Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't, within my budget, at the moment. However allowing new construction along the expansion for the blue/green lines would allow me to buy in with a smaller townhouse or condo outside of the city center, but within 1/2 mile of a station to still get downtown, to the mall, or the airport quickly without a car.
I don't care about changing the "face of neighborhoods" suburbia is dreadful, depressing, lonely, and alienating. Living in a mixed income/mixed race area with people from all backgrounds is so much more interesting and enjoyable than anything suburbia has to offer.
Having grown up in midwestern suburbs (Carmel Indiana) and lived as an adult in both DC and Philly, I would NEVER go back to there. It's just awful.
Anyway, increasing the density around the whole city also allows for other transit projects to be justified as the number of people per sqr mile increases. It doesn't make sense to build light rail to a bunch of areas at the moment, but as new development pops up, BRT (which can be onlined quickly), light rail, or even heavy rail will make sense.
No one was ever stopping that. They want to go into good, family neighorhoods and convert single family homes into triplexes they can rent out to mulitple families on sec 8 assistance.
Explain to me how that is good for those neighorhoods.
No one was ever stopping that. They want to go into good, family neighorhoods and convert single family homes into triplexes they can rent out to mulitple families on sec 8 assistance.
Explain to me how that is good for those neighorhoods.
First of all, a lot of assumptions going on here. Lets lay them out:
1: Individuals renting under section 8 should not have access to "good, family neighborhoods"
2: That all, or a majority of people renting triplexes are section 8
3: Section 8 Rentors are "bad people"
4: That "good, family neighborhoods" can't have triplexes
5: There's an assumption about the character of "good, family neighborhoods" which isn't stated
Lets tackle these one by one.
1:
Everyone, section 8 included, should have access to good quality and affordable housing. People should not be forced into dilapidated housing blocks or poorly maintained and unsafe housing because they are poor. Whether that's publicly built housing, vouchers (section 8) or tax credits. I would like to see significant federal, state, and municipal funded, publicly built and owned housing which is rented out at affordable rates to ensure everyone has access to a place to call home. But many areas, such as Washington DC, require all new developments to set aside a certain percentage of the new units they build as affordable housing (most often voucher based, so similar to section 8). This integrates the less wealthy into the community more broadly rather than concentrating the poor all in one small part of town, and ensures that they gain access to the amenities such as good quality schools for their children that are often under funded by property taxes in poorer neighborhoods.
2:
While section 8 renters have increased somewhat, the vast majority of new housing made recently has been "Luxury" which specifically appeals to higher income individuals. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...luxury-housing
3:
Section 8, and other housing voucher programs, usually have strict character requirements, barring those with convictions or those that test positive for drugs from obtaining them (though, again, even those with criminal histories and drug abuse problems should have access to affordable housing)
4:
Mixed use 3-4 story buildings are actually quite appealing to people today, as they allow a neighborhood to increase its walkability and increase density enough to enable mass transit to become feasible, improving access to jobs for those in the area.
5:
I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to when you say "good, family nighborhoods" in truth. Could you please lay it out rather than using that euphemism?
As someone currently living in Philly, this is a pretty exciting change to me. I'm looking a possibly buying a home, and the abilty to buy a condo or townhome close to downtown or along one of the blue or green line expansions really appeals to me. The combination of your substantial transit improvements in progress and these zoning changes I think will really appeal to a lot of other millennial out there as well.
I'm seriously considering Minneapolis as the place I finally settle down thanks to the changes planned over the next ~20 years.
It's really bizarre, this notion some folks are having in this form are having about how this is somehow going to "ruin neighborhoods" or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro2985
I can't, within my budget, at the moment. However allowing new construction along the expansion for the blue/green lines would allow me to buy in with a smalnler townhouse or condo outside of the city center, but within 1/2 mile of a station to still get downtown, to the mall, or the airport quickly without a car.
I don't care about changing the "face of neighborhoods" suburbia is dreadful, depressing, lonely, and alienating. Living in a mixed income/mixed race area with people from all backgrounds is so much more interesting and enjoyable than anything suburbia has to offer.
Having grown up in midwestern suburbs (Carmel Indiana) and lived as an adult in both DC and Philly, I would NEVER go back to there. It's just awful.
Anyway, increasing the density around the whole city also allows for other transit projects to be justified as the number of people per sqr mile increases. It doesn't make sense to build light rail to a bunch of areas at the moment, but as new development pops up, BRT (which can be onlined quickly), light rail, or even heavy rail will make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro2985
First of all, a lot of assumptions going on here. Lets lay them out:
1: Individuals renting under section 8 should not have access to "good, family neighborhoods"
2: That all, or a majority of people renting triplexes are section 8
3: Section 8 Rentors are "bad people"
4: That "good, family neighborhoods" can't have triplexes
5: There's an assumption about the character of "good, family neighborhoods" which isn't stated
Lets tackle these one by one.
1:
Everyone, section 8 included, should have access to good quality and affordable housing. People should not be forced into dilapidated housing blocks or poorly maintained and unsafe housing because they are poor. Whether that's publicly built housing, vouchers (section 8) or tax credits. I would like to see significant federal, state, and municipal funded, publicly built and owned housing which is rented out at affordable rates to ensure everyone has access to a place to call home. But many areas, such as Washington DC, require all new developments to set aside a certain percentage of the new units they build as affordable housing (most often voucher based, so similar to section 8). This integrates the less wealthy into the community more broadly rather than concentrating the poor all in one small part of town, and ensures that they gain access to the amenities such as good quality schools for their children that are often under funded by property taxes in poorer neighborhoods.
2:
While section 8 renters have increased somewhat, the vast majority of new housing made recently has been "Luxury" which specifically appeals to higher income individuals. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...luxury-housing
3:
Section 8, and other housing voucher programs, usually have strict character requirements, barring those with convictions or those that test positive for drugs from obtaining them (though, again, even those with criminal histories and drug abuse problems should have access to affordable housing)
4:
Mixed use 3-4 story buildings are actually quite appealing to people today, as they allow a neighborhood to increase its walkability and increase density enough to enable mass transit to become feasible, improving access to jobs for those in the area.
5:
I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to when you say "good, family nighborhoods" in truth. Could you please lay it out rather than using that euphemism?
You definitely sound like a City Planner trying to sell people on this ideology. Why are you here in this subforum, trying so hard change someone’s point of view....you don’t even currently live here.
You definitely sound like a City Planner trying to sell people on this ideology. Why are you here in this subforum, trying so hard change someone’s point of view....you don’t even currently live here.
Just curious: Who are you to tell this poster they can't have an opinion because they're not a resident of this state? You don't have to be a resident of MN to contribute ideas on this forum. That's rather exclusive, in my opinion.
You definitely sound like a City Planner trying to sell people on this ideology. Why are you here in this subforum, trying so hard change someone’s point of view....you don’t even currently live here.
I'm defending the changes to your zoning laws which are contributing to me considering to move and buy a home in your city. How is that not relevant?
You definitely sound like a City Planner trying to sell people on this ideology. Why are you here in this subforum, trying so hard change someone’s point of view....you don’t even currently live here.
You sound like someone opposed to meaningful, substantive discussion. Why are YOU here?
Just curious: Who are you to tell this poster they can't have an opinion because they're not a resident of this state? You don't have to be a resident of MN to contribute ideas on this forum. That's rather exclusive, in my opinion.
Just curious: please quote me were I STATED he couldn’t have an opinion. You only interpreted my question as such. I am asking because his original post stated he wanted to buy a condo/townhome near the light rail. Multiple posters stated that with the current zoning regs that is a possibility for him right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro2985
I'm defending the changes to your zoning laws which are contributing to me considering to move and buy a home in your city. How is that not relevant?
Multiple posters have stated that your option to buy a condo along the light rail is a possibility right now. So it does lead me to believe you do not have an understanding of what is available to you at this point.
These changes in the zoning regs makes me think of the movie Field of Dreams. “If you build it, they will come”. I wonder if they will. I think it’s going to be a tough sell to change those who have a family centric neighborhood mindset.
Multiple posters have stated that your option to buy a condo along the light rail is a possibility right now. So it does lead me to believe you do not have an understanding of what is available to you at this point.
Multiple people who have 'corrected' him have been wrong on points of fact, as my direct quotation from the MPLS 2040 plan has unarguably shown. He has not stated that there is no condo development along transit lines - it is a dishonest strawman to imply that he did. He is more interested in moving here because changes to the city's zoning policy will INCREASE opportunities for development of multi-unit facilities near transit corridors. His opinion/hope is that will increase opportunities for individuals to buy condos at a price point lower than is currently available.
His opinion is based on facts, and his facts are correct...unlike those of some of the people arguing against him. You and everyone else are 100% entitled to their opinions, nobody is entitled to their own facts.
The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to improve access to goods and services via walking, biking and transit.
- Allow commercial uses where they currently exist throughout the city.
- Designate additional areas for commercial uses in parts of the city where demand for retail goods and services exceeds the supply, and that are well-served by public transportation.
- Allow property owners to request expansion of commercial areas where such expansion would improve access to goods and services via walking, biking, and transit.
- Require commercial retail to be incorporated into new buildings in select areas of the city with the highest residential densities, highest pedestrian traffic, and most frequent transit service.
- Allow for increased housing supply within and adjacent to Commercial areas.
- Allow a full range of uses in Commercial areas intended to provide goods and services to surrounding communities.
- Utilize regulatory tools to minimize the impacts that commercial uses have on nearby residential uses.
- Develop new analytical frameworks and tools to accurately track and study the dynamics of urban retail in order to guide the development, revision, and deployment of City programs, tools, and regulations.
- Allow production and processing uses in Commercial Mixed Use areas while controlling for potential negative externalities through building and site design.
So not only a big win for developers, but for the corporations as well. Yeah corporations! Yeah developers! Booo families!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
