hmong and Latino. If housing were more affordable to those groups the population could rise dramatically with or without new high-density construction.

Don't count out African-Americans. They have been moving to the Twin Cities for years now.

[west336]

Originally Posted by City eYes

I am all for density, but I am so use to project housing in Chicago and don't want to see that happen here. It has to be done right.

Those are long gone. Something like Cedar Riverside though is a potential example of how you can mix high density, high rise development with affordable units and NOT have tons of crime issues.

[green_mariner]

Could Mpls reach 500,000 again? It depends. Mpls is safer than many major cities. The economy hasn't been as bad as it has in the other non-Sun Belt cities. Minnesota's unemployment rate is around 7.1%. The Twin Cities area overall has about the same unemployment rate. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Economy at a Glance
Minnesota Economy at a Glance
Unemployment rates aren't as high as they are in other cities. It is safer than many cities. On the other hand, many people still want to live in the Sun Belt cities(i.e. Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Las Vegas, Phoenix,etc.) Those cities I just mentioned have higher unemployment rates and much higher rates of violence. There are good reasons why Mpls should and could get back to 500,000. On the other hand, whenever I mention Minneapolis to someone in Atlanta, the first thing to come to mind is "COLD". That is why many people don't move to Minneapolis. People want to move to cities with warmer climates, even if the quality of life isn't as high.
Minneapolis named one of the most livable cities in the world

Mpls is a livable city and cleaner than some cities. Sadly, many people get hung up on the cold. I think one way to attract people to Mpls is to attract the winter enthusiasts.

[Kid Cann]

Originally Posted by west336

Those are long gone. Something like Cedar Riverside though is a potential example of how you can mix high density, high rise development with affordable units and NOT have tons of crime issues.

Exactly. Planning in general used to use the philosophy of distinctly separating social classes in cities. Ever heard the term 'Pockets of Poverty'? Where Communities would actually find a 'neighborhood' to channel all low-income families. the best thing for a community is a mix of income based developments. That's why the Suburbs are so stupid. Housing in Suburbs is so slim and marginal, at some points the 'range' of property values and prices are like $200,000-$240,000. Which is bad. In a community in a metro area there should be significant ranges in home prices to provide to all income groups. A strong number of homes in the $75,000 range and stays consistent all the way up to that $240,000 figure.

My best example is the Fridley Terrace Trailer Park, or the city of Hilltop. Both are perfect examples of social-based planning. Where the community basically said "You are low income, which leads to more crime, so we're stickin' ya guys all together in this tiny land area"

Tennements and other high-rises based off of income are a total disaster.

Check this out---- Pruitt-Igoe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this place was destroyed 20 years!!! after building it. That's what you get for sticking thousands of low-income, low-educated people on a 50 acre site. 20 years. 20 years ago was 1991. Think about that.

[tpk-nyc]

Originally Posted by Slig

Who are these people who are so strongly opposed to tall buildings and what is their reasoning? I don't understand what the big deal is.

There will always be a vocal group opposed to densification in any form. They're concerned about traffic/congestion/noise or that property values will go down if supply increases. It's the biggest challenge to smart growth. Developers build sprawling exurbs partly because land is cheap, but also because there's no one there to complain.

Where was Minneapolis able to add density in recent years? The Warehouse District. Why? Because it was manly vacant buildings or empty lots.

[uptown_urbanist]

The reasoning of many of the opponents in Uptown (who take on a disproportionate power because they're the ones who are most likely to be involved in the neighborhood groups, and claim to speak for the neighborhoods as a whole -- probably a reflection that it's easier to agitate people to be against rather than for something) is that it will change the character of the neighborhood, it will block the sunlight and sky, it will add density and therefore traffic and parking problems.

Obviously not every building is created equal, and certainly not every location is right for a high-rise (or even mid-rise), but many of these NIMBYs don't want to risk losing any ground by compromising even an inch. They are obsessed with height (high height, that is; I rarely hear any vocal opposition to out-of-character short buildings) at the cost of nearly everything else.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

The reasoning of many of the opponents in Uptown (who take on a disproportionate power because they're the ones who are most likely to be involved in the neighborhood groups, and claim to speak for the neighborhoods as a whole -- probably a reflection that it's easier to agitate people to be against rather than for something) is that it will change the character of the neighborhood, it will block the sunlight and sky, it will add density and therefore traffic and parking problems.

Obviously not every building is created equal, and certainly not every location is right for a high-rise (or even mid-rise), but many of these NIMBYs don't want to risk losing any ground by compromising even an inch. They are obsessed with height (high height, that is; I rarely hear any vocal opposition to out-of-character short buildings) at the cost of nearly everything else.

Do you tend to agree with these people or what's your take on the matter?

[west336]

That's what happens when you have so many home-owners in a neighborhood with high-density zoning.......they want to preserve their home values. Answer: no condos in these areas.